Not bad, but not the Best

Rating: 6/10 (8 August 2006)

There are some who see this and say it is better than the '95 version, but it just is not, and there are several reasons. The first and foremost reason it cannot touch the other is Colin Firth. And I do not mean because Colin got dunked in the lake, and looked sexy all wet. That bit is not in the book, and I wonder to myself why it was put in. That same scene in this movie is ALSO not like it is in the book - will we ever see them meeting by accident in the stables? But that aside, the reason Colin carries the other is because he just *is* Darcy. When we, as viewers, look at his face, we can see why Elizabeth is misreading him, but we can *also* see what he is really thinking. This is acting! In this movie, when Darcy proposes the first time, he BLURTS OUT most of his feelings to her . . . half the fun of the story is how they misunderstand each other, and when Darcy pulls back and puts up walls, she cannot see into his mind. This Darcy tells her part of what is actually told to her later by letter, and then they have him write the letter anyway. Stupid, IMO. Either have him tell her, or have him write it, but why both?
The second reason the '95 one is better is the length. That one is what, five hours long? It tells the entire story. This one is the Reader's Digest version and that always leaves things out.
The story itself, of course, cannot be ruined. It is Austen's best and most readable novel, and unless it is completely taken apart, it is going to continue to be a great story. But this interpretation leaves something to be desired. For one thing, the Bennets seem little more than dirt poor farmers, whereas I took it from the novel (and the '95 version) that they were comfortable, if not rich. The problem was not that they were poor now, but that the estate was entailed away from the female line. In other words, Mr. Bennet could not leave the estate to his wife and daughters, so his nephew, the simpering Collins, was going to get everything. Having five daughters, the mother spends all of her time wondering how they will live after her husband dies. That is one of the main points of the story (and in fact, Bennet was known to point out to her that SHE could very well die before him!). If the daughters are not married off well, they would be one day be destitute, but for the moment the family was comfortable enough. In the '95 version Lizzie makes it clear she is the daughter of a gentleman - the *mother* is the commoner.
In this one, the house is a run-down farm, and their clothing is little more than rags. And the fashions are decidedly UN-Austen - just look at Sense and Sensiblity, and you will see that their dresses match very well to the '95 version, but neither look anything like what they are wearing this movie. What year is it supposed to be? I can't make it out. It just does not look right for the period. They do mention having servants, but their hair is mostly undone and sloppy, as if left to do it themselves.
As for Keira - God Bless her, she does try. Her attitude as Lizzie is fine, but she is much too thin for the time period. Jennifer Ehle may not be as fashionable to "modern audiences", but that is what women looked like then. Someone as thin as Keira would have been seen as sickly.
On the upside, I loved Donald Sutherland, and Judi Dench can never disappoint. I just do not know why this needed to be made. The other was perfect. No one is ever going to do Darcy as well as Firth - why even try?