Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen, Rosamund Pike, Judi Dench
3/5In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit that I went into this film expecting to hate it...but I was pleasantly surprised to find that I only mildly disliked it.
It's hard to ruin Jane Austen, and this version of 'Pride and Prejudice' is no exception. When everything is said and done it's still a damn good story.
So my only major criticism is that it doesn't really justify itself.
With so many other adaptations around any new production has to be exceptionally good in order to live up to past films...and this one doesn't.
There's no comparison to the BBC's famous 1995 mini-series, and it lacks even the quirky charm of the 1940 Greer Garson film.
Mostly this is the fault of poor casting.
Any production of 'Pride and Prejudice' lives or dies on its Elizabeth, and Keira Knightly (though undeniably beautiful) isn't quite strong enough as an actress to support the weight of the narrative.
Still, I foresee many more period films in Keira’s future. Mark my words, she's this decade's Winona Ryder...
Matthew Macfadyen isn't bad as Mr. Darcy, but the character has been actively downgraded from 'proud' to 'kinda shy', and the line that essentially defined Darcy's character has been inexcusably removed.
When Elizabeth accuses him of being overly proud, where he once would have said, "Pride...where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation" he now says nothing, and averts his eyes.
However it must be said that Rosamund Pike is marvelous as Jane. It's wonderful to finally see a Jane that is truly, stunningly, beautiful... eclipsing even Elizabeth. It's key to the story, but so few productions allow their leading lady to be outshone. Bravo to the casting director on that score.
The ever-delightful Tom Hollander is very good as Mr. Collins, and Judi Dench plays Lady Catherine to perfection.
Overall the production isn't terrible...the sets are lovely and the lighting is beautiful (for which I give it extra points).
However, the narrative suffers from the time constraints of a feature film and the story has not been told as efficiently as it might have been.
Elizabeth's interest in Wickham is passing at best, and the implications of his ruinous elopement with Lydia hardy resonates at all, having been resolved within 10 minuets.
In addition, the characters are forced to constantly state the obvious to make sure the audience follows the social nuances of the late 18th century...but to no end. The film is decidedly modern and 21st century in both feel and tone.
Apart from that I have more than a few nit-picky historical issues...but they have been well addressed in other reviews and need not be gone into in detail (time and space do not allow for it).
All in all, while by no means a terrible film, it doesn't stand up well to most of the past productions...still, it's worth a watch.
DVD Worthy? Rent it first...for many a single viewing is probably sufficient, but it does improve somewhat the second time around.
Extras: Various short featurettes: 'The Bennet Family', 'Jane Austen: Ahead of her Time', 'Making of... ' and a Feature Commentary.
Costumes: While the novel was published (and revised) in 1813, director Joe Wright took exception the period's Empire style and choose to set the film in the late 1790s, when Austen wrote her original draft, 'First Impressions'. Anything to get the waistlines down.
(Wright thought that high-waisted gowns made women "look like marshmallows")
In the end most the dresses are cut somewhere between the natural waist and the bustline. Personally I find these dresses look ill-fit and frumpy on the waif-thin Keira Knightley and Rosamund Pike, who look much better when their outfits tend towards the Empire cut.
Caroline Bingly at least wears the newer fashions...but has apparently forgotten to dress for the Netherfield Ball and shows up in her underwear instead.
The hair is pretty bad throughout, with weird stringy bangs and too many of the women (especially married women) running around with their heads uncovered.
***
Costumes In Detail
*Additional Screen-Captures & Production Photos*
Elizabeth's Brown/Burgundy Dress
Elizabeth's Green Dress
Elizabeth's Grey Striped Dress
Elizabeth's Brown Jumper Dress
Elizabeth's White Ball Gown
Elizabeth's Blue Dress
Elizabeth's White Striped Dress
Elizabeth's Brown Dress with Lace Edging
Elizabeth's Brown Coat
Jane's Pale Blue Pelisse
Jane's Pink Gown
Jane's White Ball Gown
Jane's White Dress
Jane' Blue Coat
Caroline Bingley's Gowns
Caroline Bingly at least wears the newer fashions...but has apparently forgotten to dress for the Netherfield Ball and shows up in her underwear instead.
