The differences and the bottom line of both

Rating: 10/10 (24 November 2005)

This Chunk I've Written Does Have At Least One Spoiler. Clearly there's going to be difference between a 5hr. production and 2hr. production, and there's going to be difference between an AE production (which prefers to stay closer culturally and historically) versus a Hollywood production (which caters to the modern American). Pride & Prejudice with Kiera Knightley, I thought, was a very good MOVIE. Because it was chopped up and mixed around with enough of the original dialogue and was said to be BASED on Pride & Prejudice, it shouldn't be judged as someone trying to make a movie about the book. They took the story of the book, stayed admirably true to the events but changed the structure. They were out to make a MOVIE not a book- to-movie movie. Considering all the horror, thrillers, action/adventure, romantic comedies, and epics that are being made these days, the Kiera Knightley's Pride and Prejudice was a breath of fresh air in an American theatre - don't get me wrong, the other movie categories are all fine for the people who like them and I'm a fervent fan of them all except horror. Now, I'm Also a Jane Austen buff, so I DO realize that it didn't have the same essence of Jane Austen like the AE version, nor did it stay as detailed. However, I was charmed by the cinematography and the grittiness and the emotion of this movie. AE Pride and Prejudice is my favorite, but I want to speak up for this version as well. I said grittiness because there was a much more striking contrast between the Bennetts' home and the Bingleys'/Darcys' home. I liked that very much because it was always hard for me to see why Darcy was such a snob about their station in the AE version, since their house was well kept, pretty but only smaller and less grand. It was much easier to understand Darcy's snobbery in this movie towards their station, while in both movies the family's behavior was equally embarrassing. I disagree that Colin Firth did a Better impersonation of Darcy than Matthew MacFadyen. They were different impersonations, but I do understand why someone else said that Darcy's turmoil and reformation was much more under-the-surface-yet-tangible in the AE version, than in this recent adaption. Being someone, myself, who's been hurt and lied about, liked someone and had that person be told lies about me, I liked Matthew's portrayal of Darcy very much, because while proud, he seemed more like a man glad to burst his usual restraints of emotion for a woman that he loved romantically. While Jane Austen portrays him as much more stiff and proud, as a MOVIE CHARACTER (they were out to make a movie, not a book2movie movie) I liked him very much, and even as a variation of Fitzwilliam Darcy I liked him. Many people I knew didn't like the portrayal of Mr. Bingley. I LOVED Mr. Bingley. In the AE version, all Bingley seemed to do was smile, say his lines and smile some more; he reaked of sweetness, but only of sweetness and his performance was genuine. In this version, Mr. Bingley was given a much better portrayal of the man who was kind and sociable and not deficient in understanding, although Darcy was the clever one. In the AE version, Bingley was sickeningly sweet, polite and everything that a "young man ought to be." In this version, although he sometimes fell all over himself in expressing himself, he displayed all the emotions that Bingley was supposed to have. Blissfully happy(after the Netherfield ball in the morning), quietly regretful and sad (when he was leaving for London), eager (when first meeting Jane), quietly-yet-fiercely happy and grateful when Jane accepted his proposal and (to my amusement) practicing his proposal with Darcy in the agitated, not-satisfied-with-himself way; wanting it to be perfect but he was very nervous. I liked Jane very much in both versions. Lizzy... Keira WAS more homely than the norm compared to her other movies; nothing but deliberate stage makeup could hide her beauty, but Jane Austen didn't write her character to be ugly or strikingly beautiful, she was written to be mildly attractive, slender and to have her personality make her even more beautiful in the mind of the reader and in the sight of Mr. Darcy. Wickham was not as good in this movie (in my opinion) as in the AE version. It was much easier to like him and have to be torn from him in the AE version, than in this version. He was very cliché in this film and the line, "So I was the easy-to- forget person" (or something like that) made me think, "Anyone who says that IS easy to forget, so you definitely are forgettable." The cinematography was striking and passionate to me, not just hunky-dory England. The romance between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy came across as much more openly emotionally passionate, and for this movie, I liked that very much, especially because Mr. Darcy kept a pretty contained demeanor throughout the whole, which made his outbursts during the first proposal exhilarating, his second proposal adorable and his "Mrs. Darcy kisses" something to be wanted! --- The AE version vs. this version had more of the Jane Austen essence, but this version is not bad because of it. As a movie itself I really thought it was splendid.