Pride & Prejudice
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.00 You Save: $7.98 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.60 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Pride & Prejudice
Movie Review: It Shines...Near Perfection
Summary: 5 Stars
For those of us who are rabid Jane Austen fans, like myself, who went in to watch this looking forward to it but not expecting much after watching the superb and nearly-flawless BBC miniseries with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth countless times, this movie was a joyous and exhilerating shock. I admit that after watching the preview and reading everything there was to read about it before it came out, I wasn't expecting much.I was still crazy-wild to see it-it looked very romantic and come on, its Pride and Prejudice-but Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy looked plain and boring, and some of the changes to the handling of the atmostphere and everything sounded very dubious. Having said that, I went in and came out stunned. The new movie is gorgeous, tender, passionate, lovely, fun. But mostly it brought back to me a feeling of what love is really like-that understanding that we've lost so completely after hordes of mediocre and wishy-washy romantic comedies and soap operas. The only thing that has come close to re-creating that feeling is Titanic,and I thought that Pride and Prejudice did a better job. And Matthew MacFadyen was superb as Darcy. He is Darcy-he captures a different version, a different part of him than Colin Firth, but he is as utterly him as Firth was. The man was perfect-by the end of the movie you are utterly in love with him. He starts out, like the movie,a little bit of a nonentity-you're not sure whether you like him or not. Then both he and the movie pick up speed and from there it just gets better and better until the ending, which is as nearly perfect as a movie ending can be. Don't mistake me-the old Pride and Prejudice will always in the end be the quintessential one, and Colin Firth's Darcy remains at the peak-but this movie is very nearly as good and MacFadyen's Darcy is really just as good, in a very different way(I never thought I would say that). MacFadyen played him with shyness, intensity, subtlety, warmth, idiocy, humour, and charm by turns,and by doing so turns out a very human and completely-perfect man. And his chemistry with Keira Knightley is exquisite-a miracle. In the end that is what makes up the movie-they light up the screen together. I haven't seen anything like it since-well-Titanic, and this movie shows it up in that area as well. Like the producers said after it was released,when they got the two actors together on the set something happened and they became their characters-two characters madly in love with each other.(Keira Knightley is just as good as MacFadyen-another mild surprise-she plays her with a delicacy and warmth completely lacking in most of her other performances.The moment when she steps down from the carriage and looks up at Pemberley and releases a quick bubble of laughter made up of equal part irony, delicious laughter,regret, and a sense of the ridiculous, is a cinematic moment that won't come again, and only she could have produced it).After watching it,
I came out of the theater poised between sheer joy and hysterical laughter, and feeling an intense desire to be in love with someone-that is what the movie did to me.It is flawed-Jane and Bingley are pretty much ruined and several very important plot points are brushed over or ignored-the producers seemed to feel about two-thirds of the way throught the movie that they'd better speed it up,and so they rush through several major events at breakneck speed-but other things make you forgive them for it.Lady Catherine and Mr. Collins, while very different versions than in the BBC one, are good once you get used to them, and this is pretty much the case for all the minor characters with the exception perhaps of Bingley and his sister. Watch it, not really expecting it to be as good as the old one and definitely not hoping for the book, because it's not that-but it stands on its own as shining movie masterpiece of romanctic dramas.
Movie Review: First Impressions
Summary: 5 Stars
My first impression of Joe Wright's version was that it was barely tolerable...but decided it was probably worth a second viewing.
Like Lizzie (aka Kiera K) how could I have been so blind? The film is a masterpiece, blinded by my own prejudice of previous adaptations and the original novel. This version deserves, if not demands, a second viewing. Keira Knightley is astounding. Yes, she is more outwardly emotional than Austen's 18th century heroine and probably more beautiful from a 21st century perspective but the essence of the youthful, wilful and independent Lizzie is just fantastic to watch. Oscar nomination rightly deserved - Girl you was robbed!
Joe Wright, the director, says he put his heart into this production, and OK I don't agree with all his casting decisions Donald S (mad professor with bad hairdo)and Tom Hollander, far too drippy,'sensitive'and to cap it all short which they play upon suggested by Hollander. In the book the odious Mr Collins is considered tall, well over 6ft and wonderfully pompous. I like this so wish they hadn't changed him quite so much.
However as a director, Joe Wright has created a truly beautiful, moving yet comic production. The cinemaphotography and music further enhance the experience. For me this was only obvious on the second and subsequent viewings. It is a truly multi-layered production, as all good films should be and the opening dance scenes are so full of energy and life. Yes, there are discrepancies with the novel but you still want to be there!
I know the Bennets look poverty-stricken but this helps re-inforce the differences in social standing between Lizzie and Darcy to a modern audience, in a way that the 1990 mini series and the 1980s more faithful versions can't convey.
In the additional material I particularly love when the director says 'it's not about the most beautiful people in the room' because ironically it is! You can't get much more stunningly handsome couple as Keira Knightley and Mathew Macfadyen, but quite rightly so, because at the end of the day they can both act and 'the magnetism' is also there.
