Most awful adaptation!

Rating: 1/10 (16 November 2014)

I am a big Austenite and have read nearly all of Jane Austen's novels more than once, but Pride and Prjeudice is and will always remain my favorite. I have read the book five teams and seen several adaptations of the novel. For me, watching this movie was not meant to compare it to previous adaptations. I feel it is highly unfair to compare one adaptation to another, because each producer has a different interpretation of the novel and that's completely fine, but the most important factor is to be faithful to the BOOK. I understand that it's difficult to condense a 300+ page book into 2 hours, so taking out a few scenes/characters is not a big deal, but the main essence of the book must be caught and Wright completely failed to do that. This P&P seemed like a typical chick flick that focused only on the romance aspect of P&P. Even the romance was very modernized. It did not seem like regency era romance at all. Lizzie meeting Darcy in her nightgown, and Darcy not being properly dressed as he went to propose to her a second time was a MAJOR let down for me. Elizabeth was a spirited young woman in the book, but she was also supposed to be prim and proper. She followed society's dictations on how a young woman should behave in that time period. It is why she was so disapproving of Lydia and Kity. In Wright's P&P, Elizabeth acts like how Lydia behaved in the book. She is COMPLETELY out of character, so even if Keira Knightley is a good actress, I could not appreciate her at all because of how inconsistent Elizabeth was to the book. Her character was completely butchered. As for McFayden, he was completely flat throughout the book. I did not get the feel of Darcy from him at all. I don't know where Wright found this guy, he was a complete misfit.
I was also shocked at how poor the Bennets were portrayed! My God, they were portrayed like peasants! Their house had farm animals running through it. I could not watch any scene that took place at Longbourn because they were atrocious. Let me make one thing clear to those who think this movie's depiction of the Bennets was accurate. The Bennets were NOT poor. Their estate was entailed because Mr. Bennet did not have any sons, but they were NOT poor. They supposed to be middle- class and they also belonged to the landed gentry. In social status, they were higher than the Bingleys even if the Bingleys were richer. Longbourn was supposed to be a decent estate that would make more profit if Mr. Bennet took better care of his tenants, but the condition of the estate was not poor. It was a handsome house and their property was also supposed to be well cared for. This movie's depiction of Longbourn is absolutely atrocious. Mrs. Bennet looked like a maid, whereas in the book, she had servants to do the work for her. She was a gentleman's wife after all.
The hairstyles of the Bennet daughters were also ridiculous. Jane was by far the most decent looking out of them. The rest of the sisters, including Elizabeth, were poorly dressed and had messy hair. I don't get why Wright made them look downright poor. It's completely inaccurate! The Meryton Assembly was another shocker. It looked like an uncouth barn dance, not an assembly of the gentry! There was class and style in the Regency Era, even in the country. Balls and assemblies were attended by the higher classes who behaved with far more decorum than the Meryton folk of this movie did. It was way too congested and uncouth for a country dance of the gentry.
Bingley going into Jane's bedchamber was a major letdown. Men NEVER EVER went into a woman's bedchamber who was not his wife or sister. It was considered completely inappropriate and would have ruined Jane's reputation had it happened in the book. She would have been considered compromised.
The way men and women interacted, the butchered dialogues....it was all too modern and alien to me. It did not seem like Regency at all, so I do not know what research anyone did. The script seemed to be written by someone who never opened the book. An adaptation does not have to be a 3-hour long mini-series to be faithful to the book. Even a movie can do it well if the correct director does it. The essence of the book must be retained, even if major scenes and characters are taken out.
BBC's "Death Comes to Pemberley" which is even more recent than this movie, did a far better job in capturing the Regency Era than this movie did. Even though this movie was not about P&P but based on a novel sequence written by modern day author P.D. James, the characters were still consistent and the overall mannerisms of the characters was like the Regency Era. I did not like the actress chosen to play Elizabeth, but she SEEMED like Elizabeth in acting and character so I still enjoyed her role in the film. The guy chosen to play Darcy was great. He brought to mind Colin Firth's unforgettable \Darcy, and I enjoyed every one of his scenes. He was the Master of Pemberley unquestionably.
I wish someone makes a P&P movie with the actors from Death Comes to Pemberley. They all are obviously a bit too old (since it takes place 6 years after P&P), but their acting is great and they are consistent with the book. I can overlook the age and beauty factor of people if their acting is consistent. For me, consistency and accuracy are far more important than beauty and age.
Overall, this P&P was a major letdown. As an Austenite, I feel it was an insult to Jane Austen's most beloved book.