pride and prejudice movie review

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, miss knightley meets mr. darcy.

Now streaming on:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. Everybody knows the first sentence of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. But the chapter ends with a truth equally acknowledged about Mrs. Bennet, who has five daughters in want of husbands: "The business of her life was to get her daughters married."

Romance seems so urgent and delightful in Austen because marriage is a business, and her characters cannot help treating it as a pleasure. Pride and Prejudice is the best of her novels because its romance involves two people who were born to be in love, and care not about business, pleasure, or each other. It is frustrating enough when one person refuses to fall in love, but when both refuse, we cannot rest until they kiss.

Of course all depends on who the people are. When Dorothea marries the Rev. Casaubon in Eliot's Middlemarch, it is a tragedy. She marries out of consideration and respect, which is all wrong; she should have married for money, always remembering that where money is, love often follows, since there is so much time for it. The crucial information about Mr. Bingley, the new neighbor of the Bennet family, is that he "has" an income of four or five thousand pounds a year. One never earns an income in these stories, one has it, and Mrs. Bennet ( Brenda Blethyn ) has her sights on it.

Her candidate for Mr. Bingley's hand is her eldest daughter, Jane; it is orderly to marry the girls off in sequence, avoiding the impression that an older one has been passed over. There is a dance, to which Bingley brings his friend Darcy. Jane and Bingley immediately fall in love, to get them out of the way of Darcy and Elizabeth, who is the second Bennet daughter. These two immediately dislike each other. Darcy is overheard telling his friend Bingley that Elizabeth is "tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me." The person who overhears him is Elizabeth, who decides she will "loathe him for all eternity." She is advised within the family circle to count her blessings: "If he liked you, you'd have to talk to him."

These are the opening moves in Joe Wright's new film "Pride & Prejudice," one of the most delightful and heartwarming adaptations made from Austen or anybody else. Much of the delight and most of the heart comes from Keira Knightley , who plays Elizabeth as a girl glowing in the first light of perfection. She is beautiful, she has opinions, she is kind but can be unforgiving. "They are all silly and ignorant like other girls," says her father in the novel, "but Lizzie has something more of quickness than her sisters."

Knightley's performance is so light and yet fierce that she makes the story almost realistic; this is not a well-mannered "Masterpiece Theatre" but a film where strong-willed young people enter life with their minds at war with their hearts. The movie is more robust than most period romances; it is set earlier than usual, in the late 1700s, a period more down to earth than the early Victorian years. The young ladies don't look quite so much like illustrations for Vanity Fair, and there is mud around their hems when they come back from a walk. It is a time of rural realities: When Mrs. Bennet sends a daughter to visit Netherfield Park, the country residence of Mr. Bingley, she sends her on horseback, knowing it will rain, and she will have to spend the night.

The plot by this point has grown complicated. It is a truth universally acknowledged by novelists that before two people can fall in love with each other, they must first seem determined to make the wrong marriage with someone else. It goes without saying that Lizzie fell in love with young Darcy ( Matthew MacFadyen ) the moment she saw him, but her pride has been wounded. She tells Jane: "I might more easily forgive his vanity had he not wounded mine."

The stakes grow higher. She is told by the dashing officer Wickham ( Rupert Friend ) that Darcy, his childhood friend, cheated him of a living that he deserved. And she believes that Darcy is responsible for having spirited Bingley off to London to keep him out of the hands of her sister Jane. Lizzie even begins to think she may be in love with Wickham. Certainly she is not in love with the Rev. Collins ( Tom Hollander ), who has a handsome living and would be Mrs. Bennet's choice for a match. When Collins proposes, the mother is in ecstasy, but Lizzie declines, and is supported by her father ( Donald Sutherland ), a man whose love for his girls outweighs his wife's financial planning.

All of these characters meet and circle each other at a ball in the village Assembly Hall, and the camera circles them. The sequence feels like one unbroken shot, and has the same elegance as Visconti's long single take as he follows the prince through the ballrooms in " The Leopard ." We see the characters interacting, we see Lizzie avoiding Collins and enticing Darcy, we understand the politics of these romances, and we are swept up in the intoxication of the dance. In a later scene as Lizzie and Darcy dance together everyone else somehow vanishes (in their eyes, certainly), and they are left alone within the love they feel.

But a lot must happen before the happy ending, and I particularly admired a scene in the rain where Darcy and Lizzie have an angry argument. This argument serves two purposes: It clears up misunderstandings, and it allows both characters to see each other as the true and brave people they really are. It is not enough for them to love each other; they must also love the goodness in each other, and that is where the story's true emotion lies.

The movie is well cast from top to bottom; like many British films, it benefits from the genius of its supporting players. Judi Dench brings merciless truth-telling to her role as a society arbiter; Sutherland is deeply amusing as a man who lives surrounded by women and considers it a blessing and a fate, and as his wife Blethyn finds a balance between her character's mercenary and loving sides. She may seem unforgivably obsessed with money, but better to be obsessed with money now than with poverty hereafter.

When Lizzie and Darcy finally accept each other in "Pride & Prejudice," I felt an almost unreasonable happiness. Why was that? I am impervious to romance in most films, seeing it as a manifestation of box office requirements. Here is it different, because Darcy and Elizabeth are good and decent people who would rather do the right thing than convenience themselves. Anyone who will sacrifice their own happiness for higher considerations deserves to be happy. When they realize that about each other their hearts leap, and, reader, so did mine.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

I Used to Be Funny

Monica castillo.

The Young Wife

The Garfield Movie

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Tomris laffly.

Back to Black

Peyton robinson.

Young Woman and the Sea

Christy lemire, film credits.

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Rated PG for some mild thematic elements

128 minutes

Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet

Matthew MacFadyen as Darcy

Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet

Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet

Simon Woods as Charles Bingley

Rupert Friend as Lt. Wickham

Tom Hollander as William Collins

Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet

Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet

Judi Dench as Lady Catherine

Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet

Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet

Directed by

Deborah Moggach

Based on the novel by

Jane Austen

Latest blog posts

Black Writers Week 2024: Table of Contents

The LightReel Film Festival Finishes Strong

How Women of Color Are Shifting the Narrative

It's Physical Work: Barry Jenkins on The Underground Railroad

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Get the app
Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

Kids' Mental Health Apps and Websites for Anxiety, Depression, Coping Skills, and Professional Support

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

Pride & prejudice, common sense media reviewers.

Gorgeous Jane Austen adaptation has timeless appeal.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Themes include compassion and humility as antidote

Elizabeth Bennett is a headstrong woman who knows

Some clever verbal references to sexual desire. So

One use of "ass."

Some social drinking at parties, but no one acts i

Positive Messages

Themes include compassion and humility as antidotes to the titular qualities of pride and prejudice. Through Elizabeth's example, the importance of following your heart instead of financial concerns when it comes to marriage is shown. The challenges of very restrictive social conventions are made clear.

Positive Role Models

Elizabeth Bennett is a headstrong woman who knows what she does and doesn't want in her life, and, despite the restrictions placed upon her in a male-dominated society, is willing to do what it takes to make her dreams come true, no matter what anyone in her family or elsewhere has to say about it.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Some clever verbal references to sexual desire. Some rain-soaked declarations of sexual tension and then desire. During a sermon, a minister makes a slip of the tongue regarding the word "intercourse."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Some social drinking at parties, but no one acts intoxicated.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that Pride & Prejudice , based on the novel by Jane Austen , includes discussions of marriage for money. Set in 19th-century England, it offers a mostly gentle, sometimes incisive critique of class and gender systems. Characters drink at a party, make mild sexual allusions, and argue with one another concerning money and romance. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

Parents say (29)
Kids say (64)

Based on 29 parent reviews

Perfect for entire family. Help boys understand how to treat the female sex with honor, dignity, and respect.

What's the story.

Elizabeth Bennet ( Keira Knightley ) is self-directed and stubborn, not to mention prone to PRIDE & PREJUDICE. Although she's a good girl, looking after her four sisters, trying to appease her mother (Brenda Blethyn), and doting on her daddy (Donald Sutherland), she also wants more than marriage to a boring man who happens to have money. She's destined to find her match in Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen). They meet at a ball near her family home, Darcy being a guest of Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) and his sister Caroline (Kelly Reilly). Their arrival in town sets the Bennets, especially the bubbly missus, into a tizzy, as the girls are looking for wealthy husbands since their own respectable but small family estate is set to be inherited by the nearest male heir, Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander).

Is It Any Good?

Based on the Jane Austen novel, this film's overly dramatic music and golden-lit fields are salvaged by Keira Knightley's remarkable charm. She's well-suited to play Elizabeth. In the usual Austen pairing off, designated couples are defined, divided, and brought back together. Upright sort Bingley ("I'm not a big reader, I prefer being out of doors") falls for Elizabeth's bland sister Jane ( Rosamund Pike ), and Darcy starts squabbling with Elizabeth. He broods and grumps, she's given to pensive rhapsodies, twisting around and around on a rope swing in the family barn, the image slowed down to make sure viewers note her daunting loveliness. Darcy certainly does -- again and again, even as he does his best to resist, by disparaging the locals ("I find the country perfectly adequate") and convincing Bingley to abandon Jane.

Though their volatile romance is the basis for Austen's class critique, it's a romance, and Elizabeth must come to realize not only that she is attracted to this difficult fellow but also that he's generous and tender -- perfectly adequate boyfriend material -- and only a bit oppressed by his own relative, the ferocious Lady Catherine ( Judi Dench ). Still, the film follows Austen's shape without Austen's sharpness. The tinkly piano annoys, the expansive landscapes look romantic. And Elizabeth can make the sentimental choice at last, when she actually falls in love with her monied, much desired object.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about Elizabeth's rebelliousness in Pride & Prejudice : How does she worry her mother but also inspire her father's loyalty? How do the parents handle their disagreement about Elizabeth's choices?

What do you see as the challenges in adapting a classic novel into a movie?

In this movie set in the early 19th century, how are attitudes concerning love, gender roles, and economic class shown?

Compare the movie to the book. How does this Elizabeth compare to the one you imagined?

How do the characters in Pride & Prejudice demonstrate compassion and humility ? Why are these important character strengths ?

Movie Details

In theaters : November 11, 2005
On DVD or streaming : February 28, 2006
Cast : Donald Sutherland , Keira Knightley , Matthew Macfadyen
Director : Joe Wright
Inclusion Information : Female actors
Studio : Focus Features
Genre : Romance
Topics : Book Characters
Character Strengths : Compassion , Humility
Run time : 127 minutes
MPAA rating : PG
MPAA explanation : some mild thematic elements
Last updated : April 19, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

Sense and Sensibility

Pride and Prejudice

Romance movies, love stories: classic romance tales, related topics.

Book Characters

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

What's the Tomatometer®?
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening this week
Top box office
Coming soon to theaters
Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

Fandango at Home
Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Inside Out 2 Link to Inside Out 2
Hit Man Link to Hit Man
Thelma Link to Thelma

New TV Tonight

House of the Dragon: Season 2
Hotel Cocaine: Season 1
Tony Awards: Season 77
Megamind Rules!: Season 1
Shoresy: Season 3
Grantchester: Season 9
Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown: Season 1
Hart to Heart: Season 4
Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini: Season 1
Chopper Cops: Season 1

Pride & Prejudice Reviews

The big-screen version of Pride & Prejudice doesn't disappoint and may even reach a few young people who normally might not be attracted to a period piece.

Full Review | Original Score: B | Jul 27, 2021

Knightley makes for a spunky Lizzie but it's MacFayden's natural glumness that actually makes him quite the perfect Darcy.

Full Review | Nov 17, 2020

Joe Wright successfully avoids the stuffy feel of those British period pieces. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Nov 20, 2019

Joe Wright reformulates the period piece into a delightful modern take. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Nov 20, 2019

Although it might leave one wanting in regards to the complicated feelings of love, Joe Wright's film is worth the look. [Full Review in Spanish]

Wright adapts the story to the rhythm of a dance, makes the dialogue not seem look like ancient prose and illuminates not with technical artifice, but with the beauty and freshness of Keira Knightley's Elizabeth. [Full Review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Nov 20, 2019

A sumptuous, condensed and very well-interpreted version of the English classic. [Full Review in Spanish]

Over-familiar material gets innovative, yet faithful, treatment from Joe Wright in this lovely little adaptation of Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice'.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Oct 31, 2019

Director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach have done an adequate job in cutting Austen's material down to size, allowing time for the secondary tales to develop while never losing sight of the all-pervading romance.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Apr 26, 2019

This movie was stuffy, boring, cumbersome and all around annoying to me.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Jul 31, 2012

Joe Wright should be applauded for delivering a vividly realised Austen adap -- one which confirms Knightley has graduated from the Jackie Bisset of the '00s to this decade's Julie Christie.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Nov 15, 2011

OMG I loved this movie so much that I have to turn in my Manly Man Club ID card now.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/5 | Apr 4, 2011

Pride and Prejudice is a gorgeous and well-acted adaptation.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | Apr 29, 2009

Director Joe Wright's filmic rendition of Jane Austin's classic novel is sumptuous but never fussy.

Full Review | Original Score: B+ | Apr 17, 2009

za obi%u010Dnu publiku, %u010Dije %u0107e potrebe za kvalitetnim filmom zadovoljiti ova holivudska obrada knji%u017Eevnog evergrina, koja po svemu sude%u0107i nije posljednja.

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Jun 21, 2007

Quite literally, a delightful surprise.

Full Review | Feb 22, 2007

... the classic chick flick story long before any flick found the word chick.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.0/4.0 | Dec 30, 2006

full review in Greek

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Oct 3, 2006

Luminous visuals, subtle thematic statements, and fine acting. A lovely period piece that surely will stand the test of time.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/4 | Sep 27, 2006

Una pelcula irnica y romntica, con lujos de ambientacin y fotografa, fiel al espritu de la novela de Jane Austen en que se basa.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Apr 25, 2006

Frequently Asked Questions
Join HS Insider

About FAQs Join

Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth dance together at the ball. (Universal Pictures)

Arts and Entertainment

Review: how the 2005 film adaptation of ‘pride and prejudice’ vivifies jane austen’s classic narrative.

Her works include romance, but instead of pursuing sentimental language popular in her time, her characters reveal natural imperfections and flaws. Amongst her well-known classics, “ Pride and Prejudice ” proves to be the most famous among them. This story has been adapted into numerous TV shows and films due to its widespread adoration and integration of both romantic and satirical elements.

Although it is hard for movies to explore the same level of depth given its time limitation, “Pride and Prejudice,” starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen, nevertheless successfully illustrates the reserved yet beautiful romance that blooms between Elizabeth and Darcy through its own film language.

The story follows Elizabeth Bennet (played by Keira Knightley), an intelligent, independent-minded young lady and the second oldest daughter of Mr. Bennet of Longbournm. However, since Mr. Bennet’s estate can only be passed to a male heir and the Bennet family has no son, it is necessary for at least one daughter from the family to marry well.