The actors are all fantastic. Brenda Blethyn superb, Rosamund Pike ethereal, Jenna Malone and Carey... silly and annoying but at 15 and 16/17? so they should be - great. Mary was far too beautiful but I give the director leave on this as our Mary gets such a raw deal usually. On the downside Bingley and the Gardiners were disappointing:
When Lizzie says to Jane re Bingley, 'I give you leave to like him, you have liked far stupider a person.' I thought, Really? Is that possible!!! However, his gaucheness grows on you.
The Gardiners are supposed to be the refined, elegant relations but here we get Penelope Wilton (who can look elegant) and her portly husband are continually munching pies! Can't find any redeeming features here...
Not sure about the Titanicesque sequence on the cliffs as I always want to stand up and shout - LIZZIE DON'T DO IT!
Inspite of these interpretations it's still a fantastic film with or without 2 endings.
Overall I prefer the UK version ending (thank you Joe Wright and UK audiences) as it reflects the ending in the book and the author would have approved.
At heart I am a true purist but it is fun to watch the syrupy yuky USA ending. Bare ankles, Divine Goddess!! My God - snogging! All that is missing in the USA ending was the dreaded wedding. I would like to think Jane would have approved but fear she would not. Will no doubt hopefully appeal to a younger generation though. So, if that means more people will read and enjoy Jane Austen as much as I have over the years then what more can one ask for.
Movie Review: Wonderful -- Charming Darcy
Summary: 5 Stars
I watched both the 2005 film and the 1995 A&E version close together in time; both are wonderful - the film manages to achieve almost the same effect in just under half the time. Both are respectful of Austen's novel.
The new film version is very very fine. The biggest difference between the two is the space allowed to develop various aspects of character and plot (i.e., in the `95 TV series we see the developments from Lizzie's AND Darcy's points of view, we see them in flashback, sometimes multiple times). But the new film version does an excellent job of conveying the book, even if some scenes must necessarily be omitted. The flashbacks of the A&E version are an easy way of telegraphing a character's second thoughts, but a really good actor can convey doubt and complexity without this assistance.
The hardest character for an actor to portray in Austen's novel is Mr. Darcy. Is he a prideful and arrogant aristocrat who changes -- that is, is he a bad character who grows, develops, and becomes good? Or is he a good character who, from the outset, is at least partly misunderstood? There is evidence to support both interpretations. As we learn, all his family, including his servants, who have known him for his whole life admire his integrity and his kindness. But he certainly gives Elizabeth Bennet reason from the outset to find him cold, distant, and even snobbish. However terrific Colin Firth is in the A&E version, his representation of the character comes down pretty strongly for change and growth, while Matthew MacFadyen, the hero of the recent film and the sweetest Mr. Darcy you would ever want to meet, keeps the question open. His reserve at the beginning could easily be chalked up to shyness. Both Darcies have much to recommend them. Even though Firth leaves more of the impression of confidence and sharpness that I got from Austen's novel, I think I actually prefer the sweetness of MacFadyen, who does a better job of convincing us that he actually finds Elizabeth attractive from the beginning.
I'm not a fan of the actress who plays Elizabeth in the 2005 film -- Keira Knightley (her name rhymes with sprightly, only too conveniently) -- but she does credit, in her odd and energetic way, to Lizzie Bennet, and Donald Sutherland makes a surprisingly good Mr. Bennet (though perhaps not quite so true to the book as Benjamin Whitrow in the A&E version). As much as I admire Brenda Blethyn in other films she is not great here; she is nothing to the earlier BBC Bennet mother Alison Steadman, who more perfectly captures the mother's hysterics. And I don't think Judi Dench is well cast as Lady Catherine de Bourgh (in the movie); she is just too regal and admirable in her own right; Lady Catherine needs a certain reptilian quality, which Barbara Leigh-Hunt in the A&E production manages very capably. Also, I must admit that Tom Hollander's Mr. Collins in the 2005 does not hold a candle to the simpering skin-crawling performance of David Bamber in the BBC version of that part. Despite these quibbles, however, the makers of this film had their wits about them. Most importantly, they were not afraid of emotion. Both versions end with a very satisfying and un-Austenlike kiss.
The music in this film is lush and engaging; the landscape, notwithwithstanding the opinion of other reviewers, captures the constrained circumstances of the Bennets while remaining appropriately Anglophilic in its attachment to the British countryside and country houses. In short, this new movie manages to convey the essence of the book nearly as well and just as movingly as the excellent A&E series, which is twice as long.
Movie Review: Robust Adaptation of Familiar Austen Novel Is One First-Class Production
Summary: 5 Stars
You would think that Jane Austen's most famous novel is not in need of another cinematic treatment given the definitive BBC version of a decade ago and the classic 1940 MGM version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, not to mention a contemporary 2004 Bollywood-style musical and according to IMDB, at least six other versions. However, first-time feature director Joe Wright and first-time screenwriter Deborah Moggach (with uncredited assistance from Austen adaptation veteran Emma Thompson) have brought youthful vigor and a wild, Thomas Hardy-like element to the movie, and as a whole, it works very well. It almost makes the overly familiar novel feel revitalized.
