Infuriating

Rating: 2/10 (3 June 2006)

This is one of those films I like to call my "rant and rave" movies. Meaning you find so many things wrong with it you can't stop complaining.
My Pride & Prejudice history: First read the book when 13 (finnish translation) and it became one of those read once a year things. Current round: 11. Switched to English after the fourth year. So, a huge fan.
The wit in Austen's writing opens up in new, different ways with each reading. As a consequence my first problem with this version was the dialog. A mash of altered Austen lines and ridiculously modern utterances. The underlined frankness of Elizabeth's dialog makes me want to scream in frustration! Where is the subtle, clever girl who can laugh at herself and everyone around her? The girl who ultimately tempts Darcy because her mind clearly stands out from the rest? In this film she is reduced to a silly giggler who believes every word she says is true.
Speaking of giggling. I'd like to know if it was in the script or if it was a version of improvisation. Yes, Lydia and Kitty were gigglers, but there is a limit. Sillines can be portrayed through other means besides this nerve wrecking, teeth grinding, migraine brewing GIGGLING.
I know movies have a limited time-frame. Maybe, if the director had used more time with the characters that were left, instead of the scenery the result might not have felt so rushed. On the other hand the scenery is almost the only thing I actually LIKED.
A film is a visual media. Seen on a 10 meter screen every detail is clearer. So why in the name of gods could we see Keira Knightleys shorn hair for what felt like half the movie!? Production company ran out of money to hire a hairstylist? And don't get me started the costumes and accessories. I always thought that when making a period film some knowledge about historical facts should be involved. I stand corrected.
Dame Judi was great, if a little obvious choice for Lady Catherine.
I expected more from Donald Sutherland and disliked his characterization of Mr. Bennet. He should have been the driest of wits but ended up coming across as a high-as-a-kite/couldn't-care-less -like hippie.
Brenda Blethyn's does a good job in portraying Mrs. Bennet but I think Alison Steadman still wasn't topped.
Sweet, kind Mr. Bingley: what happened to you? This idiot lacking all propriety is not someone kind Jane Bennet could love. Rosamund Pike is a vision but I thought her performance somewhat bland.
Pompous Mr. Collins is well portrayed by Tom Hollander, but again I found some of this character's too-contemporary "funny mannerism" annoying. Still, overall: two thumbs up for him.
Mr. Wickham's crucially important character's screen time counted in minutes and actor's easily forgettable presence made him float by like soap bubbles on a windy day. Coming - almost here - gone!
Then those two we follow this story for: Keira Knightley is an actress that annoys-me/annoys-me-not. This case was the first. Pouting and flash grinning her way from scene to scene with a little pensive gazing thrown in does not an Oscar nomination worthy performance make. Her distinctive voice and accent haven't bothered me this much before.
Mr. Darcy *sighs*. Could I get one of him, please? But on the Firth. Matthew Macfadyen has a screen presence you stay and watch but in this case he seemed very unsure of his work. Lines are delivered in such fast pace it's hard to keep up. Towards the end I liked his work more, the final proposal was quite well performed.
The chemistry between the main leads is non-existent. Chemistry between persons is something other people react to, unwillingly or not. It's on screen romance without chemistry what makes audiences indifferent.
Pride & Prejudice is NOT a story about instant attraction and this is the main thing the filmmakers seem to have forgotten. Love between Elizabeth and Darcy grows through them getting to know themselves and slowly casting aside their prides and prejudices. It's not a clearcut "he is pride she is prejudice" case but they are neither and they are both. The original story is about true growth as a human being and this movie simply doesn't portray this journey. Instead of Elizabeth and Darcy starting from opposite ends we have a story where girl meets boy, boy meets girl, instant attraction, things get in the way. Knightley's Elizabeth doesn't despise Darcy at any point. "...and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry." I don't believe her!!
The much highlighted unconditional love between the members of the Bennet family is something I never found in Austen's story. I've always found Elizabeth's feelings border on anger because of the acute embarrassment she feels when it comes to her family (minus Jane and daddy). Love, yes, but also a wish to be far away from them to see different society.
To sum this up 'cause even I can't listen to ME rant anymore. Hated: - Meet-you-in-my-underwear scenes. - Modern dialog - Keira's costumes (see that overcoat?) and hair - Lack of periodical continuity in wardrobe department - Bingley's hair - Family Bennet's commonness (table manners, pigs inside the house etc.) - Assembly Hall dance scene
Why 2/10 for this movie? There was the scenery, as mentioned before. Liked the make-up department with very natural looking skin (read shiny) on the people, very subtle colors and enhancements. The music worked as did the locations and sets (excluding the horrid barn-dance disco-like assembly.)
See this movie if you can for free. Then pay good money to get your hands on the BBC mini-series from 1995. Better yet, read the book.