A perfect chance arrives as Mr. Bingley, an affluent bachelor, visits the neighborhood with his sister and friend, Darcy. Mr. Darcy is also extremely wealthy, but his arrogant and aloof personality drives others away. Bingley falls in love with Jane, the Bennets’ eldest daughter, and through the two families’ relationship, Elizabeth increases interactions with the infamous Mr. Darcy. As Elizabeth learns to overlook initial prejudice and differentiate between authentic and superficial traits, a dynamic connection forms between them.

The Magic of Camera Perspective

Specific camera shots elevate the chemistry between Darcy and Elizabeth. The movie’s close-up shots on objects and facial expressions add nuances to the development of their relationship without blatantly declaring the characters’ feelings.

The scene when Elizabeth leaves Bingley’s manor at the beginning of the film perfectly exemplifies this narrative technique; as the camera follows Elizabeth up the carriage, it suddenly cuts to a closeup of Darcy’s hand holding hers, helping her get inside the vehicle.

The perspective then dramatically returns to Elizabeth, this time a more focused shot of her startled expression at Darcy’s gesture. Finally, a close-up frame of Darcy’s hand ensues as he expands and retracts his fingers, feeling the lingering temperature of her touch.

Although the only physical interaction in this scene is a brief graze of hands, this camera paneling technique of their hands, Elizabeth’s expression and Darcy’s reactions speak volumes of their underlying romantic tension.

Mr. Darcy (played by Matthew Macfadyen) holds Elizabeth Bennet (played by Kiera Knightley)’s hand as she steps into the carriage. (Universal Pictures)

Another instance of excellent camera close-up and placement is when Elizabeth and Darcy meet again at Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s manor, and the former plays the piano. She speaks to Darcy’s friend about Darcy’s puzzling behavior at the Netherfield Ball while the camera encompasses all three characters in the scene.

However, when the friend exits and only Elizabeth and Darcy talk to each other, each shot focuses on their expressions separately. Chemistry overflows the screen as the camera concentrates on only one face at a time, capturing nuances in their facial expressions and implicitly demonstrating each character’s contrasting emotions: Darcy, embarrassed and wanting to justify himself, and Elizabeth feeling sarcastic toward him.

Elevation Through Weather and Atmosphere

Aside from strategically placed camera angles, the movie adds layers to the story’s atmosphere through weather that isn’t present in the book to showcase the fervorous intensity of the main characters’ relationship.

When Darcy proposes to Elizabeth for the first time, a pouring storm happens simultaneously. Their clothes and hair soak with water as they argue after Darcy’s rude elaboration of his confession, and the background audio of rain creates more drama to their intense conversation.

While the book describes their quarrel vividly, it does not present any details about the weather. The movie production team intentionally added a gloomy downpour to give this proposal a tense ambiance, hinting its failure.

Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet argue intensely in the rain. (Universal Pictures)

Darcy’s second proposal suggests an entirely different aura from the former; at one of the film’s emotional peaks, weather plays crucially to the scene’s romantic chemistry. As Darcy walks toward Elizabeth, a soft morning fog envelops his figure and a hint of the orange sun appears on the horizon.

During their exchange, the sky lightens gently to suggest the profession of love that lingers on Darcy’s lips. Finally, sunlight illuminates their profiles and blurs the camera as they hold hands and touch their heads together. Cinematography drives the emotional development of this segment, creating an atmosphere that leaves a heart-stirring impression for the audience.

Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy share a heartfelt moment under the rising sun. (Universal Pictures)

My hope for romantic love shifted drastically as I grew older; from dreamy fairy tales about princesses and knights to the reality of modern relationships, I was exposed to interpretations of romance but never truly experienced this mythic feeling.

In this era of speed-dating, people idealize the concept of love more than their true feelings toward their partners. Many teenagers around me take a similar approach, hurrying to leave their single identity but only to find themselves losing interest. For the first time, we expose ourselves to loving someone, but we are still too young to understand the responsibility that comes with it.

After watching “Pride and Prejudice,” I resonate deeply with the romance between Darcy and Elizabeth; throughout the course of their relationship, they also discover more about themselves and make improvements along the way.

Review: Why Mitski is the indie rock artist women of color have been waiting for

by reddyrithika9197 | Arts and Entertainment

While singer-songwriter Mitski's fourth studio album "Puberty 2" came out nearly eight years ago, its message continues to resonate with women everywhere, especially those of color. To me, it contains some of the most beautifully written poetry ever seen within the...

Protecting pages: The culture war on literature and fighting for literary freedom

by sophief826 | Education , Opinion

Recently, high school student Annabelle Jenkins made headlines when she handed her superintendent a copy of "The Handmaid's Tale," a book he had banned just months earlier, during her graduation ceremony. According to the New York Post, Jenkins wanted to bring...

Los Alamitos High School to introduce boys dance elective starting next year

by Bella Kim | Arts and Entertainment , Hero , Schools

For the first time, Los Alamitos High School’s dance program is offering a section specifically for boys. Beginning next school year, boys can join the second period class and receive fine art, PE or elective credit. Interested Griffins should contact their counselor...

Opinion: Women changing the game

by jessysiegmann | News , Opinion , Schools , Sports

Interest in Women's Basketball has risen greatly in the year 2024. But why is that? Ratings in the past for women's basketball have been low. The WNBA only has 12 franchises, with Toronto Golden State expansion coming soon. As the Women's NCAA tournament wrapped up,...

Discover more from HS Insider

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Pride and Prejudice (2005) – A 10th Anniversary Review

Ten years ago, the now adored adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice premiered in limited release on November 11, 2005. The film was adapted by Deborah Moggach with some additional script help from Emma Thompson (who won the Oscar for her adaptation of Sense and Sensibility ) and directed by Joe Wright ( Atonement ). This adaptation of Pride and Prejudice had just the right talent to bring Jane Austen’s beloved novel to the screen.

RELATED: Pride and Prejudice (1995) A 20th Anniversary Review

Surprisingly, there hadn’t been a feature film adaptation since the 1940 one starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. And with the iconic status surrounding the much-loved 1995 TV adaptation with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, bringing the story to the big screen would be no easy task – especially if Wright wanted to please Jane Austen fans around the world who viewed the 1995 adaptation as the quintessential version.

Still, Joe Wright found a way to once again bring Jane Austen’s story to life in a new way. The 2000’s (with period dramas like North & South and Jane Eyre ) brought a more modern approach to period filmmaking, introducing younger fans into the world of costume drama in a more accessible approach, which Wright did in spades.

So, on this special 10 th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice 2005, I decided it was time to revisit this instant classic – which will continue to rank as one of the best period dramas of all time for many years to come.

Years after its release, the Keira Knightley/Matthew Macfadyen version of Austen’s novel has become a real favorite amongst period drama lovers everywhere. While there’s no dive into a pond, there is an epic walk at sunrise as Mr. Darcy walks romantically (and with purpose) toward Elizabeth. This may be one of the most rewind-worthy scenes in any film ever (nothing competes with the Dirty Dancing end sequence – sorry Mr. Darcy), perfectly encapsulating why old-fashioned romance on the big screen works – and why there needs to be more of it.

RELATED: Classic Romantic Moment Series: Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy

Macfadyen had a lot to live up to following on the heels of Colin Firth, but he found a way to make the character his own. Macfadyen, like Darcy in a way, has a way of growing on you. At first, I didn’t like him because all I could see was Colin Firth’s interpretation in my mind. But as the film continued, Macfadyen grew on me just as Elizabeth found herself warming to him as well. Now, I admit I love him every bit as much in the role as Firth.

As for Elizabeth Bennet, Knightley interpreted Elizabeth with an almost introverted temperament – prone to prideful outbursts due to keeping her feelings to herself. Knightley captures the independent nature of Elizabeth while also giving her a sensual appeal. Keira Knightley received an Oscar nomination for her performance – and deservedly so – for the full range of emotions she presents throughout the film. It may be her best role to date. Together, Macfadyen and Knightley created an intense onscreen chemistry with one entertaining scene after the other – their banter a close match to Austen’s.

Joe Wright proved to be the perfect director possible to bring Jane Austen into the 21 st century while also staying true to the essence and spirit of Jane Austen’s classic masterpiece.

On top of Knightley and Macfadyen, every role (down to the last extra) was perfectly cast in this adaptation. From the “shy” Jane (this is my favorite interpretation of her character), the loving Mr. Bennet, the Orlando Bloom take on Mr. Wickham, the foolish and selfish Lydia, the hilarious and eye-rolling Mr. Collins, the most three-dimensional interpretation of Charlotte Lucas who feels trapped by her situation in life, the scene-stealing Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourg, the sweet Mr. Bingley and more, everyone was perfection. Not only did each actor give the best performance possible, but they played off each other with an explosion of synergy. Joe Wright (as surprising of a choice he was at the time) proved to be the perfect director possible to bring Jane Austen into the 21 st century while also staying true to the essence and spirit of Jane Austen’s classic masterpiece.

Besides the strong performances, the authenticity of the story was also incredible with accurate period detail, including gorgeous costumes from costume designer Jacqueline Durran, and a level of realism used with characterization, camera angles and more.

One major change to this adaptation was the setting and tone. Wright brought a touch of romanticism to the story with shots of nature and gothic like weather to represent the shifting moods of the characters. The Bronte-esque approach to Austen’s work may be a strange choice, but it really worked. Who can forget the impassioned first proposal between Darcy and Elizabeth in the rain? It was an artistic choice and one that paid off. Wright was able to condense the length of the novel while still capturing the essence of the story by incorporating visual cues that matched the feelings of reading Pride and Prejudice – at least as Wright interpreted it. It was a brilliant move on his part.

A perfect example of this visual technique was the scene when Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy dance (and argue) with the crowd disappearing around them. That way, the audience would understand that nobody else was in the room for Darcy and Elizabeth. A clever, visual metaphor.

Overall, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice has the best of what good period dramas have to offer. The script with its clever dialogue, the set design, the beautiful costumes, the performances, the smoldering, the realistic female relationships, flawed and human female characters, the epic old-fashioned romance where the touch of a hand is worth its weight in gold. Not to mention Mr. Darcy. And then there’s Elizabeth – who most of us want to be (you know you take those online Jane Austen quizzes and cheat!)

The 10 th anniversary of this romantic drama marks the perfect time for a re-watch – or a first-time watch if you still haven’t been able to risk seeing another adaptation after the 1995 masterpiece. I say enjoy this wonderful version and remember: There’s plenty of room for more than one great adaptation. I like to think of it like a play. There are many productions with various directors and actors over the years, but each interpretation brings something new. And what this adaptation brings is magic!

Do you love Pride and Prejudice 2005? What are your thoughts on Joe Wright’s interpretation? Do you have a favorite moment? Let me know in the comments.

Photos: Focus Features/Universal

Amber works as a writer and digital publisher full-time and fell in love with stories and imagination at an early age. She has a Humanities and Film Degree from BYU, co-created The Silver Petticoat Review, contributed as a writer to various magazines, and has an MS in Publishing from Pace University, where she received the Publishing Award of Excellence and wrote her thesis on transmedia, Jane Austen, and the romance genre. Her ultimate dreams are publishing books, writing and producing movies, traveling around the world, and forming a creative village of talented storytellers trying to change the world through art.

10 thoughts on “Pride and Prejudice (2005) – A 10th Anniversary Review”

I LOVE this adaptation! It’s gorgeous, romantic (that first proposal… *swoon*) and I so admire the changes the production took to make it its own story. Plus, given it had only two hours to tell it in, the story is told beautifully in that limited boxy space, and very well at that. 🙂

Yes, I agree. The filmmakers really did a wonderful job with only two hours to pull off such a long novel!

I’m with you! It’s true this version isn’t as epic and classic as the 1995 series, but it is not a fair comparison and as you say Knightley was well able to capture the independent nature of Elizabeth. For me the film is a delight to watch and re-watch. The time constraints of the film almost work to amplify the emotion and beauty of the story, instantly transporting me to JA bliss.

I love this adaption, too! It’s always a pleasure to watch it again and again(for about 10 times at least), and the filmmaker did a really great job to put the whole story into a 2 hour movie! (ps. the background music was awesome, too.)

This is real late, but you that wasn’t Orlando Bloom who played Mr Wickham right?

Thanks! I was going to point that out!

i love this movie so much. The casting, the costumes, the cinematography… WOW. Maybe I love it so much because I’m not a Jane Austen fan, maybe I wouldn’t like it if I were, but I can watch and rewatch this movie again and again.

My daughter and I have watched this movie no less than 100 times. We are completely in love with this movie. Elizabeth is so fiercely independent and so amazing to watch.

I’m sorry to disagree! Maybe it is because my love of period dramas started with the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, but I just couldn’t warm to the characters in this adaptation. I could have lived with this version of Lizzy, although throughout the whole movie I was waiting on her to be witty and outspoken, which is her main characteristic in the book and which was so evident in the 1995 adaptation with Jennifer Ehle. Worse for me was this version of Darcy. Macfadyen looked mostly whiny even when he was attempting to stare smoulderingly. Maybe it is just me… I guess I’m not a big fan. The hairdressers in this movie didn’t help with this terrible wig! I don’t believe any gentleman in that period would have let himself been seen with shaggy hair like this. The other characters were comparably flat. The father for instance. There was hardly any wit. He seemed sleepy to me. The sisters were ok, I guess, but nobody can come near David Bamber and Allison Steadman as Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet. While I liked the moody camerawork, the sets were so so. First you see for example Lady Catherines House and then Pemberly. While Lady Catherine is rich and pompous, Mr. Darcy is rich, but has style. When Lizzy toured his house I thought the whole time, that this doesn’t fit. It was overloaded with shiny things and artwork. Maybe they wanted to project with all the naked statues that he was a liberal artisty kind of guy? Not so stiff and arrogant? Maybe they have “slightly” overdone it? I could pick it apart further, but will stop now. As I said in the beginning: I fell in love with the BBC miniseries with Jennifer Ehle and Collin Firth, which I have watched countless times. It is difficult for me not to compare. If you liked this version, disregard my rant, please 😉 and forgive the possibly weird English full of mistakes. It is not my native language.

Thank you to the authors of this site. It is a good inspiration to watch my favorite period dramas again and discover new ones.

Adaptations will not always speak to each individual, and that’s okay. 🙂

Comments are closed.

Austenprose

Your online source for Jane Austen and her legacy

Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review

I vividly remember sitting in the theatre in 2005 waiting for the curtain to rise on the new Pride & Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfayden. I was excited that one of my favorite Jane Austen novels was being trotted out as a major motion picture. It had been 65 years since MGM released its theatrical version of Pride and Prejudice and I was looking forward to two hours of sumptuous costumes and eye-popping settings that were not set in the Victorian era!

A New Mr. Darcy

I had been reading about the Focus Features production for months on the Internet, especially at Austenblog, where the editrix Mags had been following the media promotional machine very closely. I had no idea who the British actor slated to portray the iconic romantic hero Mr. Darcy was. My sympathy for him was already acute. How could he possibly fill those big, black, shiny Hessian boots that Colin Firth’s strode about in so effortlessly in 1995? Queue fanfare music and red velvet curtain rising at the theater.

