Good film but lacking where it counts

Rating: 7/10 (22 December 2005)

I am an Austen fan and have seen as many P&P adaptations as it possible for me to see--I found a few TV ones listed that were not possible for me to find, but this makes the fourth adaptation I've seen, plus having read the book again and again, so I think I'm fairly qualified to give a good opinion.
I love this story. It is my favorite book in the world. I have to admit here to a personal bias to the 1995 miniseries, but I went in willing to give this movie a chance (without very high expectations). I was pleasantly surprised in many respects--and disappointed in some others.
First the bad things: the dialogue. I was VERY disappointed with the script. Obviously much of the story had to be cut down, and I thought they did a fairly admirable job of getting the whole plot in under the time constraints, but the dialogue they did leave wasn't Austen's dialogue, it was some semi-modern version of it that I believe was supposed to appeal more to the modern romantic-comedy audiences they thought would be viewing it. The whole heart and soul of P&P is the witty dialogue, in my opinion, and when they took it out, I thought it lost so much, it took all of the good points I mention to counterbalance that. Another disappointing thing was the (possible?) historical inaccuracies my friend and I saw. I don't claim to be a historian, but my interest in Austen and her world has led me to research the Regency period a bit, and as far as I could tell, it didn't seem as if this film had been researched fully. The sisters would go out with their hair down, and the fashions didn't always look quite right (the waistlines looked too low on a lot of the dresses). Minor details, but kind of important in making a period piece.
I also have a few minor issues with the casting--overall, I thought it was fine...Donald Sutherland, excellent; Judi Dench, excellent; and I liked Rosamund Pike's Jane as well. Keira Knightley as Elizabeth was not bad on the whole, but there were a few parts where I (personally) thought she was a little too gentle or soft and ought to have been a little snappier...but then again, I grew very fond of Jennifer Ehle, who had a lot of spark, and Ms. Knightley may have had a different interpretation of the character entirely. Matthew MacFadyen did a very creditable job, I thought...NO ONE holds a candle to Colin Firth, if you ask me, but after watching David Rintoul is the 1980 miniseries, I don't think I could find worse. He did a nice job of warming up for the Pemberley!Darcy.
Now for the GOOD things: the direction was wonderful. It was very original and interesting; it was something you came out of the theater remembering. There were some truly stunning shots in there--I remember one specifically where the servants were closing Netherfield as Bingley was leaving. As I said before, I'm a little biased when it comes to adaptations, so I will never see Pemberley as anything but Lyme Park, but this Pemberley was very nicely-chosen--the lake was beautiful; all the locations were very well-chosen, I think. The music was also fantastic...I especially liked the piece Georgiana played.
All in all, for what it was meant to be--a modern-day romantic comedy that just happened to be set in the past--I think they did a creditable job of it all. I recommend it for Austen fans and P&P lovers...but it will never replace the book itself (or my favorite adaptation).