The hair is pretty bad throughout, with weird stringy bangs and too many of the women (especially married women) running around with their heads uncovered.
***
Costumes In Detail
*Additional Screen-Captures & Production Photos*
Elizabeth's Brown/Burgundy Dress
Elizabeth's Green Dress
Elizabeth's Grey Striped Dress
Elizabeth's Brown Jumper Dress
Elizabeth's White Ball Gown
Elizabeth's Blue Dress
Elizabeth's White Striped Dress
Elizabeth's Brown Dress with Lace Edging
Elizabeth's Brown Coat
Jane's Pale Blue Pelisse
Jane's Pink Gown
Jane's White Ball Gown
Jane's White Dress
Jane' Blue Coat
Caroline Bingley's Gowns
18 comments:
I never did see this one. :D A big reason is that I really, really don't like Keira Knightley. *shrug* It's a personal preference, but I'm not going to just get over it.
I agree with you about Jane, though. She is absolutely beautiful. Now all the lines about her beauty make perfect sense.
The hair strikes me as Regency-inspired modern prom. The wispy bangs are just like totally the newest thing. :p
I watch this version when I need a quick P&P fix. I like Keira Knightley, so I didn't have a problem with her being cast (except her bangs bothered me). I did, however, have a big problem with the relationship between Mr. & Mrs. Bennett. I'm sorry, but in the book, Mr. Bennett does not respect his wife. He only puts up with her. In this version, they were all lovey-dovey, which really got on my nerves.
All in all, the Colin Firth P&P still is the best I've ever seen.
Last week I rented the Greer Garson version and hated it so much I wanted to throw things at my TV. I won't go into why I detested it... it would take up too much time and energy. ha!
Oh... and in this 2005 version, I didn't like the "look" of the farm they lived on. Too rustic.
I've watched this film 3 times, and like it more now then when I started...I even watched the director's commentary for some insight on some of the decisions and changes.
Did you know they were *this close* to getting rid of Mary? The only reason he didn't was that 5 girls allowed for nicer compositions than 4...
Anyway, I liked it more than I thought I would, since I have mixed feelings about Kiera Knightly...but there were something things (as you mentioned) that really pissed me off.
Charlotte yelling "Don't you dare judge me!" and storming off, comes to mind.
But I've got a soft spot for the 1940's version, because I practically grew up on it (I'd already seen the 1995 version, but hadn't yet read the book). I agree that even though I think the movie is cute it is absolutely, 100% NOT Austen...
Nothing has come close to the Colin Firth version, and isn't likely to for some time.
Although I admit to not having seen the Colin Firth version (YET), I thought M. McFadyen was a decent Darcy. (I agree, everything in this version is shortened a little too much, but given the conbstraints of making this for the big screen, I think it deserves better than 3/5.) I read the book when I was very young, maybe 17; and I recall riding an emotional roller-coaster of feeling concerning Darcy. Like Elisabeth, I thought him interesting, then despicable, then darling... It's been many, many a year since I read the book, but I think McFadyen carried the inner conflict well. In that day, a man in his position would've been horribly at odds with himself; caught between society's expectations and love of a "lower born" woman. Perhaps it's in his face, so mournful at times - I just fell in love with him! Well, now I'm off to get the Colin Firth version... I do so love falling in love!
Cheers!
Hi Jen,
I love this story! I hope you enjoy the 1995 version...the extra hours really make the difference!
Even this version is good, but I have a hard time comparing it to the BBC's.
But there are some good points, as you mention.
I usually like Matthew McFadyen...and I thought the proposal scene was very sweet.
But any version of 'Pride & Prejudice' which omits the
'pride' looses a couple of points for me. It's fairly clear here that Darcy fancies Elizabeth right away, and it's mostly just shyness that holds him back.
I'll grant that in a film he can't start out too nasty, since his character has less time to change to the romantic hero...but I still think that the Laurence Olivier version handled this shift in Darcy's character much better (even if hr got overly sappy by the end).
Still, a great story!
