Why was this remake made?

Rating: 1/10 (28 December 2006)

This was a horrible remake. I am a huge fan of the 1995 BBC/AAE version, and it is still up to date and relevant (not to mention, immensely popular), so I don't know why they even re-made this movie at all. The BBC miniseries was made for TV, but is of a movie quality. One could argue that six hours is too long, but as evidenced by this new version, you cannot do the story justice without giving it full time. It is too complex of a story to be told with short cuts. Despite this, I was willing to give this one a try, being a massive Austen fan, but I was extremely disappointed. The story was choppy and difficult to follow for viewers who had not already seen the other versions and/or read the book. The filming style was reminiscent of a bad day at sea and gave me a nauseated stomachache just from all the pitching around of the camera. I think that they tried to make the story "earthier" but, that ended up misrepresenting Austen's settings. Her characters are poor, but gentile, and no gentile country people would have chickens running through their house! Maybe in rural Appalachian America, but definitely not rural Napoleonic England. All of the casting choices were horrible. Mrs. Bennet was shrieky and completely without charm. It was a thinly veiled attempt at an imitation of the Mrs. Bennet of the 1995 BBC version. Donald Sutherland came across as an old lech and the Bennet daughters didn't even look like they came from the same family. They were all disheveled and sulky and any attempts at witty humor just came across as whiny sarcasm and vulgar humor. Jena Malone, especially, was a poor casting choice. Were there not any English actresses available? Why on Earth would you choose a mediocre at best American actress, when there are so many talented English girls that would be perfect for the part? Kierra Knightley was pretty, but seemed to rely on jutting her jaw out rebelliously as her main form of expressing "Lizzy's" character. She put no effort into her role at all and made me wonder if she'd even read the book or watched other versions. Darcy was boring, lacking any attractiveness, intensity or charisma. He also came across as whiny and sulky. I guess he was the only actor brave enough to attempt a Mr. Darcy after Colin Firth's famous lauded version of the role. Perhaps we should give him credit for his brave, if futile attempt? There was absolutely no chemistry between Elizabeth and Darcy, which is supposed to give the story suspense and tension. You just didn't care if they got together or not. I just came out of the theatre feeling disgusted. I think Jane Austen would have been horrified at this slaughtering of her masterpiece. I know I was.