My comments are partisan, but with good reason.

Rating: 6/10 (18 September 2005)

I have read the book and seen the BBC version. I went expecting much what I got, but had not completely written it off.
First things first. It is a difficult task to reduce the book to a two hour film; really it is. I shall return to this point later.
Cast: Mrs Bennett was nowhere near as good as Alison Steadman's version, who was one of the two star performances of the BBC version. Steadman has been accused of being a caricature in the BBC version. Indeed, this is what Austin's book commands of Mrs Bennett.
Second, the other star of the BBC version was Mr Collins. Enough said about the new Mr Collins the better. Surely, he isn't a man that a girl would wish to marry and he is annoying - but that is where it ends. It should go much further than this. He should be utterly repulsive, as he is in the BBC version.
Third, Mr Bingley - drab and too silly. Forth, the sisters - not silly enough, just annoying. Lydia in particular, fails. Mary is better than the BBC version.
In general I did not like Mr Bennett, but where this film does do better than the BBC version is the final scene between Mr Bennett and Elizabeth, which here is better-scripted and acted.
Dudy Dench, good as she is, was not correctly cast I feel. Judy plays such roles well, but she is too famous to play such a small role well. When one sees such famous faces it takes a while to accept them to the film and stop seeing them as themselves. Judy does not have time to do this. So whilst the BBC's choice of actor could be improved upon, the script does not allow it.
And it is the script that I have most issue with. It fails on every count. The director does a good job of condensing the story to a film script, but this film should not be, as the book is not, about Elizabeth and some Mr Darcy meeting and eventually falling in love after some initial Pride and Prejudice. It should create an atmosphere and tell a story of society in addition. It should be acute in human observation. It should be everything that this film is not. I am afraid that the criticism is a damning one. Many money-making films are filmed for that reason and succeed because they prey on the fickle emotions of their audience. This film should have done much more than that but did not, and, in my opinion, did not obviously try to.
Kiera is perfectly good as Elizabeth given that I am generally no fan. On the other hand I am a fan of Matthew, but he fails somewhat as Darcy. I saw him as sexually in need and not proud enough. In fairness, none of his character's failings were his own but of the script (or lack thereof).
Elizabeth was given no reason to hate Mr Darcy so much. Indeed, apart from one comment he made about her being "tolerable", he was clearly in love with her every time he appeared, and the only negative thing she heard about him was that he did not give a living to someone his father wished one for: hardly a reason to hate the man with the passion she apparently did.
To conclude, I said earlier that it was a difficult task to reduce this to a film. All that I could ask myself as I sat and watched, was why? This film should not have been made. The only possible motive for its manufacture is surely one of finance, which irks me.
If you have not seen the BBC version and, or, read the book, then you will likely enjoy this film to some extent; though perhaps not consider it a must-buy. If you have seen the BBC version, then by all means go and see this film, if only to re-establish your appreciation of the former.