I agree about the casting of Keira Knightly - or should I say MIS-casting? She is too thin and waif-like unlike the more voluptuous Jennifer Ehle in the 1995 BBC version. Also she sped through the complicated Austen narrative like a child in a school play who has learnt all her lines and can't wait to get the whole thing over with. Most of the time I did'nt catch what she actually said as she blurted it out so quickly. Also I found the costumes a bit 'scruffy' but as I am no expert perhaps that would have been the case for women of their class. (Please enlighten me on that one).
Let me start out by saying that I cannot stand Keira Knightly and from the moment this film was released I expected to completely hate it. After actually seeing it - I didnt have that much of a violent reaction - but it still pales in comparison to the '95 version (IMO).
Most of the casting wasnt too bad ... but i took exception to Lizzy (Keira wasnt good enough) and Mr. Bennet (somehow Donald Sutherland looked deranged throughout the whole film???). I thought Tom Hollander and Rosamund Pike were GREAT! She really is beautful. I even liked Simon Woods .. despite seeming a bit overly silly at times.
I admit that I went into the movie unhappy that they tried remaking P&P while Colin Firth was still alive. But, sweet jebus, the liberties taken didn't even advance the story, just made it more "assessable."
As much as I like some of her movies (Bend it like Beckham, POTC) Keira Knightly has really limited range as an actress and Elizabeth was clearly out of that range. One could never forget it was Keira Knightly running around in the mud looking like a starved peasant.
My biggest problem is that the screenwriter seem to have read the book once and then forgot major theme points. Elizabeth is a well-mannered gentleman's daughter, that (and her beauty and intelligence) is what made her equal to Darcy despite the lack of social connections or wealth. However, every time Elizabeth is herding a pig, missing her hat, have undone hair, or not wearing gloves at the ball just killed me.
And I won't even start on the ending (US).
And she got nominated for an Oscar for her role ... now THAT I couldnt understand.
US ending - is this the bit with Darcy and Lizzie sitting outside and theres this whole scene about 'my pearl on sundays' blah blah? Yeah, I thought that was rather out there as well.
It is really sad that such a wonderful story has been mangled to fit modern behaviour. I do agree, however, that it is very very hard to actually destroy a Jane Austen Plot, and this film is no exception, even though it comes quite close. young girls running around without hats, or gloves, married ladies without caps, to the point where a family that should be only slightly below Mr. Darcy's high standards make their home look more like a brothel. And how ill bred is barging in at someone's house in the middle of the night, whatever the reason? And, finally, lovers meeting in their nightclothes! When the movie came out, I couldn't wait to see it. Afterwards, I had to buy myself a copy of the 1995 production just to remind me what a great version of a great story feels like.
The first time I saw the 2005 version of "Pride and Prejudice" I was very disappointed. I was very used to the many hours of the BBC version. But, I began watching the 2005 version when I needed a "Pride and Prejudice" fix because it was shorter. Now I love, love, love it! It is way more romantic than the BBC version. Yes, Mr Darcy does come off a little less proud. But Kiera Knightley does an outstanding job portraying Lizzie as the strong woman that she is.
The music in the 2005 version is also much better than the BBC version. I also enjoy that in the 05 version you are more able to see Lizzie and Mr Darcy's love grow.
I could care less about the hair. And the dresses are beautiful to me no matter what era they resemble. What I a care about and love the most is the love story itself.
I love the film, I have to say. Even when it is not the best adaptation of an Austen book (never better than the BBC series), I think it's a quite good for the teens and youth who usually do not see period movies or even read such books; I believe it works nice that way.
It is very true that Knightly and Pike are so thin that makes kind of weird looking at them in a period film (so unlike Scarlett Johanson)... At the end it can be appreciated as a "modern" version of a period film.
In addition I have to say that the music is so beautiful! The sound of a old-times pianoforte is so good and interpreted by Thibaudet... Perfect.
I realize that you're in rapture over Rosamund Pike as Jane. Granted, she is the most attractive actress to portray the role, but . . . her performance did not exactly impress me. It wasn't a bad performance. But Ms. Pike has always strike me as the type who can give a really good performance, but doesn't exactly reach that level. She was like that in the Bond movie, "DIE ANOTHER DAY" and she was the same in this film.
i liked how darcy's clothes expressed his frame of mind. when lizzie's playing the piano at rosings park, she says "have you come in all your state..." When he comes back at the end, darcy' comes in a simple shirt and breeches. no cravat, no waistcoat, no jacket. and he comes on foot - lizzie's terms - not horseback. he really bares himself when he finally goes for it.
