It's not about the 95 version, try the book..

Rating: 1/10 (13 October 2006)

Comparing this 2005 'attempt' to the 1995 version will fail every time, simply because the 1995 version took several hours to develop the characters for the viewers. They were far too complex to cram in to two hours. It just can't be done. The problem I see with this version is that it doesn't stand on its own. You'd have had to read the book or watched the 1995 version (or others) to have any clue as to what's happening. It's obvious that Keira Knightly or the director have seen the 1995 version due to some of the misplaced subtleties they tried to include (expressions in certain scenes). And it's painfully obvious that the director hasn't read the book. The idea of trying to create a movie based on a book without ever having read the book is just silly. It's embarrassing. And to claim that Jane Austen would be proud of such a rendition is also dim witted. You can't prove such a thing and you can't even speculate without sounding rather dense. I have yet to run into an author who was happy about having their work shredded into unrecognizable parts. And anyone who claims that Keira Knightly is more than just eye candy is obviously not very discerning. The acting stunk. It only proves that Keira remains about as talented as a Bratz doll. *cue mindless, outward appearance-based fans to rush to her rescue*