Definitely disappointing

Rating: 4/10 (6 September 2005)

This film looked great - the director has obviously gone for 'realism' so slightly dirty houses and clothes etc and it didn't look chocolate boxy at all which was nice. Equally, the filming was lovely in the sense of colours (really earthy and actually very English). The costumes were a bit odd however - using clothes from a slightly earlier era was fine I think... except that Caroline Bingley's bizarre mix of regency / 2005 Versace stuck out like a sore thumb.
The cast was OK and the film generally acted quite well. Brenda Blethyn as Mrs Bennet was fantastic - she absolutely stole the show. Judi Dench was Judi Dench. Jena Malone as Lydia was really quite good, deliciously immature and snotty, but there wasn't enough of her - the wonderfully comic but uncomfortable sub-plot which is the Lydia/Wickham story has been completely mangled. Keira Knightly was OK with the right sort of wickedness and energy - she'd clearly watched some tapes of Jennifer Ehle do Elizabeth however! Donald Sutherland didn't really get Mr Bennet I don't think - there was something too American about him which I can't quite put my finger on. Mr Bennet is quite lively and capricious and he just wasn't really. His accent was also on occasions a little suspect. Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy OK but only OK - he certainly looked the part though.
The problem with the film was the script and the direction - Jane Austen does Mills and Boons basically. The entire cinema groaned for example when Darcy marches across the misty moors at the end into the arms of a bosom heaving Lizzie. The cast really suffered from a sub-standard script, particularly Darcy. Now I appreciate this might be a bit purist of me - I realise that the content of the book needs to be cut down into a two hour film but absolutely unnecessary changing of dialogue and action which would have more authentically done the job just seems pointless. The screen writer and director obviously felt the need to make things clearer but ended up making all of the relationships less believable and so the whole point of the story was missed. Basically the book is about women but in this film it felt like modern women with modern needs, independence and attitudes in fancy dress. It's not that I have a problem with that approach as such - it just means that all of the tension, comedy, tragedy and frankly eroticism which make P&P what it is has been replaced with a huge pile of clichés which are a poor replacement.
Subtlety is the key with Austen I think and this was not a subtle film.
If I'd made this film and wanted to sell it, I would be concerned about my audience to be honest. Anyone who has read and loved P&P (or even just seen the TV version) is going to be patronised and irritated by this. The other 80% of the population will think it's a fairly reasonable (but clichéd) weepy / rom com which they get from pay per view on a Sunday afternoon because it's raining. Hardly Oscar winning.
And one last thing. Darcy is NEVER funny. Pained yes, lonely yes, uncomfortable yes, awkward yes. Funny, NO!
Just an added comment about needful3's determination that we should not obsess about the TV version and give this version a chance. I'd just like to point out that most comments have been based on a comparison with the book. I personally think that the TV version had flaws too but it benefited from more time to be able to let characters and story lines develop effectively I suppose. As you've suggested, it is indeed a beautiful film. This doesn't however save the film from a poor comparison with a much loved book. I'm just a little disappointed. And I really really think that Jane Austen would have been less than proud!