I feel like i'm the only one..but I really adore this movie.And i don't think it's because I haven't read the book yet. Because, I think that we can't compare the book with the movie, or with the bbc adaptation. That's logically from a different point of view. I've seen the Bbc adaptation, and I didn't love it that much..That was too..heavy. Too slow, too caricatural for some of the characters, and I was a lil bit disapointed because a lot of people said to me that that it was the better adaptation. I think it is the best adaptation for the respect of the location,or of the manners. But I continue to think that it was more for the fan of the book, cause I think the acting of the actors was not quite subtil, without a lot of personality. And maybe it's better like this for the readers of the book, because we can transpose more easily OUR characters..like we see them.
The 2005 adaptation is more from the only point of view of the director. But I still prefer this one, it's more passionate, more subtil, and this is a really beautiful movie.
for me, we must to not compare..and rather enjoy the thing that we watch, because it will be always like that. Everyone has his proper adaptation. There are not better thinking that one other. Just different.
(sorry for the mistakes I made in english, I am french. I hope that it' was understable.)
Sophie.
I love pride and prejudice and it is one of my most favorite stories of all times. I agree with everything you said about this film. I think it does a good job if you want a quick 2-hour dose of pride and prejudice without having to sit through the 6-hour fantastic BBC version. I was slightly disappointed with their representation of Mr. Darcy, because he is a little more strong and you have to strongly dislike him at first, and then slowly fall for him as Elizabeth does. It was nice that they showed his shy side though, because it all comes down to Mr. Darcy masking his shyness with his rude qualities. So, like I said, it was nice to see the shy side of Mr. Darcy. I am a costume design major and I study costumes a lot and I was disappointed with the inaccuracy of this film, especially with Caroline Bingley showing up to the ball in a sleeveless dress. That would never happen. Also, I love your blog and I think you post great posts that are equally informative and entertaining!
I've been mauled on plenty of Jane Austen fan sites for saying this, but I stand by my opinion of this film. I love it! I honestly prefer it to 1995.
I really do. This movie was the first regency I ever saw and caused me to actually pick up Pride and Prejudice. Needless to say, that made me an Austen geek. This movie has sentimental value to me and will always be there.
Production design was the big thing for me. I'm one of those people who will sacrifice nit-picky costume details for a beautiful design overall. The architecture, sets, and landscapes in this film are very fantastic. I think that they lend a more romantic feel to this film, something that has always blocked me appreciating the Colin Firth version (Which is great, don't get me wrong. I just feel it is very stiff because of its slavish following of the novel.). The music also helped an awful lot.
Performance-wise, this film is okay. Just on looks, I prefer the 2005 cast. They seem...truer to the actual ages of the characters in the books to me. The 1995 cast stuck me as old for some reason. On the side of acting, this movie is okay. KK is pretty good as Elizabeth. Unlike some people, I actually like her as an actress. MM was a good enough Darcy for me. His performance lacked the nuances of Firth, but this is forgiven by me due to the time constraints of the film.
Altogether, this film is the most romantic and passionate Pride and Prej adaptation out there, in my humble opinion.
I too love this version soooo much better than the 1995 version. While CF can give a great longing, adoring look, it feels so stiff overall, Almost like I'm watching a play. The characters feel overly stereotyped and I feel more like I'm watching Shakespeare than something relatively more contemporary. It doesn't feel REAL to me...like they set the book above all things. Say the lines over make a connection. It is a movie, after all.
I agree with the rustic set dressings and tone of this version. You do not have time in a movie of this length to develop Darcy from a fully prideful jackass to who he truly is. But I think MM did a wonderful job conveying tenderness, reservation and pride, not to mention PASSION. He is my Darcy forever.
KK did a wonderful job in this role. JE is nice but it's all too STIFF and the characters in the 1995 are too old. I can't buy JE as someone who is 20. KK seems appropriately young for Lizzie Bennett and real.
This version is passionate and oh the music. Sutherland is genius and so is Brenda Bethlyn. I give this movie 5/5. I adore it.
Post a Comment