Overcoming Pride and Prejudice, Again

Since this movie was released eight years ago and has been available on DVD since February 2006, is there Janeite left in the world who has not seen it? Just in case you don’t know what it is about here is the blurb from the production notes:

Sparks fly when spirited Elizabeth Bennet meets single, rich, and proud Mr. Darcy. But Mr. Darcy reluctantly finds himself falling in love with a woman beneath his class. Can each overcome their own pride and prejudice?

Pride and Prejudice 2005 Darcy and Lizzy

An Entirely New Interpretation of Austen’s Story

Adapted from Jane Austen’s classic novel by Deborah Moggach, with a spit polish on the dialogue by Emma Thompson (uncredited), director Joe Wright had a definite vision of what his movie version of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice would be—and it is entirely different from what we had seen on screen or television before. Even though he assembled a fine cast of British actors, and a talented production team to relay his concept, my first impressions were ill-favored. However, the movie is appreciated by many and received four Academy Award nominations, including best actress for Knightley. Some Austen fans absolutely adored it—others not so much. I remained in the grey zone. Even after many years and several viewings, I am ambivalent, and that is the problem. The good stuff seemed to cancel out the bad stuff and left me in Switzerland.

Pride and Prejudice 2005 a visit to Netherfield

Television Mini-Series VS. Movie Version

Comparing it to its predecessors is unfair, but it is inevitable. This movie is only two hours and nine minutes long, versus the five hours plus 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries. For those who enjoyed the Colin Firth version, which attentively followed much of Austen’s plot and included many lines of her dialogue, the transition to a shorter length will seem truncated—and rightly so. Wright’s version is set in the late eighteenth century and not in the prettified early nineteenth century of the 1995 miniseries. Honestly, the fashions in the late eighteenth century are not as striking as the Regency era. Are we swayed by pretty things? Heck yes!

Deeper Social Chasm

The most disturbing difference in the two versions is in the social chasm between the two adaptations Bennet families. The 2005 version’s clothing, furnishing, attitudes, and manners are decidedly lower in station, bordering upon peasant class. This stark contrast makes the social class difference between the heroine Elizabeth Bennet’s lower-class landed gentry upbringing and the very wealthy and refined upper-class Mr. Darcy very wide indeed, and all the more amazing that he chooses her as his bride. Love truly wins the day.

What Would Austen Say?

In the 2005 adaptation, Austen still has the final say on many social issues she was chiding in her novel, but the Byronic depths that screenwriter Moggach and director Wright use to achieve their vision of the story were disappointing. Of note: Austen would have cringed during the first proposal scene with Elizabeth and Darcy. Her hero was never meant to be a wet, sad-eyed puppy, nor her heroine tempted to kiss him.

The Good Stuff

At the risk of sounding like sour grapes, I will say that there were changes and interpretations that I did like. The family dynamics were interesting to watch in both the Bennet and the Bingley household. The Bennet sisters seemed more in tune with each other and concerned about each other’s welfare. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are more affectionate and logical. While this seemed more agreeable over-all, it made the dynamics rather bland and canceled out what Austen achieved in her characterizations. There were a few performances that held the dictum. Simon Woods as Charles Bingley really gave the standout performance of the film adding an empty-headed and open-hearted suitor that was truly endearing. Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins was hysterical. Will we ever think about potatoes in the same way again? Judi Dench is by far the most imposing and imperious Lady Catherine de Bourgh to date. Her hot laser stare sent chills up the back of my neck during the scene at Longbourn when she asks Elizabeth to deny an engagement to her nephew, Mr. Darcy.

The Not So Good Stuff

Matthew Macfadyen as the proud hero had a fabulous speaking voice which was really a plus, but what the director made his character do really canceled out his finer qualities. Keira Knightley as the decidedly impertinent Lizzy Bennet did have her moments of spark and fire, but an Oscar nomination? Hardly. I understand the “you have bewitched me body and soul” ending was added for the benefit of American audiences. One assumes by this addition that we did not like how Austen had written it? We were not amused. The music by Dario Marianelli saved the entire film for me. Happily, it is the last thing we hear as the credits roll.

A Pig in the Kitchen?

This review would not be complete if I did not mention the pig in the kitchen scene. Honestly, it was a low point in the movie for me. Why it was added I shall never understand. May I speak for Austen fans everywhere and say we are appalled? Now the tomato throwing may commence.

A Great Introduction for the Uninitiated

In the end this film version of Pride and Prejudice was beautifully produced, visually stunning, and quite humorous. The English manor houses (including Chatsworth where some claim that Austen got her inspiration for Pemberley from) were a welcome visit. The comedy was a highlight as were the ensemble of British actors. I recommend this version to the uninitiated as an introduction to Austen on film to teens and those adults who skipped the 1995 mini-series because of the five hour running time. The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is total eye candy to those who love period dramas, and for those who need a short respite in England with Jane Austen.

4 out of 5 Stars

MOVIE INFORMATION

Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Studio: Focus Features
Director: Joe Wright
Screenplay: Deborah Moggach based on the novel by Jane Austen
Length: (129) minutes
Genre: Period Drama, Romantic Drama
Mr. Bennet — Donald Sutherland
Mrs. Bennet — Brenda Blethyn
Jane Bennet — Rosamund Pike
Elizabeth Bennet — Keira Knightley
Mary Bennet — Talulah Riley
Kitty Bennet — Carey Mulligan
Lydia Bennet — Jena Malone
Sir William Lucas — Sylvester Morand
Charlotte Lucas — Claudie Blakley
Mr. Bingley — Simon Woods
Caroline Bingley — Kelly Reilly
Mr. Darcy — Matthew Macfadyen
Mr. Wickham — Rupert Friend
Mr. Collins — Tom Hollander
Lady Catherine de Bourg — Judi Dench
Colonel Fitzwilliam — Cornelius Booth
Mrs. Gardiner — Penelope Wilton
Mr. Gardiner — Peter Wight
Georgiana Darcy — Tamzin Merchant

ADDITIONAL INFO | ADD TO IMDb

We purchased a copy of the movie for our own enjoyment. Images courtesy of Focus Features © 2005. Austenprose is an Amazon affiliate. text Laurel Ann Nattress © 2013, austenprose.com. Updated 3 April 2022.

Type your email…

46 thoughts on “ Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review ”

I loved that movie. I never got to see the version with Colin Firth, but I can honestly say I didnt find this movie the least bit upsetting. I loved the actors’ performances and the soundtrack was equisite. Its one of myfavorite movies to watch!!

Like Liked by 1 person

I love the book. I loved the Colin Firth miniseries. And I LOVED the 2005 movie. There was nothing about it that I didn’t like. I thought the casting was fabulous. For once, Jane was really beautiful, as she’s supposed to be. The cinematography and music were first-rate. Of course, it’s shorter and had to leave out a few plot elements. That’s true with most book to movie adaptations. But I can sit down and watch it any time I want instead of having to wait for a holiday in order to justify the time commitment of either the miniseries or re-reading the book.

And Matthew Macfadyen? No need to feel sorry for him. He more than held his own. I loved him. He’s everything I pictured Mr. Darcy to be. And I was more breathless watching him walk across the meadow than I ever was watching Colin Firth come out of the water. That felt gratuitous while the meadow literally took my breath away.

I loved this movie (and this Mr. Darcy) so much that I wrote a book that Austenprose reviewed just a few days ago called My Own Mr. Darcy. As you can see, I not only loved this movie, I found it inspiring.

sammiek25, you really do need to see the Colin Firth version! You are missing an adaption that focused on being as true to the book and time period as possible, and is different enough from the 2005 version that you will not find them in competition.

I found the 2005 film a little disappointing (which didn’t stop me from buying it on DVD and rewatching), because it had too strong of a Gothic romance atmosphere, more Bronte than Austen. In itself, it is a fun way to retell the story. The Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson version with the major plot changes and completely the wrong costumes, better captured the sparkling wit of the original. (In spite of it all, Olivier is still my favorite Darcy. Just think what he would have done with a faithful script.)

What is so great about this story is that in another 20 years someone will do another remake, and we will all eagerly see it, too.

I had similar reactions to this one. I both loved certain things, but other things I didn’t like. Pig made me laugh, but yeah, not a high point of the story. I did prefer the more austere Darcys like Rintool and Firth, but its because of how I pictured him after reading the book. At the same time, I really loved that it was on the earlier time line being more Georgian than Regency because that’s when she originally wrote First Impressions and I did enjoy the more familial Bennets of this one more than the others.

Here’s my latest toward the challenge. I enjoyed Alexa Adam’s Holidays at Pemberley for my 18th entry. Good Reads review link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/758063157

I have read the book many times and each time i see this movie, I try to match the events (the important ones from my point of view) with the book. I agree the proposal in the movie didn’t agree as i have always pictured as in the book. I also failed to understand the pig event. But overall the movie was good and for non readers it would be a good regency movie.

Well… At no point in this film is there any pig (or any other live animal) in any kitchen. And the scene in with the word “bewitched” occurs (a word also used by Austen in the novel, btw.) is not the ending in any version of the film either.

I get the feeling this was written a very long time after you saw the film. Maybe you should give it another go.

Thank you! I wrote a whole blog post ( here ) about how the pig is clearly not inside the house.

This version has it’s faults. So does the 1995. For me, the book will always be the best, but I can enjoy both this and the 1995 on their own merits too.

I reviewed this several months ago, and Ialso put it second to the Colin Firth version. My reading for this month was a new book focusing on the period between the engagement and the wedding, Violet Bedford’s Betrothed to Mr. Darcy. See it at http://homecomingbook.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/betrothed-to-mr-darcy-by-violet-bedford-review-ian1/

I completely understand all your reservations, Laurel Ann. I didn’t particularly enjoy the film the first time I saw it, but I went with a friend who completely loved it and begged me to go a second time; on the second viewing, having put aside all my disgruntlement over what I didn’t like, the sheer romance of the story (I am a sucker for P&P in all forms!), the beautiful cinematography and the score pulled me in.

Like you, I found Judi Dench’s Lady Catherine superb and I loved Simon Woods as Bingley. One other thing I did like was that the Bennet sisters seemed more appropriately cast in terms of age. I always felt that in the 95 series some of the girls came across as a little too old, and I think Rosamund Pike was a beautiful Jane.

I made my peace with it long ago over the things that didn’t ring true to the book because I simply love the story. I can watch any of the films, series, plays, in any interpretation and I’ll always find something I love about it somewhere. :)

Thank you for sharing your review; I really enjoyed reading it, and I loved your reference to being ‘in Switzerland’ on it!

I disliked the film totally. I have only managed to see it twice. Macfadyen spoke much too quickly, Bingley was turned into an idiot, and the plot flaws!, and I made the mistake of watching the American ending, oh dear

I love P & P but not this movie version. I honestly have to admit that I could not make it through the entire film. I found Kiera Knightley so annoying and so completely miscast that I couldn’t get past it. Having said all that, I am sure that Laurel Ann’s assessment was spot on!

I too experienced quite a bit of angst with this version. After alot of reflection, I decided that the spirit of the story was there but remained disturbed at the failure of the movie to adequately portray the strength of Elizabeth and Jane’s relationship. This version did seem to resonate more with a less Janeite audience and I am grateful for anything that makes a new generation want to know more about Austen. I do have a DVD which I use when I want a quick fix but dont have time for the 95 version. Having said that I love the reference to Switzerland and I join you there.

I am one of the ones who loved the movie. Maybe it is my love for Matthew Macfadyen or Keira Knightly, or maybe it’s because it can be watched in a fraction of the time of the BBC version. Maybe it’s because the heart of the story remains and that is enough for me. I watch this movie all the time and never tire of it. Yes, the pig in the kitchen scene was pointless and unneeded, but the rest of the movie was perfect. I won’t watch the American version. I hate the last scene with Darcy and Elizabeth deciding what he should call her. I always turn it off for that scene. The rest of it though, I was quite pleased with. Yes, there are differences between it and the book, but it’s foolish to believe that people don’t see books differently and that any movie will be as good as the books we love. Plus, directors need to do something to give them an edge. You don’t want to come across as a copy-cat. Changes happen and you have to roll with them. For everything it was, I enjoyed it.

I went into the theater prepared to hate the film, and I walked out a convert. This is a film that I have watched too many times to count. Yes, it is a departure in tone, costume design from the BBC mini series, but I still love it. Wright sets the scenes up like portraits. He’s now one of my all time fav directors because of this film. I highly recommend watching the director’s cut of the film. He addresses the Elizabeth – Jane relationship. They wanted to show over the course of events the sister moving away from each other.

All that being said, Firth is the quintessential Darcy, for me at least. I did enjoy Macfadyen, esp the sunrise declaration of love. It worked for me.

I really didn’t like that movie. I felt it sanitized Austen’s wit, particularly with Mr. and Mrs Bennet, taking the absurdity away from Collins and Lady Catherine. Longbourn would not have been that shabby – Mr Bennet may not be in Darcy’s league but he certainly could afford to paint his walls. I found Macfadyen and Knightley’s acting atrocious, particularly in the first half of the movie. It totally negated Caroline Bingley’s and the Gardiner’s importance to the story, not to mention eradicating the Hursts altogether. Charles Bingley was reduced a 2 dimensional cardboard cutout shadow of himself — I really had to wonder what Jane Bennet saw in him. The movie was hard to follow even with my familiarity with the books and my friends who were not familiar with the story were confused as all get out what it was about. The one thing I can say about the movie was that it had beautiful cinematography.

I liked this remake and own and watch it regularly. I have also seen the A&E version several times and is actually how I was introduced to Pride & Prejudice. I love Macfayden’s Mr. Darcy, but agree with others; I’d love to have seen him in a more faithful adaptation. I think the biggest appeal of this version is the brevity, which is great if you already know the plot. I made my husband watch this with me and I filled in the details left out of the plot lines. If I hadn’t done that, he would have dismissed the movie altogether as illogical. I also had him watch the A&E version with me (over several nights), which was a real chore for him because of the length and as he put it “the great amount of words.”

As a huge fan of ‘North and South’, both book and BBC film, I can understand the dilemma of trying to love both versions of a favorite story. I forgive all the unrealistic and off-canon twists the movie version of N&S made to make the story come alive in the film medium AND to make the movie appeal to the average modern movie goer. What this movie version of P&P got right was the emotion of the story. Gosh, and it was beautiful to watch! The impact of sights and sounds and the drama of the unfolding story was done well, even if certain liberties were taken that were recognizable to those who know the text very well. It was a beautiful love story, based very closely on Austen’s famous story. Beautiful film. I love it. It was a resounding success as a film piece. Oh and the music…!

