Movies are supposed to be works of art, not perfectly exact encyclopedias...

Rating: 9/10 (25 February 2006)

I loved the film. It is a modern interpretation of Austen's novel, yes, but I think those who see this as detrimental to its overall quality misunderstand the true definition of film-making as an art form. And it should be clear to any viewer that this particular interpretation of Austen's novel is intended to be artful, if not completely historically accurate; the numerous, lengthy, and varying scenes of English countryside might pass for and stand alone as their own art, nevermind the sparse yet insightful dialogue and beautifully understated wardrobe, which are obviously all coordinated to emphasize the love story between Eliabeth and Mr. Darcy. To my point: art is meant to be interpreted, and although it is legitimate to hate this movie, to do so solely based on the fact that it isn't an exact copy of the 1995 version, or of the novel itself is perhaps both prideful and prejudiced; to me, the unique fusion of modern values and dialogue with Austen's original vision is the film's most remarkable and appealing quality.