Draws you in, but diverges from the book for no reason at all

Rating: 4/10 (2 September 2016)

Far less worthy that "Pride and Prejudice" screening from 1995. The words the actors say are entirely the same as in the former movie, hence the goal of the remake, as it appears, has been merely to make a full length movie from a series of episodes. The abridged version is no better than the old one. Say, when Elizabeth and Colonel Forrester are speaking, and she finds out about the role that Darcy has played in her sister's loss of her admirer Mr Bingley, the scene takes place during their solitary walk in Pemberley grounds (1995). This creates a nice atmosphere, where nothing gets in the way, and viewers can hear the conversation well. On the contrary, in the 2005 movie the same circumstances are being relayed to Miss Elizabeth in a church, where Mr Collins is reading his sermon. This adds nothing to the understanding of her feelings towards Mr Darcy, and their change. It merely serves to shorten the movie, and is for no other cinematographically sensible reason. As for the actors, Keira Nightley is far too attractive to play Elizabeth, and she looks sometimes too light-headed (as in the scene where she enters to visit her sister Jane when the latter is ill, her looks are so seductive, and her hair so deliberately arranged, one would never think she just walked 3 miles. And we never actually get a glimpse of her ham, "16 inches deep in mud", as in the earlier movie). And even though Matthew Macfadyen does splendidly for a Mr Darcy (not equal to Colin Firth, but quite proud and aloof), his speeches are so abridged as well, that we can hardly call his character persuasive in the movie. I can also but wonder, as other reviewers have pointed out, at Wright feeling it appropriate to create that "in-the-mist" scene in the early morning, where Elizabeth confesses her love to Mr Darcy. I hardly think it is plausible given the conventions of the Victorian times, in which the novel was set, that a woman would walk out of her home in such clothes, and the adaptation of the novel into the movie hardly demands such amends. One can only but conclude that the movie was never intended as anything more than a re-make of the former series, and it added nothing more to the screening of the novel than new faces in place of old ones. Which is very unfortunate, as the novel has a lot to convey, and this has already been decently done in the 1995 film. The new one merely reiterates it, and not too masterfully.