I agree, this version was awful!!! The BEnnett’s had a butler, maids and cook but the 2005 version did make them look like peasants, not country squires. The women never seemed to wear hats which may sound like a trite complaint but hats were a symbol and were worn as status as well as protection. Mr. And Mrs. Bennett did not seem believable to me at all. I only watched it once as that was all i could manage, despite adoring Judi Dench’s work generally. The 1995 version had a few concerns but it remains my favourite for Colin and Jennifer’s performances made it for me with the rest of that wonderful cast and that is when i really started reading Jane A more seriously. Thanks, peace

I am a clear 3/5 on this version myself. Some things I really liked, such as Mrs Bennet, who for me, is just about perfectly portrayed. I also loved Jane and thought that Lydia was much better cast in this version that many others. I thought Mr Darcy’s gorgeous voice and all his impassioned looks were marvellous.

However, I didn’t like the dirt, some of the changes to the story were nice cinematically but didn’t really make sense to me, I didn’t like Bingley’s portrayal as an idiot, and the thing that I find spoils this film for me is how fast the dialogue was delivered, it’s very distracting.

The “you have bewitched me, body and soul” line is gorgeous, but it’s not Austen, as you say, and now it’s quoted as though it is. I seem to recall the quote was Darcy had never been as bewitched by any woman as he was by her, or something along those lines, it’s just before Elizabeth leaves Netherfield.

I think if this is the first version of Pride and Prejudice you’ve seen you’d like it, but it’s not as good if you’ve seen previous versions. Bearing in mind it’s so much shorter it does a pretty good job.

I absolutely love the 2005 film version.

Well I am not afraid to respond in favor of this adaptation. Hopefully my Life Membership with JASNA will not be revoked. As a moody teenager, I was introduced to the sparkling wit and happy endings of JA. I admit I was partial to the hopeless despair in the likes of Thomas Hardy’s Tess & Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. Dare i say i might have been prejudiced against Austen’s happily ever afters. I missed the P&P 1995 hooplah w/ Firth & Ehle. So when my sister recommended I see it, I went not really remembering the synopsis. Anyway sitting in the movie theatre, I was mesmerized by the beautiful Marianelli soundtrack, sweeping cinematography, funny dialog, beautiful characters and overall story. I remember my mother leaning over and asking me if that daybreak scene happened in the book, and I think I said, “shhhhhh… I don’t think like this.” I left the theatre thinking, wow that was awesome, I need to read that book. So I did, and after reading the 6, delved in the online fanfiction, bought the few adaptations available circa 2006, joined JASNA, went to my first AGM — and the rest is history. Since then, under the tutelage of Laurel Ann, countless authors and periodicals, films… I have learned much about the period, dear Miss Austen, etc etc. and recognize the gigantic latitude the director took with Austen’s masterpiece to create this film. The change in period clothing was his nod to Austen’s earlier attempt at P&P as “1st Impressions”, supposedly. And despite the pig scene, the run down Longbourne, D&E’s daybreak meet – her in her bedclothes! He sans cravat! the missed opportunities of authentic Austen dialog, Lizzy sans gloves & often a bonnet, the cutting and pasting of original, etc etc. it still is a favorite. I liken it to the ultimate fanfiction. And when I think of it like that, not a true adaptation of Austen, I forgive all those artistic director interpretations. Besides it was the catalyst to bringing me to Austen. So with that I do. I do forgive Joe Wright. It’s a gorgeous film that I am sentimental about. Now I will duck behind the couch in wait of the tomatoes.

You won’t get any tomatoes from me. You sound like you experienced what my main character in My Own Mr. Darcy experienced. It changed her life, too.

Once again, Laurel Ann, I experienced the greatest delight in reading your review and finding so well articulated many of my own experiences with this version of P&P, which I also saw when it first appeared in the movie theater. I did enjoy the warmth of relationships and the less annoying mother herein depicted, and thought Judi Dench a delightful Lady Catherine, but was unsatisfied with the ending variation from the original! It is romantic and I still watch it on occasion to satisfy an Austen craving, however! :-)

My November choice is “Second Impressions” by A Virginia Farmer… aka Ava Farmer… aka Sandy Lerner. I purchased this book after being enthralled by the chapter in Deborah Yaffe’s “Among the Janeites” in which she tells the amazing story of Sandy Lerner, cofounder of Cisco Systems, an organic farmer, a creator of a small grunge cosmetic company, and a Janeite heroine extraordinaire! She used her wealth to salvage Chawton House and turn it into a Library and source for the study of early English women’s writing, including a vast collection of Jane Austen material and editions of her books! She began her novel when, like so many others, finished reading all that dear Jane had written and feeling bereft and in need of continuing the story. With her very busy life, the novel she began wasn’t finished until 26 years later!

“Second Impressions” takes place 10 years after the conclusion of P&P and depicts our beloved couple at home at Pemberley, in London, and traveling around both England and Europe, with well researched descriptions and commentary on the culture and times of the places visited. It tells a sweet story of Georgiana, and an amazing come-uppance for Lady Catherine! :-) She also brings into the story a relationship of Mr. Darcy with Mr. Knightly, comparing farming practices, and Anne Elliot-Wentworth as a friend of Elizabeth. Since she has so thoroughly researched everything about Austen’s world, from the politics, culture, and words used, it is very faithful to Jane’s writing style even to the humor and self-criticism and growth of the main characters! It was not as light reading as many I’ve been immersed in this year, but well worth the effort!

Hi. I just LOVE that version. I love that Lizzie more than the other one (of the series). And Darcy, well, I love them both (movie and series) Nice choice for the month :)

My review of november: http://meucantinholiterario.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/becoming-elizabeth-darcy-mary-lydon.html

I enjoy, and mostly agree with your review of this version of P&P. Technically and musically it is wonderful, but overall it’s certainly not my favourite. For me it wasn’t the pig, but it was the dirt and disarray that the Bennet’s function in, the complete absence of Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, and Mr. Bingley sticking his head in Jane’s sickroom at Netherfield. I was horrified. Interestingly enough, those last two items were also present in the Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson version.

I saw this movie before I read the book. It’s actually why I read the book. I love the movie and the book so so much. I haven’t completely seen the mini series yet, but I did start it long enough to find that Elizabeth was prettier than Jane, which I didn’t like, and the Mr. Bennet was very cynical versus sarcastic and humorous. I didn’t like him from what I saw in the mini series. I thought the casting for the movie was perfect. While Keira is pretty, Rosamund has an ethereal beauty to her that makes her stand out. Like others have said, Judy Dench was perfect for Lady Catherine. The parts I did have a problem with (after I read the book obviously) was that Mr. Collins wasn’t the same in the movie as he was in the book, physically, but I understand why. And the movie doesn’t really show that Lizzy and Charlotte drifted apart significantly after Charlotte’s marriage. Other than that, I loved the movie and now I feel the need to watch more of the miniseries.

I saw this movie twice; not because I liked it but because I couldn’t believe it could be so off base. The second viewing convinced me that Joe Wright had read the P&P Cliff Notes and decided to embroider on that. There undoubtedly was all that dirt and mess during the period depicted but this a P&P film not God’s Little Acre. Another thing that bothered me a lot was the way Joe Wright filmed Judi Dench as though she was starring in a horror film with every pore and wrinkle highlighted in order to scare the audience. I could say more about Keira Knightley mugging for the camera and Matthew Macfayden looking like a little lost boy and the horribly miscast Donald Sutherland, but I won’t! Nuff said…

Amazing review, Laurel Ann! As I said in my own review some months ago, it is not my favourite adaptation. But anyway, there are some things I would not despise :) I agree with you about the proposal in the rain and the scene with the pig… Wright could have done better! My selection for this month was “Mr. Darcy’s secret” by Jane Odiwe. This is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/600952045

I loved the feel of the 2005 P&P and I thought the dirty Georgian farmhouse take was interesting. My big beef is that Mr. Wickham didn’t seem bad enough. Adorable, yes. Villainous, not so much. Sigh. Here’s my review of Longbourn by Jo Baker: http://www.groggspot.com/pride-prejudice-bicentenary-challenge-2013-november-review/

Thank you for your balanced review Laurel Ann My friend Jill and I went to see the 2005 film together at the cinema and we found we liked Judi Dench but disliked the way poor Mr Bingley was reduced to an idiot. The cannot sleep ending that we watched was not a patch for us on the 1995 Colin Firth version of the ending.

Mr. Darcy’s Refuge: A Pride & Prejudice Variation, by Abigail Reynolds – A Review

As I have never read any of Abigail Reynold’s variations I am approaching this book with a degree of trepidation. I have heard that my idea of how Mr Darcy may reveal himself as being a gentleman and how this character develops in this book may be very different but I shall plunge into this book and see how I feel at the end. It could be that 21st century attitudes have been written for a character that I see as very much from the time of Jane Austen. But I am getting ahead of myself and I shall have to wait, be patient and read the text. This variation is going to be my 13th review for this Pride and Prejudice challenge. Challenge is the right word to use for some of my reading of this book. I found it very difficult and uncomfortable to read some of the passages involving Darcy and Elizabeth. It felt as if I was reading scenes where I did not want to be reading. So next time when I am not reviewing the book I can employ my Kindle buttons and skip over them. The rest of the book did feel easy to read. The text flowed enjoyably along despite the fact I could be reading for example about the river in Hunsford being in full flood and the danger to citizens and property.I think this is because Abigail Reynolds writes so vividly. From the opening sentence on I was drawn in The break in the rain seemed like a sign. It meant Darcy could ride to the parsonage and discover what was troubling Elizabeth. What will happen then – Abigail Reynolds writes her variation and nudges at the Jane Austen text and pulls out ideas and sentences from the original novel of Pride and Prejudice and then ricochet markedly away from the original plot. Darcy thinks that Elizabeth is plotting how to ensure that Darcy proposes to her As reader I thought that the story was going to be all about following in the footsteps of Jane Austen and having Elizabeth worried about Darcy separating her sister Jane from Darcy’s friend Bingley and about Wickham being denied his inheritance. The plot however goes off in all sorts of unexpected directions from ones I was expecting and in the end the various couples came together but not in the same way as Jane Austen envisaged and wrote at all. Some of the characters that Jane Austen created have unexpected back stories added on by Abigail Reynolds. Mr Bennet changes in his manner to Elizabeth as a result of his back story and did not seem to me to be such a friend to Elizabeth. In fact at times I quite disliked him. I liked the addition of characters created by Abigail Reynolds from the village of Hunsford, and from the vicarage itself as well as a fearsome uncle for Darcy. Poor Bingley seems to be even wetter in this variation than Jane Austen portrayed him in Pride and Prejudice and I felt sad about that. Overall I did enjoy most of this variation apart from the drawback and challenge as mentioned at the beginning of the review. I think I would read another Abigail Reynolds variation with great caution and being ready to skip bits.

I really like this version – it’s not exactly page-to-screen Austen, but it’s a gorgeous film. I agree with your comment about the music saving it, too.

It’s definitely an adaptation – Wright wanted to make a movie about Elizabeth’s coming of age (especially in terms of sexuality) so there’s a ton of focus on the body, place, setting, etc. It’s not the same as reading the book, of course, but that’s why we can always reread and trust our imaginations!

That said, I don’t understand the pig in the kitchen either. :P

I agree with Laurel Ann – I’m in Switzerland. What I liked was the overall beauty of it (including the music). The casting of all the young parts was all very good and very age-appropriate. I agree with others about Jane’s beauty (excellent) and Bingley’s idiocy (not-so-much). Mr. Collins ought to have been “large” (tall? fat? both?), but at least he was young and introduced an appealing vulnerability to the role.

But then it is all spoiled by the casting of the parents’ generation with actors (fabulous actors all) who are old enough to be the grandparents. Brenda Blethyn was over 60; Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench over 70. Mrs Bennet should be about 40; we don’t know how old Lady Catherine is, but I shouldn’t think any more than 50. Mrs. Gardiner should be about 35! And what happened to the Gardiners’ children?

As for KK – some love her and some hate her – she looked awfully skeletal in this movie.

The pig was comic relief.

I mostly agree with Laurel Ann’s review and won’t add much to the many comments. I will say I may be in the minority in preferring Barbara Lee-Hunt as Lady Catherine in the 1995 mini series to the esteemed Dame Judi Dench. I didn’t dislike Dame Judi (who could?), but thought Miss Lee-Hunt gave a magnificent performance. I much prefer the 1995 version partially for the length but also for the superlative casting. A couple of further comments: I do agree with those who find Rosamund Pike to be a more satisfactory Jane Bennet than any I’ve seen before. As for Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, I didn’t think she was at all like Jane Austen’s creation, but BB is a hard actress to resist. The film with Keira Knightley was fun to watch but as others have said, the Bennets were portrayed in a much lower class than they should have been. As for Rupert Friend (so fine as Prince Albert in The Young Victoria), his role as Wickham was so whittled down, he never got much chance to show his villainy, but he sure was cute!

Oops! Spelled Barbara Leigh-Hunt’s name, it didn’t look right even as I was writing it.

This isn’t my favorite movie adaptation, but it’s still enjoyable. My daughter loves it, though.

My 13th review for the challenge is The Red Chrysanthemum by Linda Beutler: http://diaryofaneccentric.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/review-the-red-chrysanthemum-by-linda-beutler/

I also read The Pursuit of Mary Bennet for the challenge this month: http://diaryofaneccentric.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/review-the-pursuit-of-mary-bennet-by-pamela-mingle/

I like this version very much, though not for its accuracy. The costumes are very nice, and Mr Darcy quite handsome (yes, sometimes I am shallow). My 6th entry (5th blog post) for the challenge is ‘Mr Darcy takes a wife’, which I enjoyed, but probably will not read again. As I’ve read 2 more books, I expect to review them soon and also put them in a comment below this November review. http://dutchwitch.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/what-happened-after-the-wedding-pp-5/

Just made it! Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen I thought it fitting to read P+P before the year was up. This 5th entry makes my commitment for Disciple complete. As I read I would think of the scenes from the movie or one of the series, which ever one did justice to that particular scene. It’s always enjoyable to dive into Austen.

Just for fun:

first 13 seconds. Love it!

I loved that! It even sparked a short conversation about it with the guys at work.

I love Big Bang Theory but even more now with Sheldon’s comment. LOL! The conversations that Austen books spark up are always fun aren’t they.So are the Big Bang ones.

I have seen the 2005 film only once. I know opinion is much divided on it but to be honest I have no strong feelings either way – I didn’t think it was wonderful but I wasn’t scandalised by the differences between that and the book (or between that and the 1995 BBC version!) I’d love to see an adaptation where Mr Collins isn’t way too old, though. They always make him about 40.

For my November entry I have reviewed the audiobook of Jo Baker’s “Longbourn”, read by Emma Fielding http://wp.me/pUrhc-Ee

You’re feelings on this film are very similar to mine, Laurel Ann, Particular in regards to that pig.

I reviewed three books this month for the challenge: The Darcy’s of Pemberley by Shannon Winslow: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-darcys-of-pemberley-by-shannon.html Return to Longbourn byt the same kind lady: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/return-to-longbourn-by-shannon-winslow.html and Project Darcy by Jane Odiwe: http://alexaadams.blogspot.com/2013/11/project-darcy-by-jane-odiwe.html

I’m slightly late but it’s been a long month so I hope I’ll be forgiven.

