It's shiny, it's pretty, but it's not Jane Austen.

Rating: 2/10 (25 October 2005)

Although the storyline was cut down very well to fit into the time allowed for the film, this was still a poor adaptation. It left the audience feeling disconnected from the main characters - Darcy was the most approachable and that's REALLY saying something. Lizzy was remote, and while she was lively there was little to indicate her intelligence beyond her propensity to read the occasional book and sometimes express slightly more than a passing objection to some point or other. This was not necessarily the fault of Keira Knightley however as she wasn't exactly given much to work with in the first place. Mr Wickham was virtually a nonevent, as were Lydia and Kitty, and Mary to some extent too, but the most offensive aspect of the character adaptation was the portrayal of Mr Bingley as some kind of endearing fool designed to bring comic relief to the text.
Jane Austen is known for her surpassing talent in character development. This film did virtually no justice to that whatsoever, and even insulted it at times. Moral of the story: if you're going to try to adapt something and make it "easier" to understand, at least try to do it without making a mockery of the best parts of the original.
On the plus side, the cinematography was beautiful and the casting generally good, and at times it did seem a little more realistic than many period pieces, with mud and dirt and messy hair, but unfortunately this impression of realism is also partly because the makers changed the behaviour of Jane Austen's characters to seem slightly more modern and thus normal to us. It seems film makers of period drama often find it very hard to comprehend this basic fact of history: people in the past were NOT. LIKE. US. This shows in the way they often try, subtly or unsubtly, to impose modern Western values on the characters designed to exist within a totally different time frame, and it may seem reasonable to the viewer but it makes the characters less realistic in their context.
I had low expectations in going to see this film. Usually this means I'm easily pleased. Unfortunately, this version of Pride and Prejudice didn't even pass my low standards. If you want better Austen productions, try Roger Michell's version of Persuasion (1995), Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility (1995), Douglas McGrath's Emma (1996), or my preferred version of Pride and Prejudice - the 1995 mini series directed by Simon Langton (not strictly comparable seeing as it's roughly five hours and the film had to fit the story into about two, but nevertheless a much better telling of the story).
Or why not even go one better and try reading the book?