A rush job

Rating: 7/10 (10 December 2005)

I have been a fan of Jane Austin since seeing the BBC version of this film that was produced in 1980. Since then I have read all of her books and seen any film version of them that has been done. I'm afraid that my benchmark for any filmed version of "Pride and Prejudice" will always be the 1995 BBC production and this one suffers by comparison.
For those who have never read the book or seen the other productions you may not understand this but trying to fit it into 2 hours simply doesn't work. I feel as though I'm being rushed through the story and being allowed to see only the highlights. In some places, the missing pieces of the story make it is hard to understand characters' motivations.
The style of this film helps make the rush job more interesting. It is similar to the '95 Roger Michel version of "Persuasion" in that the England that we see on the screen is down to earth and very real. You can almost see the paint moldering in the elderly and somewhat decaying Longbourne. At times though, Wright does throw a little romance and mysticism into it with his use of color and light. The English landscape seems much more lush and green than one would have thought, and the glow of candles is warm and comforting.
Another interesting element is the intimate way in which we are invited into the lives of the Bennets through the use of camera work. In fact, it's almost a little too intimate for the fans of Austin and in some ways for the period as well. Some of the characters appear rumpled and disheveled and a good bit of the action takes place at convenient times for the girls to be found in their nightclothes. There is also a more relaxed attitude in relationships than it was usually acceptable to have at that time.
As for the performances, while most tend to be good, the majority of the performers bring nothing new to characters of the book. Tom Hollander is an exception to this in that his characterization of Collins puts a somewhat different spin on a character usually portrayed as bumbling and comically condescending. Hollander's Collins comes across as bland, arrogant, and practical to a fault. He sees the value of currying favor with the wealthy and believes that others of his class should follow his example.
On the flip side, Matthew MacFadyen's performance of Darcy left a little something to be desired. He lacks the classical brooding handsomeness that one associates with Darcy and his performance is sometimes awkward. Some of his problem might be the script in that it is sometimes hard to understand how he forms some of his opinions when you are not seeing everything that you should in the story.
All in all, this is not a bad film. It simply does not meet the standard that has been set for it.