My book review is for Pride’s Prejudice by Misty Dawn Pulsipher https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/777510661

I also re-watched an old favourite..

Pride and Prejudice 1940

It happened in OLD ENGLAND in the village of Meryton. – Opening Titles of Pride and Prejudice 1940

I approached this review in the same way as my previous ones, by making notes of the good and bad points while I watched the film. I shall try to be objective but I must confess that I love this film and have since I was a child, and I think perhaps in some cases the good and bad points are one and the same.

Now this version has even more scenes and people missing than the 2005 version but as I made the choice not to comment on that for a film then, I will mostly do the same here. A film’s time is limited so what is important, to my way of thinking, is to keep the essence of the story line and characters intact. In this the 1940 version succeeds where the 2005 one fails. Was it a faithful adaption? Of course not. Was it a beautiful story? Most definitely. The style of the film is definitely classic Hollywood and I think there is something magical about films from that era. They were made to make you feel good, to make you smile and to uplift you, even when they were sad. Modern films in some ways might be more realistic but they have lost something.

The most evident ‘mistake’ is the costumes, it’s obviously been set after the regency period but whilst the style is incorrect to the book, their dresses are suitable for young women of their station in life. Likewise their ages, though they are all clearly older than the characters they depict, are in proportion to each other. The conversations are recognisable but the words are not Jane Austen’s. Having said that there is some great banter that doesn’t feel out of place in the film or coming from the characters, whether that is the dialogue itself or the actors’ ability to deliver the lines, is possibly open for debate.

Another area which I think falls into both the good and bad category is the humour. They ham it up a little in places, for example, Lady Catherine walking into the chaos at Longbourne and accidentally sitting on Kitty’s music box, which again is not out of keeping with the style of the film, and so does not jar you or make you cringe, but you can’t necessarily imagine it in the more tranquil confines of the book.

A few odd things… Charlotte Lucas whilst professing to be as plain as she is in the original work, is anything but, Mr Collins is Lady Catherine’s librarian and not a clergyman, and Caroline Bingley whom at no point appears to be friendly to anyone other than her own party and Jane, is apparently in correspondence with someone residing in Meryton. A production point, that I’ve always rather liked, is the fact that certain characters have their own background music that plays whenever they are centre screen for that scene. A grand and imposing tune for those of the upper classes and something rather more whimsical for Mr Collins… it does add a certain atmosphere but now I know it well enough to notice, it also makes me smile. Another thing that I have always appreciated is the name they give to Colonel Forster’s regiment, where ‘the ___shire’s’ from the book, is literally pronounced as ‘the Blankshire’s’.

Possibly the one thing that I don’t think should have been altered was Lady Catherine’s attitude at the end. It wasn’t really necessary to change her into a loving aunt just looking out for her nephew, but this film has a neatly tied up happy ending for all its characters and I suppose they felt it might spoil it for her to remain opposed to the last.

What I think really makes this film work for me however, are the characters. Despite everything I have listed, the characters themselves remain true to their basic natures. They’re graceful, they have poise, and at first glance can pass for what they are meant to be. They have faults but it’s not in manners. There’s a general affection between the Bennetts that makes them seem like a family even when they’re at odds. The younger Bennett girls are immature but not vulgar or fast or particularly childish. They’re just enjoying themselves and being silly, and they’re also trusting where they shouldn’t be. Bingley is a gentleman and not stupid, Wickham is handsome and gentlemanlike, Caroline Bingley is delightfully snobby, Mrs Bennett is just the right mix of well brought up and dizzy, desperate to marry off her girls because that’s her job and old enough to have become a gossip. Jane is beautiful and sweet whilst Elizabeth played by Greer Garson is the stronger character, protective and caring of all her sisters. Mr Collins wonderfully pompous, Lady Catherine is suitably imposing and Mr Bennett is the perfect mix of dignified gentleman, resigned husband, and affectionate but disinterested/mocking father. And of course Laurence Olivier as Mr Darcy is the strong male lead, stiff at first but learning to bend to please Lizzy as he learns about her and himself.

On the whole it was a beautifully made romantic film and I would highly recommend watching it.

To comment on 1995 movie. I also have reviewed this in July. I love it. I still agree with a comment that was said in an earlier blog (I think you said it Laurel Ann) that the first version you fall in love with stays dear in your heart. I saw this before I read the book for the first time. I then noticed all the changes of course. But somehow it made me feel like this movie was a remake to other movies which would explain many changes. Like a rumor things get changed the more it is told. Anyway the cinematography & music continue to tug at my heart. And even though Colin Firth is the best Darcy, I love MacFadyen wearing his heart on his sleeve. (sorry but I thought Bingley was adorible.)

Pingback: The Pride and Prejudice Bicentenary Challenge 2013 | Austenprose - A Jane Austen Blog

Please join in and have your share of the conversation! Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Website Built with WordPress.com .

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Pride & Prejudice (United Kingdom, 1995)

Pre-Victorian writer Jane Austen, who died in 1817, has had more books adapted for film in the last twelve months than prolific contemporary authors Michael Crichton and John Grisham. In a very real sense, the movie world is undergoing an "Austen Renaissance", and what's especially pleasing about this trend is that the adaptations are uniformly superb: intelligent, well-acted examples of film making at its best. Austen only completed six major novels, and three -- Persuasion , Sense and Sensibility , and Pride and Prejudice -- are now available in new movie versions, with Emma yet to come.

It's difficult to determine which of Austen's books represents her best work. All are widely-read and well-loved. Volumes of literary criticism have been written about each novel, but, ultimately, it's individual preference that leads to choosing a favorite. Much the same is true of the filmed versions, yet the three movies are of such high caliber that a viewer who enjoys one is likely to be equally captivated by the other two. However, without in any way denigrating Persuasion and Sense and Sensibility , it's no stretch to recognize that Pride and Prejudice is the best, and most complete, of these adaptations.

At over 270 minutes in length, Pride and Prejudice (shown as a TV mini-series rather than a theatrical release) has a running time which exceeds that of Persuasion and Sense and Sensibility combined. Without the pressure to trim subplots and condense scenes, screenwriter Andrew Davies ( Middlemarch ) has allowed the full texture of Austen's novel to emerge. Nuances and details that would be lost in a shorter version add strength to this one, so that, even at over four and one-half hours, Pride and Prejudice rarely loses momentum.

The main plot thread traces the relationship of Elizabeth Bennet (Jennifer Ehle), the second of five sisters, and a wealthy young gentleman named Darcy (Colin Firth of Circle of Friends and The Advocate ). The two are not immediately attracted to each other -- a fair share of pride and prejudice separates them (hence the title) -- but, as the story progresses, they are forced to examine their hearts as well as their preconceptions about each other, in order to understand the truth.

Of course, Pride and Prejudice unfolds more than just Lizzie and Darcy's tale. There's a parallel love story between Lizzie's older sister, Jane (Susannah Harker), and the charming Mr. Bingley (Crispin Bonham-Carter). We also follow the thwarted marital plans of an odious, simpering cleric by the name of Collins (David Bamber), and learn dark secrets about the character of the seemingly open and generous Wickham (Adrian Lukis).

Whereas the 1940 film version of Pride and Prejudice , which starred Laurence Olivier as Darcy and Greer Garson as Elizabeth, conveyed the bare bones plot of the novel, it was less successful in translating the book's tone to the screen. This latest adaptation has no such deficiency. Austen's wry, incisive humor is much in evidence. In fact, it is this quality, along with deft characterization, that prevents the movie from descending into the realm of a nicely-costumed, brilliantly-photographed melodrama.

The acting is uniformly flawless. Jennifer Ehle, a stage thespian with minimal film experience, is enchanting as Lizzie. With a countenance resembling that of a young Meryl Streep, and talent to match, she acts as much with her eyes and features as with the rest of her person. One of the most difficult aspects of adapting a classic novel is imparting the thoughts and feelings of characters to the audience without resorting to intrusive internal monologues. Ehle's expressive face and carefully-controlled body language make this a surprisingly easy task.

Colin Firth, a more familiar face to movie-goers, compliments Ehle perfectly. Like her, he does much of his best acting without dialogue. We understand Darcy's inner turmoil as he grapples with his feelings for Lizzie long before he speaks a word about his love. Firth also delights in playing up the ambiguity of the character, making us wonder whose opinion of Darcy is the correct one.

As is consistently true of BBC productions, the supporting cast is excellent. Susannah Harker, who was in TV's House of Cards mini-series, is an enchanting Jane. Julia Sawalha, Ab Fab 's Saffron, is Lydia, one of the younger Bennet sisters. Alison Steadman ( Life is Sweet, Clockwise ) and Benjamin Whitrow ( Clockwise ) are delightful as the playfully bickering Bennet parents. Crispin Bonham-Carter (distant cousin to Helena) brings a feckless charm to the character of Bingley. Adrian Lukis is the slippery Wickham, Anna Chancellor is Bingley's waspish sister, David Bamber plays the sycophant Collins, and Barbara Leigh-Hunt takes snobbery and arrogance to the limit as Lady Catherine De Bourgh.

Director Simon Langton is as worthy of praise as his actors. Langton, who has a long and distinguished career with BBC television, has directed episodes of Danger UXB, Upstairs, Downstairs, The Dutchess of Duke Street , and Love for Lydia , as well as the entire series of Smiley's People . He also made the 1985 TV film Anna Karenina starring Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve. Yet with Pride and Prejudice , one of English literature's great classics, he may have accepted his most imposing challenge to date, and the production's success is a notable achievement.

For those who love the work of Jane Austen, 1995-6 has been a rare time. For those unfamiliar with her novels, this is the perfect opportunity to change that. Persuasion, Sense and Sensibility , and Pride and Prejudice are all readily available, and none are likely to disappoint. With its gorgeous costumes and settings, superlative acting, and engaging script, this latest adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is easily worth the investment in time. A more rewarding 280 minutes will be difficult to come by.

Comments Add Comment

English Patient, The (1996)
Horse Whisperer, The (1998)
Gone with the Wind (1969)
Nights in Rodanthe (2008)
Sweet November (2001)
Longest Ride, The (2015)
Paradise Road (1997)
King's Speech, The (2010)
Ides of March, The (2011)
Backbeat (1969)
Greatest, The (2010)
Pride and Glory (2008)
(There are no more better movies of Polly Maberly)
(There are no more worst movies of Polly Maberly)
(There are no more better movies of Barbara Leigh-Hunt)
(There are no more worst movies of Barbara Leigh-Hunt)

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

DVD & Streaming

Pride & Prejudice

Comedy , Drama , Romance

Content Caution

In Theaters

Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet; Matthew MacFadyen as Mr. Darcy; Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet; Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet; Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet; Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet; Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet; Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet; Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourg

Home Release Date

Distributor.

Focus Features

Movie Review

In 18th century England, the Bennet household bustles with five nearly grown daughters, one bemused father and a giddy mother with a singular goal—to arrange for her daughters “advantageous” marriages to wealthy men. The motivation is practical. With no sons to pass it on to, the relatively cash-poor Bennets will likely lose their family estate. Their only hope is for one of the daughters to find a husband willing to support all of them.

Fortune smiles when the young and prosperous Mr. Bingley rents a mansion in their area. A community ball initiates attraction between Bingley and the eldest Bennet girl, animosity between his friend, Mr. Darcy, and Elizabeth (“Lizzie”) Bennet, and an awareness among the principals of the social differences separating them. Specifically, Lizzie is conscious both of the wanton public foolishness of her mother and younger sisters and the resulting disapproval of Mr. Bingley’s sister and Mr. Darcy.

Of course, this is Lizzie’s love story. Her initial “loathing” toward the seemingly aloof and arrogant Mr. Darcy is only deepened the more she learns about him, especially from a young army officer named Mr. Wickham. But she can’t quite escape her unexplainable feelings for Darcy, and she can’t understand why he continues to express interest in her.

Positive Elements

These characters exist in a world so chaste and proper that it’s almost shocking to our modern sensibilities. Marriages are pursued and love is expressed with virtually no physical contact beyond public dancing in groups at community and private balls. Female honor and reputation are valued and defended at great cost.

Parents, even foolish ones, are treated with respect and compassion. Of course, some of this properness is created by the fear of being discredited in a community driven by status and a strict class structure. But the commitment to a veneer of respectability alone is revealed here as damaging. So, in general, the attitude of respect and decency is refreshing.

Lizzie defends the honor of her parents and sisters when others mock their common ways. Mr. Bennet obviously loves his wife and girls, and he expresses strong support and concern for Lizzie. Lizzie and Mr. Darcy both admit to coming to wrong conclusions about the other. Mr. Darcy sacrifices both his pride and his prejudice to help Lizzie’s family and earn her respect and love.

Spiritual Elements

Mr. Collins, a cousin to the Bennet girls, is a minister. As Lizzie plainly states, he’s a ridiculous man. He exists in the story, in part, to provide comic relief, forcing on the Bennets both unwanted sermons and unrequited affection in pursuit of a wife.

Sexual Content

We’re “treated” to an excerpt of one of Collins’ tedious messages, including an unintended and comical misuse of the word intercourse . Period costumes reveal some cleavage, and nudity is on display in collected paintings and sculptures. Chaste kisses are exchanged both before and after a wedding.

Violent Content

Crude or profane language.

One character exclaims, “Good lord!” Another calls himself an “a–“ for his foolish behavior.

Drug and Alcohol Content

Drinking is prevalent at the two balls attended by the family, resulting in even less socially proper comments and behavior from Mrs. Bennet and the younger daughters.

Fans of Jane Austen’s classic novel—as well as the millions who cherish the six-hour 1995 BBC miniseries starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle—may well wonder at the point of yet another telling of this tale. But first-time feature director Joe Wright tells it so well that few Austen lovers will be complaining after taking it in.

Lost to the two-hour running time are some of the complexities of the plot, as well as some of the great, pointed, clever exchanges of dialogue Austen is known for. Enough remains to remind us of her ability to use words as weapons and gifts in quick and equal measure. But the tight focus of Wright’s film is the unabashedly romantic love story between Lizzie and Darcy, and his story satisfyingly ebbs and flows with their affections.

The mixed British and American cast skews younger than in previous adaptations, and the whole ensemble delivers. Keira Knightley is believably sharp-witted, and Matthew MacFadyen’s stiff Darcy gradually disarms as his character is revealed. But old pros Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn shine brightest as the wise and foolish Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. It’s telling that the film’s most moving moment comes with Mr. Bennet’s reaction to Lizzie’s announcement about her true feelings for Mr. Darcy.

Wright doesn’t just capture the precision of good acting or the beauty of the English countryside, though. In addition to offering a well-crafted film that families (especially those with tweens and teens of the female persuasion) can enjoy together, he serves up Austen’s story in a way that makes it a great starting place for conversations about issues of growing up, finding a mate, history, culture and family relationships. Better, it might lure new readers to Austen’s books and other literature of the period. Not bad for the umpteenth adaptation of a nearly 200-year-old work.

