Young women with female leads...Keira Knightley

Rating: 6/10 (20 August 2006)

To write about this movie is almost as difficult as watching it. Jane Austen wrote a novel that became famous in the whole world which has had, as other recognized books ("Vanity Fair", "Little Women"), lots of cinema and television adaptations; as well as lot of actors playing its main roles. In these specific novels I mentioned, the main characters are females.
This takes me to my statement about how a young woman can carry with a movie by herself. Recently, Reese Witherspoon starred in "Vanity Fair" and she did an excellent job; but she was near her thirties. However, Keira Knightley (Oscar nominated for her role in "Pride & Prejudice") is only twenty years old, and Winona Ryder was twenty three when she became the soul of "Little Women".
I don't mean to compare, but it's not acting talent I am comparing, but acting situations and character similarity. The acting situation is the chance of walking the red carpet having a nomination with twenty years or a little bit more. I don't know much, but I know that many men have been nominated while being young, but not many women.
In this case, Keira would have more merit for being nominated being younger; but that's not the case. The character similarity is instantly felt. One of five sisters, Lizzie Bennet (Knightley) is not the eldest but probably the wisest about life, the most charming and the most difficult when it comes to love relationships; kind of what Winona's Jo March was like.
Also in both stories, the five sisters have to be presented in society because they may be beautiful, but they are not classy or well known. As I see it on film, Luisa May Alcott's story is more about all of the girls, and Jane Austen's is focused on Lizzie's life. Either way, it's the actress who plays the character that has to stand out.
Deborah Moggach had the task of adapting the novel to the screen, in her first screenplay presented in theaters worldwide. The words the characters speak are beautiful, and she puts them together professionally; I also said it when I wrote about "Vanity Fair". But for some reason, "Pride & Prejudice" is less bearable than the latter one, which lasts more than twenty minutes longer.
Joe Wright, the director (and also in charge of his first project to be shown in theaters), also did an admirable work (achieving a perfect and unforgettable ending); perhaps too correct as Spielberg's direction of "Munich". Mainly, I guess it's the price to pay for adapting a novel in its whole form, or the fact that Winona Ryder and Reese Witherspoon had a noticeable cast behind them, that made the movie more entertaining.
Here we have Donald Sutherland, who seems to be trying for an Oscar with roles as kind, old men (see "Cold Mountain", "The Italian Job") mostly fathers, which are always acceptable and notable. We have Mathew Macfadyen, who has got the role of his short career as Mr. Darcy, and who slows the movie down at times with his face of sadness; but the viewer understands it's part of his character.
We also have Jena Malone, Brenda Blethyn, even Judi Dench and there's nothing exciting we get to see on screen. It's the incredible Keira Knightley who makes the picture only and just watchable. The young and beautiful actress has done little things with great results, and even though her portrayal isn't the greatest of all time, it becomes the high point of the movie and enough reason to honor her on growing gift.