Mediocre Adaptation.

Rating: 4/10 (13 July 2006)

As far as this adaptation of Jane Austin's classic Pride & Prejudice goes, this one is mediocre at best. It's faults are numerous spread across almost every aspect of the film. It's successes fail to subside the weight of its failures. I'll agree that it's something of an entertaining romp, but this fails to capture and embody the mastery of either the novel or the BBC mini-series.
The greatest fault of this adaptation does not lie in the movie itself but, rather, in the fact that this is a movie. The novel was an expansive work. It had an extremely large cast of characters, an expansive set of locales, a long series of events integral to the plot and the many complicated mannerism of restorative Britain. To accomplish this it spans hundreds of pages. The mini-series took five hours to accomplish the same. A single movie, however, is extraordinarily confined for time. This story cannot be told in a mere two hours. As a result, so many things had to be cut from the movie, from subtle and exquisite nuances of character and society, to whole major focal points of plot. This is not the film-maker's fault, but rather their choice of medium to retell this story. The effect, however, is detrimental; characters become watered-down and bland shadows of what they once were, complicated and nuanced plots lose their flavor and unique form and the world created by Austin turns from a unique dimension to a transient plane that exists simply to take the viewer from the beginning to the end.
The acting, mostly, leaves much to be desired. The only good performer in the entire cast would have to be Keira Knightly, who gives us a striking and singular performance. But, even then, she leaves much to be desired. Her performance bears a feel that if far to modern for the story. Instead of Elizabeth Bennet being a unique, innovative forward-thinking girl who's ahead of her time, she becomes a modern girl (and all that implies therein) trapped in Restorative Britain. Although this is a subtle difference, it's one that greatly affects the rest of the film. It turns from a film about one woman's liberation from the trappings of her time to one girl's subjugation by the same. This strikes me as a poor choice in direction (similar to Johnny Depp's Portrayal of Willie Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). However, this is still Knightly's burden to bear as an actress.
Matthew Macfadyen gives a rather disappointing performance as Mr. Darcy. He portrays him as too distant, too self-absorbed... to socially deficient. He takes Darcy's faults and character and warps him into a sad caricature. He water's down Darcy from a very distinct personality (a very proud, singular and distinct individual; whose presence is commanding and character impossible to ignore) into a bland and forgettable character, unable to function in the real world and unconvincing as a person. His fault is simply that he takes Darcy's character and goes too far with him.
Brenda Blethyn does to this movie what Kate Capshaw did for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Her constant over-acting whining and moaning in every single scene she was in did more to ruin this movie than any other aspect of it. Every scene featuring Mrs. Bennet was immediately ruined. You only saw this wretched annoying little thing, without the humanity or reality that Alison Steadman added to the same role in the BBC mini-series.
I was disappointed in Donald Sutherland's job. It was good, to be sure, but not simply up to his traditional snuff. Still, it was a subtle, quiet performance that acted in stark contrast to his character's wife's. He did do a pleasant-enough job. The rest of the cast were tolerable and good enough to escape any particular notice (Although Rupert Friend, who played Mr. Wickham, was clearly chosen for his DeCaprio looks rather than for any acting merit. He's this film's Gerard Butler, in a sense).
The art direction in this film, however, was outstanding. This was by far the film's strongest aspect (and probably the only part that could be called well done). The choreography was sharp, the costumes were gorgeous and the set-design splendid. It certainly deserved it's nominations in the 2006 Oscars for best Costume Design and Best Art Direction. The score, though, was tolerable, but nothing memorable, and I don't feel that it deserved its nomination for Best Original Score.
The final scene at the end that they tacked on is, in my opinion, terrible. It's a contrived mess that attempts to show their intimacy and love. They failed to establish that much in my mind during the last two hours, and certainly failed in the last two minutes.
My overall impression of this film is a terrible mess brought on, primarily by poor directorial choices, largely disappointing (and at times rotten) acting, confining a large story into too short a film and mediocre adaptation. The only god parts of this film are Keira Knightly, the costumes and the set design. I would largely not recommend this film, and recommend instead the 1995 BBC mini-series. However, fans of Keira Knightly and fluffy romances will enjoy this film (Because that's what they turned this into, a fluffy romance starring Keira Knightly). Still, there are better movies to watch if fluffy romances are your thing, and better adaptations of Pride & Prejudice to watch if that's what you came to see.