Christopher Lyon

Latest reviews.

Jesus: A Deaf Missions Film

Inside Out 2

Weekly Reviews Straight to your Inbox!

Pride and Prejudice Review

16 Sep 2005

127 minutes

Pride and Prejudice

On behalf of the girlie contingent, we’d just like to say, “Yay!” Sixty-five years since the last proper Pride And Prejudice played at a cinema near your great gran, seeing Jane Austen’s most popular novel energetically refitted for the big screen after umpteen TV serials is a reminder that Austen created the basic romantic comedy formula we all know and love.Take a heroine who’s intelligent, good-humoured and loyal, but also judgmental, stubborn and a bit of a smarty-pants. Make the hero seemingly unavailable, beyond the heroine’s reach in status, wealth, looks or eligibility. Give her embarrassing relatives, talkative friends, rich-bitch rivals and an unwanted suitor. Create a misunderstanding that keeps the leads apart but is quickly cleared up with an honest explanation or last-chance declaration of love. Voila, you have a Meg Ryan/Sandra Bullock/J.Lo movie. Not only have all these elements been used time and again in the rom-com genre, the source story itself has recently been lifted into the modern day for Bridget Jones and Bride & Prejudice. But this is the first straight adaptation for the big screen since the delicious 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. And very welcome it is, with a fresh, realistic approach, earthy settings and romantic suspense — and in Keira Knightley’s superb Lizzy, a heroine for all time.A rethink on characterisations goes back faithfully to Austen’s social comedy. Blethyn’s dippy Mrs. Bennet is vulgar, but not the comic grotesque often depicted. She’s funny and no-one can accuse her of underplaying — you certainly feel the desperation of a woman with five daughters whose prospects are grim if they don’t marry some money. Similarly, Tom Hollander’s cousin-come-a-wooing, the self-righteous clergyman Mr. Collins, is a suitor no fun girl would want, but he’s hardly contemptible.Since no English lit-flick is complete without Judi Dench, she obligingly terrorises as arrogant Lady Catherine de Bourgh. It’s Knightley, though, who really stands out. She’s delightful as Austen’s best-loved character — the slender, clever figure who loves a laugh, such as when she sets eyes on Darcy’s palatial pile and can’t control her goggle-eyed mirth, realising it could have been hers. The emphasis is not on heaving cleavage but on wit and unstudied charm, and Elizabeth Bennet has more of those than any other heroine in the English language.A few not-terribly-serious gripes: Matthew ‘Spooks’ MacFadyen’s Darcy is dishy, but his blushing sad-sack manner is at times more like Droopy The Dog than a Georgian grandee, while Simon Woods’ Bingley is a tad too twittish to be sombre Darcy’s buddy. And the ending looks lopped off. Yes, almost everyone knows how it goes, and not every Austen adaptation has to end with a wedding, but Jane-ites really shouldn’t be deprived of one kissy shot.Still, debut feature director Joe Wright should be applauded for delivering a vividly realised Austen adap — one which confirms Knightley has graduated from the Jackie Bisset of the '00s to this decade’s Julie Christie.

Movies | 23 03 2006

Movies | 13 02 2006

Movies | 20 09 2005

Movies | 06 09 2005

Movies | 02 06 2005

Movies | 28 04 2004

Movies | 29 10 2002

The Lady Vanquishes

Anyone working up a good derisive snort at this movie’s tagline—“Sometimes the last person on earth you want to be with is the one person you can’t be without”—would do well to snort-suppress: The 1940 Laurence Olivier–Greer Garson version of Jane Austen’s most famous novel was promoted with the slogan “When pretty girls t-e-a-s-e-d men into marriage.” There’s always been a Cosmo -girl approach to peddling Austen’s wares; the movie industry is perpetually jittery around the author’s razor-edged comedies of manners (All those words! All those crucial things left unsaid in the silences between those words!) and invariably tries to promote them as silly fun for the popcorn chewer. (The one terrific success that merited such treatment, of course, was Amy Heckerling’s Clueless adaptation of Emma .)

In the new Pride & Prejudice , Keira Knightley glides around with great assurance, tossing off barbed observations about her dithery mother and the foolishness of her four sisters. Indeed, Keira’s cat-smile suggests such supernal all-knowingness that, with Austen’s adapted dialogue (via Deborah Moggach) tripping off her tongue, she comes off as an eighteenth-century Maureen Dowd. Any suitor of sense and sensibility would steer clear of Knightley’s Elizabeth Bennet, lest the fangs and claws come out too quickly. The actress’s feral intelligence is similar to the fierceness she brought to her recent run-in with director Tony Scott’s exploding editing machine, otherwise known as Domino .

But it’s a good bet that the only moviegoers who will have seen both Domino and Pride & Prejudice are film critics, and so we’ll be spared, I presume, movie-lobby riots in which ticket holders brawl over whether Mickey Rourke—who displayed such touching chemistry with Knightley as he instructed her on the fine points of blasting holes into bail jumpers—would have made a better Mr. Darcy than Matthew Macfadyen. Actually, I daresay that anyone , including Mr. Rourke or even Gilbert Gottfried, would have made a livelier match for Knightley’s Elizabeth Bennet than the sour Macfadyen. He frequently looks merely peeved or perhaps hungover, as though director Joe Wright had tricked him into wearing poufy clothes after a long night out at the pub.

In condensing to a mere two hours Austen’s elaborately arrayed tale, this P&P will probably not pass muster with those viewers who still tremble happily at the memory of the BBC’s five-hour-plus 1995 production, which starred Colin Firth as the most hotsy Darcy ever, give or take your imagination the first time you read the book. Still, there are pleasures to be had here. The boobish Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods, sporting bright red hair styled to resemble Archie Andrews) makes a rare intelligent remark when he observes (in the novel; the movie has no time for such felicities) that Elizabeth is an astute “studier of character.” Thanks to the vivacious and brainy Knightley, the new P&P renders this quality exceedingly well, and when you combine her with Donald Sutherland, portraying Elizabeth’s father as a man who knows which daughter to adore while merely loving the others, the movie has moments of true Austen shrewdness. The comedy is provided by women at two extremes—Brenda Blethyn is a marvelous mutton-head as the Bennet mother, and Judi Dench is a mensch as the maleficently meddling Lady Catherine.

If only Knightley had a co-star equal to her here: The 1995 edition of Colin Firth, come to think of it, would have been perfect. As it is, we get something appropriate—an earthbound Pride & Prejudice , as befits the sins and errors of its title—when what we want is what we always want from a romantic period piece: something transcendent. Maybe in the techno-future, when we’ll all sit around creating our own films on sub-iPod-size gizmos, we’ll be able to splice together Knightley and Firth and achieve a mash-up made in movie heaven.

Pride & Prejudice Directed by Joe Wright. Focus Features. PG.

What is your email?

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

Lower case letters (a-z)
Upper case letters (A-Z)
Numbers (0-9)
Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

Get the Reddit app

The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.

How is Pride and Prejudice (2005) so good?

I’m a dude in my 30’s who never had an interest in P&P or its ilk. I must admit I was …well…prejudiced!

I was talking to my wife about Succession and how good Matthew Macfadyen is. I mentioned that I didn’t even know he was British until I watched a clip of him on a talk show. She suggested we watch P&P and I must admit I agreed primarily because I wanted to laugh at “Tom Wambsgans” acting like some corny romantic heartthrob.

Suffice it to say that I was blown away. Not just by how Macfadyen transformed, but the whole cast as well as the scenery, cinematography, and most importantly, the dialogue! I find myself hanging onto every word. It is an elevated dialogue that keeps me totally enrapt at the risk of missing a biting insult or important social context. I imagine the dialogue is similarly impressive in the book? Is that correct?

I never wanted to watch this movie because I truly don’t care who someone marries, in real life and especially in fiction. I was unprepared for a type of storytelling that would make me care about who someone marries! I suppose that is what great art is all about.

I also had the presupposition that this movie was made for women who identify with Elizabeth and crush on Darcy. What I didn’t expect was to see myself in Darcy and to crush on Elizabeth! Darcy’s line about not having the talent of conversing easily with people he doesn’t know was a beautiful expression of what I think is a common feeling.

Actually, that goes for all of the male characters. I don’t know why but I expected them to be all flat. Mr. Bennet is an inspirational father-figure and I’d be lying if I didn’t see myself in the bumbling, socially clueless and utterly unromantic Mr. Collins. I wish I had watched or read this when I was a teenager!

This is a shout out to anyone else who foolishly did not give P&P a chance as well as a request for more. What else have I been missing??

Emery Rachelle Writes

author of reverse harem and LGBTQ+ fantasy romance

Pride and Prejudice (2005) Movie Review

There are dozens of Pride and Prejudice adaptations in existence. This summer series is focused on more traditional, literal adaptations, so things like Bridget Jones’s Diary were never in the running*. Due to time constraints and immediate viewing availability, the older black and white adaptations are also off the menu. (I had no idea there were so many!)

For this series, I’ll just be covering the main two Pride and Prejudice adaptations: the 2005 movie and 1995 miniseries. I might come back to cover the 1980 BBC miniseries in the future, but not this year.

*(Several modern Austen adaptations, including Lizzie Bennet Diaries , Clueless , and others, will get their own coverage later in August, but I’m mostly still sticking with adaptations that remain close to original plot beats and characters. There’s too many others to cover them all!)

Pride and Prejudice

Starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen

Screenplay by Deborah Moggach with Emma Thompson

Directed by Joe Wright

Pride and Prejudice on IMDB

General impressions

We have to start with the music. Opinions on this movie, especially compared to the miniseries, are strong and widely varied. But no one can deny the beauty of Dario Marianelli’s piano soundtrack.

There are a lot of long tracking shots in this movie. I don’t know enough about film making to comment on their use, but I do enjoy critiques and video essays discussing directing choices like this. Cinemalogue states, “This introduction to the Bennet household is like a cinematographic waltz — weaving around and in and out of rooms. Most of the filming was done on location, in real residences and not sets. The continuous tracking shots throughout the various residences provide a great visual contrast between the cramped spaces of middle-class citizenry and the immensely wealthy nobility of late, eighteenth-century England.” Another interesting analysis of Wright’s directing choices and unique camera movements by author and teacher Regina Jeffers can be found on the Every Woman Dreams blog.

The Bennet family truly feels like a family in this movie. Sisterly affection and squabbles, feeling in turn the love and embarrassment of their outspoken mother and the benefits and consequences of an indulgent father — it’s all here.

Upon watching the dance with Lizzie and Darcy, I do have to point out again the artistry of the soundtrack and the directing in this movie. The camera flows with the movement of the dancers, while the music is distinct and memorable. Lovely work.

The movie opens with Keira Knightley’s Elizabeth Bennet out reading and walking across a field. Having seen the movie before, I know the setting is probably chosen to both set up and bookend the climax later. It’s not book-accurate, but it is lovely.

Having Lizzie introduced by reading a book… this doesn’t really bother me, but Lizzie wasn’t the reader of the family in the novel. (That would be Mary, and possibly Mr. Bennet.) Yes, she does enjoy books, and this comes up in conversation with Darcy and others later. But I do think establishing Lizzie as “bookworm” in the opening shot was a choice to make book-loving viewers feel connected to the character, rather than be true to the novel’s version. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. What do you think?

Keira Knightley was an excellent fit for Elizabeth Bennet, no matter what anyone says. I am certain her performance in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise influenced her casting and audience’s perception of her character (and, I get the impression, possibly some of her lines and acting in this role). That actually works, though. Elizabeth Swan and Elizabeth Bennet are equally feisty, spirited, independent women who want to make choices for themselves and struggle to hold onto their values, opinions, and agency in a world where so much is already dictated for them.

I forgot President Snow was Mr. Bennet in this movie! This is awkward. It’s a credit to Donald Sutherland’s acting that the two characters are so entirely different that I forget the connection every time. I bear no ill will toward this Mr. Bennet. (Also, I love his voice.) This movie’s Lydia Bennet, Jena Malone, was also in the Hunger Games franchise (Johanna Mason).

It’s a pity the most forgettable Bennet, Catherine a.k.a. Kitty, is given to Carey Mulligan — an amazing actress with delightful abilities. But she does the role of Lydia’s little shadow credit. I’d argue she injects the role with some real personality.

Brenda Blethyn’s Mrs. Bennet feels both very realistic and book-accurate. Of the adaptations I’ve seen so far, she is my favorite version of this character. Blethyn captures the dramatic nature of the woman while staying grounded in the reality of what being a mother of five daughters (with no son to protect the inheritance) will push a woman to do for marriages.

Claudie Blakley makes a wonderful Charlotte Lucas; lively enough to be Lizzie’s best friend, but plain and sensible enough to better keep her feet on the ground.

Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr. Darcy is introduced very well, quite in line with the book’s general impression and attitude. I still don’t think this Mr. Darcy smiled enough by the end, but that’s really my only complaint on that character.

I have heard it said that Simon Woods’ Mr. Bingley is too simple or silly, portrayed too much as a doltish airhead. I can understand the criticism, but I also don’t think this version of the character is any less book-accurate than other depictions. What we know of Bingley from the book is that he is generally liked, will smile and talk with anyone, is madly in love with Jane from first sight, and is too easily influenced by the advice of others. While I prefer my own version of the character from reading the book, I do think this interpretation of Mr. Bingley cannot be called inaccurate to another person’s reading of the novel.

Rosamund Pike is the very essence of Jane Bennet. Her golden, ethereal beauty, constant smile, gentle voice, kind words for everyone and everything… she is just the angel Austen wrote.

Tom Hollander’s Mr. Collins is, quite simply, a classic Mr. Collins. Earnest, awkward, oblivious, suffocating Mr. Collins.

Rupert Friend plays Mr. Wickham. He looks too gentle and soft for my vision of the character, but a major point in the book is that Wickham looks too kind and friendly for characters to at first believe the accusations against him. He plays the deceptively charming, almost chameleon-like role well. (Watching Lizzie and Wickham flirt actually reminds me a lot of the initial relationship between Frank and Emma in Emma . Of course, Frank is much less a scoundrel by the end.)

Judi Dench plays Darcy’s aunt Lady Catherine and does the role quite well. But then, she is Dame Judi Dench.

Lizzie’s sensible aunt Mrs. Gardiner is one of my favorite characters in the book, and I did love seeing Penelope Wilton play her. Whether as Mrs. Hamley, Isobel Crawley, Harriet Jones, or Mrs. Gardiner, Wilton always brings a subtle strength and sensible head with her.

Tamzin Merchant’s Georgiana Darcy is sweet and lovely, but entirely unlike the deathly shy and quiet little sister in the book. I do still like this character but feel the need to point out this inaccuracy.

Adaptational changes

The movie, being only two hours long, has to cut considerable amounts from the book, as most adaptations do. The condensation of the first few chapters makes sense, though it is a pity Mrs. and Mr. Bennet’s exchange of “I am sick of Mr. Bingley” and “If I had known as much this morning, I certainly would not have called on him” was cut.

