as good as it can possible be for a 2 hour movie

Rating: 5/10 (21 March 2006)

Although, in my mind, no Pride and Prejudice movie could compare to the 1995 BBC miniseries, this version has some definite good points to it, as well as some disappointments. Lets start with the good. The movie had a rustic feel to it, it almost felt like I could smell and feel the English country side. In the 1995 version, i believe it was too clean, too pristine. This version made the home life more believable, or rather more understandable as to what position in society these girls were born into. The fact that the actors were much younger and appealed more towards today's standards of beauty than in the 1995 version was much easier to relate to, and comprehend the meanings of society. I remember watching the BBC version for the 1st time being slightly jarred by the fact that the women i was seeing did not coincide with my ideals and thoughts of their looks, while reading the novel. That said I still strongly believe that the casting of Kiera Knightley had something to do with her Resemblance to Jennifer Ehle. The girls actually looked the age their are represented as in the book. The roles of the sisters were very well played, and the younger didn't look older than the elder sister (as was in the BBC Version). This movie was visually very satisfying, but then again all the other big budget Hollywood movies are. The scenery was amazing, and at times breathtaking. If nothing else, this movie is great for all the richness in the imagery. Very important to mention that the ending is a bit more satisfying than in the previous version. Also the attraction tension between the two main characters is nicely played out. Now here are some of the problems that bothered me: The costumes... looked like a hodgepodge of eras all thrown together. The story takes place before 1813, not in 1850's or1870's or so on... for a movie that satisfied be visually, this was a throbbing eyesore, for me which for many this may not be a problem. The screen play, or rather the lines of the actors... It seemed forced, in many cases I felt that they tried too hard to make it sound of the time by putting in a whole slab of words that are usually seen on the SATS or any other standardized tests. Although that is how the book is, it is evident that in many cases the language has been simplified in order for it not to sound like the BBC version. Some of the conversations seemed hurried and for those who haven't read the book, a bit confusing. All in all some parts were kind of awkward in terms of language.
Mr.Darcy's character, was dry. And although I do blame the speech-writers, the acting was just, at times, painful to watch. Truth be told, I am prejudiced, I don't think that Colin Firth could be topped in this role. To see what I mean, Rent the BBC version, you all will love it. Then it's the mother.. this woman is hysterical, she knows she's hysterical, but here, it was like looking at a completely different character. Her actions were over explained and henceforth not as funny. However, with all its tiny shortcomings this movie was satisfying enough to see it a couple of times.