It is too bad...

Rating: 3/10 (25 March 2011)

I agree wholeheartedly with mkazmierczak's review. Having first read the book, I became a die-hard Jane Austen fan. I felt surely no movie could ever do the book justice for it would have to be at least four hours or more to truly capture, and do justice to, the characters and marvelous dialog.
However, in the early 80's, I was blown away by the faithful production I saw as a mini-series on Masterpiece Theatre with Elizabeth Garvey and David Rintoul. I didn't think anything would ever hold a candle to it, but later came the Jennifer Ehle-Colin Firth version and, though at first a bit put-off as I so loved (and wore out the VHS tapes to) the Garvey-Rintoul version, after a couple of viewings when it aired on A&E, came to love it dearly as well, adding it to my DVD library. Fortunately, the Garvey-Rintoul version came out on DVD as well, so I was able to add it, having worn out my tapes.
At any rate, unlike the 40's film with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, which is untrue to the book simply because movies did not last more that 90 to 120 minutes so, hence, had many, many liberties taken with the script, this new version with Keira Knightley, et al, was dreadful because the liberties it took were so completely out of the world in which these characters lived as to be laughable.
The actors are not bad actors, most are brilliant in the roles they've played in other, finer, films. But any actor working with such a dreadful script, and working under such poor directorial judgment, is bound to look bad as a result. I don't think Deborah Moggach read the book at all, or maybe just merely skimmed it. I notice in the credits that Emma Thompson provided some additional dialog (probably the only faithful portions), which greatly shocks me as SENSE AND SENSIBILITY is one of the best Austen adaptations so far. I wish Ms. Thompson had done the *entire* screenplay. Why didn't she? She took liberties with S&S, too, but not to the detriment of the story. She kept every single pivotal and important part, and was faithful to the storyline, characters, and time period. So, again, why didn't she write this screenplay?!!! Or if not Ms. Thompson, why didn't Douglas McGrath, who did the wonderful screenplay for EMMA with Gwyneth Paltrow, write the screenplay? Or if Moggach was so intent on modernizing the story and making Elizabeth Bennett a liberated female, then she should have set the story in PRESENT DAY.
If you have never read the book, if you have never read Austen, period, and if you have never seen any of the films or mini-series based on Austen's works, and if you've absolutely no familiarity with British aristocracy and its history and many changes over the last 2 or 3 centuries, then you may very well enjoy this movie in and of itself. Otherwise, please stay away lest you be tempted to fling yourself into the abyss after watching this bastardization of Austen. I imagine this was geared precisely toward the very audience it seemed to appeal to most: young pre-teen and teenage girls who have probably never read Austen and possibly don't read much anyway.