I get the impression that a good deal of dialogue has been abridged, modernized, or otherwise adapted for the movie. Some of it works better than others.

WHY IS LIZZIE’S HAIR DOWN when she walks to Netherfield alone? (Also, why does everyone have bangs?) I generally refrain from commentary on the costumes, not being familiar with historical accuracy myself… but why is the gentlewoman’s hair down in the middle of the day on a visit to strangers? That’s wrong, right? Is this a visual exaggeration of the “disheveled woman” appearance that so shocks Darcy and Miss Bingley, along with the muddy hem? Seems a bit much.

On a related note, seeing Caroline Bingley’s sleeveless dress at the ball feels very wrong. That wasn’t a thing, was it? Wouldn’t bare shoulders have been taboo at that time? Can someone with a better understanding of Regency era dress and modesty help me out here?

Mr. Bingley’s sister Mrs. Hurst and her boring, disappointing husband are cut from this adaptation. They added nothing of consequence to the plot or other story elements and are not missed. Sir Lucas and Maria are cut from Elizabeth’s visit to the Collinses — she goes alone to see her friend. The wealthy Miss King, who temporarily tempted Mr. Wickham, is also cut.

Of course we must discuss the dramatic proposal in the rain.

In the book, Mr. Darcy’s first proposal takes place indoors at the Collinses’ house while Elizabeth is home alone, and begins in a slightly more reserved manner. In this movie, Mr. Darcy finds Elizabeth taking shelter under an overhang and declares his love over the noise of the pouring rain. Is this historically accurate? A faithful adaptation? The exact speech from the book? No. But it is certainly memorable and emotional. It externalizes the different tumults our hero and heroine are feeling in this moment as Mr. Darcy caves to his feelings while Elizabeth struggles with anger over his behavior.

I think this movie lends more chemistry between the characters by this scene than has been established by this point in the book. The movie has a lot of relationship-developing ground to cover in significantly less time. Plus, modern screen vs. 18th century book. There’s going to be some differences necessary.

The delivery of Mr. Darcy’s subsequent letter in the late night? early morning? hours to a nightgown-clad Elizabeth is, I’m assuming, some sort of metaphorical rather than literal image — showing how his letter feels like it’s intruding on her private world, maybe. Why would a gentleman personally deliver a letter to an unmarried woman in such circumstances? It reminds me of the scene in the 1995 miniseries where Elizabeth is remembering something Darcy said and Colin Firth’s face appears in her bedroom mirror.

In this movie, the Gardiners and Lizzie decide to visit Pemberley when their carriage breaks down near the estate, giving them the idea. It’s not in the book, but seeing the Gardiners and Lizzie interacting in a calm, familial manner was quite pleasant and gave a good idea of these newly introduced characters with a single scene.

I love that Lizzie’s first reaction to seeing Pemberley was a laugh. That was very book-character-accurate. What I didn’t like was how she paid such close attention to the art in the estate while the music drowned out the housekeeper’s conversation with the Gardiners. In the book, Lizzie is intent on hearing every word the housekeeper shares about Mr. Darcy and clings to the conversation while pretending indifference.

In this movie, Lizzie accidentally spies Mr. Darcy inside the house, rather than coming across each other while walking the grounds. It certainly gives more modern credibility to her embarrassment and awkwardness when he catches her watching him and his sister through a crack in the door. I’m not sure why the movie cut his interactions with her aunt and uncle during the visit — I loved that part of the book — or why his desire for her to meet his sister was communicated secondhand.

Some changes were made to the scene in which Lizzie learns of Lydia’s running away with Mr. Wickham. In the book, only Darcy is present when she receives the letter; he hurries and frets over her state of distress, sends a servant for the Gardiners, and listens largely in silence to her report and exclamations of sorrow before leaving. Elizabeth believes he is mortified by the entire affair and wants to remove himself from her company immediately; it is much, much later in the story that she learns he was, in fact, blaming himself for the event and setting out to fix things for her.

In this movie, the Gardiners are there with Darcy and Elizabeth. Immediately upon hearing what’s happened, Darcy declares it to be his own fault and wishes aloud that he could help, before withdrawing back into his usual stoic self and leaving the room.

Interesting that this adaptation gives the Gardiners no children of their own. I assume because they add little to the story and would require more actors for no real purpose.

There’s quite a few changes to the ending, most of them sensible cuts to the timeline. Seeing Jane’s happiness is always so wonderful, of course. I did like the technique of watching the family’s evenings through the windows; it lends a sincerity and intimacy to Mr. and Mrs. Bennet’s relationship especially that felt lacking in the book.

In the book, Lady Catherine visits in the day — at an unusual hour for visitors, but certainly not in the middle of the night. I’m not sure why they kept the line about the Bennets’ small garden when Lady Catherine’s confrontation of Elizabeth takes place indoors in this version. I assume the change in the time of day was to drive home to modern viewers the unexpected and severe nature of Lady Catherine’s behavior.

This movie cuts out Mr. Collins’ letter to Mr. Bennet. The letter is completely unnecessary to the story, so it makes sense to cut it, but it is a funny scene I enjoyed; its absence was noticed.

The climax of the movie is its sharpest diversion from the book. Instead of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth taking a walk with her family and acknowledging their feelings during a moment alone, Elizabeth talks a walk at dawn after Lady Catherine’s unexpected and unwanted midnight visit. She comes across Mr. Darcy and the two share an intimate conversation and a kiss. In Austen adaptations, there’s always at least one scene “updated” to satisfy modern romance viewers’ expectations, and this fits the bill. The contents of Darcy’s initial speech match the book, and the ensuing professions and conversation match the intentions and emotions, so it works for me. It really is a beautiful speech.

One entirely new scene is added to this movie — a happily ever after of Mr. and the new Mrs. Darcy. It feels a little silly and too modern for me. It’s an incredibly romantic scene, and I can understand the appeal. It just feels out of place in a traditional Austen adaptation.

What is most important in an adaptation? Accurate character depictions? Loyalty to the plot? Faithful interpretation and delivery of themes and messages? Overall viewer experience?

I think every reader and viewer’s idea of what makes a “good” adaptation will vary. Different people have different priorities when a book gets translated to screen, and no adaptation will please everyone.

For me, a faithful adaptation usually requires loyalty to themes and messages first, plot and characters a close second. But this also can depend on what exactly is being adapted. Some stories I pursue for enjoyment, where themes, messages, and accuracy are less important, while others can be completely altered and ruined with one scene (looking at you, Northanger Abbey ).

This movie is not the most popular Pride and Prejudice adaptation, but it is close. Many viewers (too many) compare it to the 1995 miniseries and dislike or outright hate it by comparison. It’s true that the two adaptations are remarkably different, but does that then mean that one is inferior to the other? The two adaptations were created by different people in different decades (technically different centuries, too). Every person has a different experience reading the same book. Wouldn’t we expect that fact to affect each screenwriter or director’s vision of a story?

My point is, I love the 1995 miniseries, and I love the 2005 movie. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Both changed some parts of the book and kept others. (No one can ever convince me a dripping-wet Colin Firth qualifies as “faithful adaptation.”) Watching this movie, the thing that mattered by the end wasn’t whether speeches were made in the right setting or dialogue was delivered the way I pictured it. What mattered was that a beautiful love story blooming despite the odds in a restrictive society was translated to screen in a way that allowed me to smile and laugh and cringe and sigh just as much as when I read the book.

I think I’ll call that faithful.

Book Review: Pride and Prejudice

Pride and prejudice (1995) miniseries review, related posts, queer christmas movie reviews: lifetime’s “the christmas setup”, queer christmas movie reviews: hulu’s “happiest season”, queer christmas movie reviews: hallmark’s “the christmas house”, queer christmas movie reviews: netflix’s “a new york christmas wedding”, share your thoughts cancel reply.

Revisiting Resistance

Four alumni reflect on their involvement in the 1986 anti–apartheid protests at Penn.

Speech (Un)leashed

For better or for worse, Sidechat has become Penn’s digital soapbox.

In Photos: The Revelries of Spring Fling

Penn’s greatest weekend of performance, artistry, and debauchery: a Spring Fling retrospective photo essay.

What Happens After A Global K-Pop Star Notices You?

From Seoul to Philadelphia, Louis Chung is making waves in the K–Pop stan world

Penn 10: The Pivot Class

Meet the Penn 10 Class of 2024 who are embracing change and charting new waters.

Penn 10: Jo Armstrong

Architecture, music, sewing, and sports, Jo Armstrong does it all.

Redefining an Altered Home

How do you know which goodbye is your last?

Dear Kings Court Room 146

Capturing dorm room memories in photos.

LinkedIn Keywords: Getting Paranoid and Caught up in the Details

You spent three hours in the LinkedIn Rabbit Hole, and you are now successful.

The Brooklyn Film Festival Immerses Audiences in an Embrace of Art and Identity

“Art IS better when it movies.”

Coming of Age in the Spirit Realm

‘Spirited Away’ remains a feat of animation and a journey of the heart—especially for this staff writer and graduated Penn senior.

Alex Garland Is Breaking Everyone’s Brain

The release of the director’s fourth film, the Civil War, has divided film discourse.

Jenny on the Chopping Block

How Jennifer Lopez and her team are mishandling her status as a legacy artist

Charli xcx’s Lively Call for a Return to 2000s Club Culture in 'BRAT' Has a Not–So–Remarkable Soft Side

Discothèques, motherhood … maybe we should all stick to what we know.

Wallows’ New Album 'Model' is All About Nostalgia

Despite a few lackluster songs, the band still captures their signature sound while exploring new emotional depths.

Creating Under Capitalism

From Booktok curating entire libraries to soulless cover designs, are we losing our artistry?

Welcome to Herzog

Jonathan Song leaves behind a lasting legacy as the founder of Penn’s first–of–its–kind artistic housing collective.

Art in the Gaza Solidarity Encampment

A mosaic of resistance emerges on college campuses across the country.

It’s so Ph-ucking hot: How Philadelphians Beat the Heat

From iconic ice cream joints to exclusive private pools, explore the ultimate summer escapes in the City of Brotherly Love.

It’s Shaq’s World—We’re Just Living In It

The NBA Hall of Famer has redefined his legacies in ways that most celebrities can only dream of.

What’s Your (Personality) Type?

As arbitrary as their answers may be, personality quizzes offer insight into our desire to know ourselves.

Overheards February 2024

This Month: botox, blowjobs, and bisexuals.

Overheards December 2023

This month: super stylists, super villains, and super sloppy top.

Overheards November 2023

This month: hummus, hoagies, and homophobia.

34th Street Magazine is part of a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site., why i love 2005's 'pride & prejudice', though a controversial adaptation, 2005's 'pride and prejudice' endures and inspires genuine emotion..

The first time I watched 2005’s Pride & Prejudice , the most recent film adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic novel starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen , I was taken away by the breathtaking romance. The second time I watched it—because it’s one of the films you can watch an infinite number of times—I was with friends who had intended to study. However, when Mr. Darcy crossed the foggy moor in his billowing shirt to finally reunite with Elizabeth Bennet at the end of the movie, my friends' eyes were glued to the screen. It’s a romance that can draw anyone in, from classic lit enthusiasts to casual movie fans. However, Pride & Prejudice garnered mixed reviews from audiences: Some loved it, but Austen enthusiasts were less enamored .

In the audio commentary for the film, director Joe Wright describes how it was influenced by films from his childhood, like classic 1980s American teen movies. This influence is evident in the sense of fun and startlingly modern humor of the film, which is unexpected for a period drama. Small moments—the awkward initial moment of boy meets girl or the way teen girls look at each other when boring men are talking—call back to movies like The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles . You can even catch a hint of Mean Girls in there, as the characters fit modern–day teen movie stereotypes, even though their angst is displayed in period dresses over beautiful cliffside vistas. Pride & Prejudice is an innovative mix of genres. It's a period film with the vibe of an '80s teen rom–com. Yet, it’s a historical drama that prioritizes its characters’ journeys.

The film captures how younger audiences approach classic literature or analyze their high school English class readings—with memes. If you look at the SparkNotes Twitter , or even just search Pride & Prejudice on Tumblr, you’ll be inundated by classic lit memes. That sense of humor and absurdity is something Austen would appreciate, as her famous novels often mocked and satirized class and social etiquette. 2005’s Pride & Prejudice captures that same sense of humor.

Mrs. Bennet: "If you go on refusing every offer of marriage in this way, you will never get a husband at all!" Elizabeth: pic.twitter.com/UrADjqQJaU — SparkNotes (@SparkNotes) July 10, 2019

Darcy: "You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you." Elizabeth: pic.twitter.com/QHFojA9Ot4 — SparkNotes (@SparkNotes) June 13, 2019

That’s not to say the film is a perfect adaptation—what’s important is that it’s new and original in its take on a text that has been translated to screen many times before. The 1995 Pride and Prejudice mini–series is an acclaimed adaptation of the text, and it’s definitely a more complex and accurate take on the novel. The mini–series had time to flesh out multiple storylines and take advantage of an ensemble cast of characters, and it emphasizes the themes of class, wealth, and marriage. However, the film fits a lot in its limited run–time, and shouldn’t be compared to the mini–series, as it's a different beast.

Though Pride & Prejudice came out in 2005, it still feels like a fresh take on a beloved story; Mr. Darcy remains, for many, the ideal romantic hero. It’s one of the few classic romantic films that hasn’t aged badly, and, like the novel it’s based on, remains timeless.

Beyond that, though, it’s just a good movie. Despite its cheesy ending , it stirs emotions, makes you love the characters, and convinces you to root for their love story. It has beautiful people doing beautiful things in beautiful places, sometimes during an artful rainfall. Its cast is immensely talented, its settings are lush landscapes or historical buildings, and the overwhelming sense of English posh makes for a good escape. It’s a satisfying watch, and sometimes we forget that that’s all movies really have to be.

Pride and Prejudice is about finding yourself through the eyes of another, and the 2005 film captures that beautifully. Its success and legacy are evident in the 2020 film adaptation Emma , which takes a similarly whimsical tone and aesthetic to adapt another Austen work. Adaptations are always hit or miss, but Pride & Prejudice endures.

More Like This

Pennconnects, newsletters.

Get 34th Street's newsletter, The Toast, delivered to your inbox every Friday morning.

Keeping Up With The Penguins

Reviews for the would-be booklover.

Book Reviews
New Releases
Recommended Reads

Pride & Prejudice 2005 Movie Poster - Keeping Up With The Penguins

Movie Review: Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Welcome, one and all, to the first in a new blog series for Keeping Up With The Penguins! All month long, I’ll be reviewing movie adaptations alongside the classic and best-seller books that inspired them. This week, I reviewed Jane Austen’s Pride And Prejudice , and I was pretty spoiled for choice when it came to screen adaptations. It is, after all, one of the best-loved books in English literature, and we can’t help but translate it to the screen as often as possible. In the end, it was a toss-up between reviewing the classic BBC mini-series or the more recent movie version. I ended up going for Pride & Prejudice (2005) , mostly out of laziness – a 129 minute film sucks up a lot less of your day than six hour-long episodes.