For those who have forgotten their required high school reading, the story focuses on the downscale Bennet family - a passive father and a domineering mother, the latter intent on marrying off their five daughters to wealthy families. Eldest daughter Jane becomes smitten with rich but somewhat weak-willed Mr. Bingley and the bookish Mary keeps to her piano, while the two youngest daughters, Kitty and Lydia, are giggly and boy-crazy. On the other hand, the headstrong Elizabeth wants marriage on her terms with an intellectual equal, and she becomes alternately repelled and drawn to the brooding Mr. Darcy. There are several plotlines that interweave precariously toward the inevitable conclusion, but Austen's witty, often insightful dialogue holds the story together organically with grace and humor.
Twenty-year old Keira Knightley is the youthful embodiment of Elizabeth, as her predecessors, Garson in particular, always strike me as too mature for the role. With her beauty subdued in casual period fashion, she manages to convey all the necessary facets of her personality with a natural élan. As Darcy, Matthew Macfayden captures the moody character's insolence and growing romanticism with little affectation. Most all of the supporting players shine with Brenda Blethyn as the exasperating Mrs. Bennet, Donald Sutherland as her introspective husband, Tom Hollander as the priggish Mr. Collins, Rosamund Pike as beautiful and likable Jane, Jena Malone convincingly British as the impulsive Lydia, and of course, in all her scene stealing glory, Judi Dench lends acidic vinegar as Lady Catherine, Darcy's disapproving aunt.
Parts of the film have a subtly stylized quality, such as the way the camera seems to track uninterrupted during the Assembly Hall ball sequence or when Elizabeth's head spins symbolically as she sits on a swing. There are also many well-turned tableaux-style shots that imbue the spirit of the period with vivid but unobtrusive detail. Credit should go to Roman Osin's textured and sumptuous cinematography, Jacqueline Durran's authentic-feeling costumes and Dario Marianelli's flavorful music, all of which capture a decidedly realistic though ultimately romanticized 16th-century England.
The DVD package has several too-short features that provide some background into the production and Austen's characters but hardly enough to provide meaningful insight. Wright provides sometimes interesting commentary on an alternate track that borders a bit on the effusive, and there is an alternative and thankfully excised ending which spells out the plot resolutions unnecessarily. This movie is a joyous celebration of Austen's artistry as a writer whose story themes resonate today.
Movie Review: Surprisingly good -- better than expected
Summary: 5 Stars
I first read Pride & Prejudice at the ripe old age of 9. In the last 45 years I have read and reread all of Austen's works many times and can be considered something of an Austen authority. It is risky to try to translate a written work so well known and loved as Pride & Prejudice to a visual medium, but there are folks who can't resist the challenge. I've seen a few other attempts and must praise the 2 disc BBC version (with Colin Firth et al) for its beauty and adherence to the text. Others criticized it for not being as good as much older versions. Some even faulted that the principals were not sufficiently beautiful or handsome.
Comparatively, I felt this film was much more true to the 'facts' set forth in the text, if not to the text itself. The Bennett women were appropriately young. The younger ones were in character and giggly. Mr. Darcy seemed a bit young to me--not convincingly 30, but very convincingly reservewd.
I fully expected to be critical of this effort, and couldn't see how anyone could have another view of the story worth putting forth. s But these producers and writers don't pretend to be true to Austen. They shift the perspective to her characters. This P & P shows life more as it might have been in the times about which Austen wrote. Fans of regency romance are familiar with the term 'crush' as in, "The ball was expected to be the usual crush" (of people). The dance sequences and balls evoke that very well. Portrayals of home life are also very much more 'realistic'. Costumes are not as elaborate or as varied. Sets are more believable--these are interiors to match the status of their owners. And the sets and scenes and costumes do not draw attention from the actors' work. The camera focuses on the characters and their facial expressions.
This version humanizes the characters: The men are not smooth sophisticates. The women are not either buffoons or sophisticates. The mother's relations with her daughters are more maternal than is evident in other versions or in the original text. And in this film, the father is a much more sympathetic figure -- more in tune with his wife (foibles nothwistanding) and children. It is clear he cares for them even as he feels clearly outnumbered by all these women. But he is not bad tempered about it. Nor does he feel he has made a mistake in marrying a young woman with more beauty than good sense. The Neterfield ball shows him comforting the daughter he had to discipline, and coming to his wife's aid to fan her in the crush of guests.
Most all the men come across as males (a common criticism of Austen's portrayals of men is she has no concept of the real thoughts or behaviors of men)--Collins is sexually frustrated, Bingley is tongue tied, and Darcy of course is smoldering, but his shyness comes across more clearly than in any previous portrayals, including the text. It overrides his hauteur.
In short, I didn't plan to like this. As an Austen fan I should feel outraged at the rewriting of so many of her characters and the cutting out altogether of others. But where this movie does not imitate art, it does infuse life into the tale and its characters. The departure was a very bold move and a risky one. It works. For that reason alone it deserves 5 stars, but it is also a lovely effort.