Pride & Prejudice stars Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, and Matthew Macfayden as the romantic lead Mr Darcy. I can see how Colin Firth would have made a better Darcy, but in my view Knightley was a practically-perfect Lizzie, exactly as I’d imagined her in the book. Plus, she was fresh off the back of the success of Bend It Like Beckham and Pirates Of The Caribbean . Director Joe Wright said that’s pretty much why he chose her; her star-power allowed him to cast a relative unknown as the male lead, and kept the marketing team happy. I can’t work out whether that’s a compliment or an insult to all involved.

And an important note at the outset: I know this is a historical film, but I refuse to nit-pick matters of period accuracy. Reviews that get stuck into “but the soldiers wouldn’t have had yellow embroidery on their jackets that year!” or “but that type of flower wasn’t introduced until 50 years later!” are boring as heck, and I won’t be one of them.

That said, as much as historical accuracy is off the table, story accuracy remains the centerpiece. When you’re adapting, as I said, one of the best-loved books in English literature, the stakes for remaining faithful to the original material while simultaneously making a great film for modern audiences get super-high. That happy duty fell to screenwriter Deborah Moggach (with a little help from her friend, the incredible Emma Thompson ).

At first, she tried to stay as faithful to Austen as possible, and she really put in the work, writing ten drafts over the course of two years. She focused in particular on trying to keep as much of the original dialogue as she could. When Wright came on board as director, he gently cajoled her into making a few small changes: adding a couple scenes from perspectives other than Lizzie’s, for instance, and tweaking the timeline. It was a pretty bold move on his part, given that he hadn’t actually read Pride And Prejudice before he saw one of the script’s early iterations.

Anyway, this version, Pride & Prejudice , is set in 1797, a bit earlier than most other adaptations (that usually place it in 1813, the year that the book was first published). From what I can tell, that decision was based almost purely on the fact that Wright hated nineteenth-century fashion. He also wanted this film to look a bit more earthy and rural, so there’s a lot of mud on hems and farm animals wandering about. Those factors combined helped Pride & Prejudice stand out among the slew of Austen adaptations in the ’90s and ’00s, which had presented much cleaner and more refined versions of the period drama.

I found that the movie skipped over a lot of the subtleties of the various political negotiations that took place in the marriage market, but perhaps to be expected in the medium of film. Wright had a lot less time to work with than the BBC adaptation, which was three times as long; he once said that Pride & Prejudice is “about Elizabeth and Darcy, following them, and anything that detracts or diverts you from that story is what you have to cut”. This means that the film really emphasises the romantic and comedic elements, and downplays Austen’s social commentary – whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing I suppose depends on which aspect of her work you like the best. They did have to take the time to do things like explain in the dialogue what an “entailed estate” means, because films don’t have footnotes, and that made me laugh.

I know Knightley is the star, with her sassy forthright iteration of Lizzie Bennet, but it was really the supporting cast that stole the show. Kelly Reilly abso-fucking-lutely nailed Miss Bingley! She’s snarky, she’s nasty, she’s snobby, all to great effect – even I found her intimidating, from the comfort of my own 21st century couch. And Tom Hollander as Mr Collins had me in hysterics! Again, his character was exaggerated – he was more awkward, more oblivious, more snivelling than he came across in writing – but he did it so bloody well. Hats off to both of them!

Actually, every character was exaggerated, almost a caricature of their book-selves. Lydia, in particular, seemed a lot more childish. I mean, in the book she was hardly a calculating femme fatale, but she was definitely a bit more worldly than Movie Lydia who got swept away in the illusion of a fairytale romance, giggling all the while. The irony is that Jena Malone , who played Lydia, was actually older than Knightley and most of the other Bennet sisters at the time of filming – movie magic strikes again! And, of course, I can’t neglect to mention Judi Dench’s stunning performance as the indomitable Lady Catherine de Bourgh; apparently, Wright convinced her to join the cast by writing her a letter that said “I love it when you play a bitch. Please come and be a bitch for me.” And she delivered!

On the whole, it was a very theatrical retelling of Austen’s best-known novel, but it stayed quite faithful to her story. They changed the “feel”, for lack of a better term, but not what actually happened in the narrative. For time and convenience, sure, they cut a few scenes and some minor characters, but none of the major plot points were altered. Quite a feat, as far as I’m concerned!

That’s not to say I didn’t have a few quibbles. My favourite line in the whole novel, where Darcy offers a distressed Lizzie a wine, didn’t end up in Pride & Prejudice , which I consider to be a huge oversight. And their first dance featured a bit of camera trickery whereby everyone else in the room literally disappeared, which I thought was a bit heavy-handed. Those minor cock-ups, however, pale in comparison to Lizzie’s horrible line in the big romantic climax, when she meets Darcy in the mist:

“Your hands are cold” she bleats, ugh! It’s an abomination, an insult to Austen, and no matter how good the rest of the movie was, all involved in bringing that line to life should be made to sit in the time-out corner and think about what they’ve done.

And thank goodness I saw the U.K. version, where the final scene shows Mr Bennet giving his consent to Lizzie and Darcy’s marriage. Apparently, the U.S. release added an extra “and they lived happily ever after” husband-and-wife-smoochy-smoochy shot after that, and I literally would have thrown up in my mouth. Such a shame to end an otherwise good film on bum notes.

But let’s not linger on such unpleasant matters! Pride & Prejudice was made on a (relative shoestring) budget of $28 million. It wound up raking in approximately $121 million total. Its success was hardly surprising, given the trend set by Romeo + Juliet and Shakespeare In Love , and other extremely popular Austen adaptations. There was a push for an Austen Revival at the time, and Pride & Prejudice rode that wave, trying to capture a younger audience; in fact, it was marketed as “brought to you by the produces of Bridget Jones’s Diary and Love Actually “, before Austen’s name was even mentioned.

The film was released in fifty-nine countries in 2005-06, and became the 41st highest-grossing film internationally that year. Its appeal went beyond the popular, too, and it earned four Academy Award nominations (including Best Actress for Knightley). Despite the fact that Austen adaptations will always ignite strong feelings regarding accuracy and faithfulness, this one was undoubtedly a success on all fronts.

So, which was better, the movie or the book?

Through gritted teeth, I’ll say the book . The movie was great, and I really enjoyed it, but really the best part of Austen for me is her political and social commentary, and that’s something the movie really skates over. If you enjoy Austen for the romance, this movie should be a winner for you!

But probably no one will ever enjoy it as much as the woman in Chile who, Netflix reported , watched the film 278 times over the course of a single year. That’s a true fan, right there.

Keep up with these too:

Dymocks Top 101 Books For 2020 - Text Overlaid on Image of Book Store - Keeping Up With The Penguins

Features & Discussion

13 comments.

August 9, 2019 at 4:39 PM

As good as this was it always comes second best to that tv adaptation with Colin Firth for me. McFadden just doesn’t have the right brooding persona to make Darcy convincing.

August 9, 2019 at 5:51 PM

Yes, I totally feel that! I feel like the ideal would be a mash-up: Colin Firth as Darcy, Kiera Knightley as Lizzy.

August 10, 2019 at 5:13 AM

This is my favorite movie of all time! If you had hated it, I might have seriously reconsidered our friendship.

I thought Keira Knightley was a perfect Lizzie, playful and fun. I absolutely love the cinematography – the long tracking shots and the placement of the characters at different depth levels in scenes. And the music gets me every time.

I dislike the American ending – which is awful. I refuse to watch it. I’m also not a fan of the meet at dawn scene either. It just doesn’t quite fit. And you’re right about the dancing scene between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, the room disappearing part is over the top.

August 10, 2019 at 10:11 AM

Hahahaha I’m glad our friendship remains intact! 😉 Completely agree, Keira Knightley was the perfect Lizzie – it wasn’t a “perfect” film, but it was pretty darn good!

August 12, 2019 at 12:24 AM

I love this movie so much more than the miniseries, which is a great scandal to many — and I like this Darcy better than Colin Firth. DON’T TELL THE INTERNET. :p I thought Keira Knightley was terrific as Lizzie, and I was mostly okay with the changes to the book that were made for length reasons. But of course, yeah, the book is so much better.

The smoochy shot in the US edition is SO BAD, like honestly probably worse than you’re imagining. It’s way too swoony and annoying and I hate it.

August 12, 2019 at 2:15 PM

You are SO BRAVE to admit that, in writing, on the internet hahahahahaha!

August 20, 2019 at 4:56 AM

With Jane Austen its almost always the book coz as you mentioned in the reviews – the subtleties of human behavior always lost in the adaptation or the acting. Except for a few well made BBC/ITV dramas that take as much time to view as one would take time to read the book – I always think the books are better. I actually surprisingly really enjoyed this movie. I liked the slightly uncouth take of the Bennets – makes the repulsion of the Darcey’s and Bingley’s more understandable (not forgivable though)! Really agree with your review on all points and if you have time do check out mine of the same movie https://shadesofwords.com/pride-prejudice-review/

August 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM

Yes, exactly! So glad we’re in the same boat on this one 😉 I’ll check out your review – thank you!

September 25, 2019 at 5:19 PM

Interesting. I’ll say right at the outset that I’ve yet to see a film adaptation of P&P that I fully enjoyed (total case of book snobbery on this one and I won’t apologize for it either 😂). I actually think Jennifer Ehle makes a better Elizabeth than Knightley and YES to all the Colin Firth’s Darcy fans, but I thought the entire supporting cast of the ’05 adaptation was leaps and bounds better than the BBC miniseries. Any way you slice it, I much prefer the book. 🤷🏼‍♀️

September 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM

Bahahaha that’s the trick with adapting beloved books to film, isn’t it? They’re never going to win! The supporting cast of this adaptation was stellar, completely agree. ❤️

September 26, 2019 at 1:32 PM

August 1, 2020 at 11:24 AM

”I ended up going for Pride & Prejudice (2005), mostly out of laziness – a 129 minute film sucks.”

End your review there. The story was eviscerated and poorly told.

August 1, 2020 at 2:25 PM

HA! Sick burn!

Looking For Something?

Love keeping up subscribe.

Keep Up On Facebook

Here’s the latest….

The Roommate – Rosie Danan
Can’t Spell Treason Without Tea – Rebecca Thorne
15 Books That Will Make You Feel Like You’re On Vacation
Days At The Morisaki Bookshop – Satoshi Yagisawa
All The Beautiful Things You Love – Jonathan Seidler

KEEP UP ON INSTAGRAM

Keepingupwiththepenguinsonline.

Book reviews and reading recommendations for the would-be booklover 📚

Keep Up On Pinterest

Keeping Up With The Penguins operates on the lands of the Gadigal people, of the Eora nation. This land was never ceded or sold. Our First Nations communities have the oldest continuing storytelling tradition in the world, and custodianship of the land always was, always will be, theirs.

Privacy Policy

Want to know what we’re up to with this whole website thing? Check out our full Privacy Policy here .

Keeping Up With The Penguins is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

Stranger Things Season 5
Deadpool and Wolverine
The Batman 2
Spider-Man 4
Yellowstone Season 6
Fallout Season 2
The Last of Us Season 2
Entertainment

3 BritBox shows you should watch in June 2024

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in BBC's Sherlock.

Given the incredible wealth of streaming services at our disposal today, it can be overwhelming trying to find something great to watch. If you want to look past some of the more prominent streamers , though, you might be surprised to discover the wealthy of titles available on BritBox.

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

Sherlock (2010-2017), kitchen nightmares (2007-2023).

The streaming service is designed to deliver a wealth of British imports to American audiences, and as a result, it has a lineup of great content from just across the pond. If you’ve subscribed to BritBox and are looking for something worth checking out on the service, then we’ve got you covered. Here are three shows you should definitely make time for on the service this month.

There have been many adaptations of Jane Austen’s most famous novel, but many swear by the 1995 miniseries as the definitive version of the story. Starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, this version is incredibly faithful to the source material, and is swooning in part because of the practicalities of its love affair.

Don’t let these 3 June 2024 hidden streaming movie gems fly under your radar
3 sci-fi movies on Hulu you need to watch in June
5 best Netflix comedy movies to watch on Father’s Day

Mr. Darcy is one of the most famous characters in the history of literature, and his bumbling, adorable attempts to prove his affection for Elizabeth Bennet, and the complications that get in the way of their romance, are still a delight more than 25 years later.

You can watch Pride and Prejudice on BritBox.

A modern adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s series of stories about a brilliant detective with a heroin addiction, Sherlock brings that character to the present day and also gave Benedict Cumberbatch a chance to deliver a star-making turn. The series loosely adapts many of Conan Doyle’s original stories, and because of the flexibility of British television, the episodes could be almost feature length.

While not everything about Sherlock has held up, the show remains the ideal combination of cozy mystery and edge-of-your-seat suspense, and because most of the episodes are isolated, you can watch them in any order you want.

You can watch Sherlock on BritBox.

Gordon Ramsay has developed a reputation for being an absolute brute in the kitchen, and Kitchen Nightmares gives him a chance to take his skills for screaming at people on the road. In Kitchen Nightmares , Ramsay and his team visit failing restaurants and attempt to turn business around by fixing the food, the culture, and the processes inside the restaurant.

It’s a riveting show, and not just because Ramsay often finds himself screaming at the owner. It’s a genuinely interesting look at what it takes to run a good restaurant, and how common it is to fall back on what’s easy instead of doing the hard work to ensure that you’re proud of the food you serve to your paying customers.

You can watch Kitchen Nightmares on BritBox.

Editors' Recommendations

3 underrated shows on Hulu you need to watch in June 2024
3 PBS shows you should watch in June 2024
5 TV shows you need to watch in July
If you have to watch one Netflix movie in June, stream this one
3 underrated Amazon Prime Video movies you should watch this weekend (June 14-16)

There are plenty of fairly obvious titles worth checking out on Netflix. After all, the streaming service has become almost synonymous with the idea of streaming television, and a number of its shows have been phenomenally large hits. For every breakout series that Netflix produces, though, there are plenty of other shows that live further under the radar and are just as great.

We've selected three such shows that are worth your time this weekend. Whether you're into nature documentaries, foreign dramas, or road dramedies, this list has something for you. Our Planet (2019) Our Planet | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix

Now that we've reached the midpoint of June, you may think that Hulu won't have any new movies to share until July rolls around. Fortunately, that's not the case. Hulu may not have added any huge films this week, but there are a few new options to catch as we head into the weekend.

Our current picks for the three Hulu movies that you need to watch this weekend include a documentary that takes us back to Hollywood in the '80s, a biographical drama, and a romantic comedy/drama hybrid that's still one of our personal favorites nearly a quarter-century after its release. Brats (2024)

This weekend is for the kids, as Inside Out 2 opens in theaters everywhere. As the sequel to 2015's Inside Out, Inside Out 2 marks the return of Riley's emotions, like Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), and Anger (Lewis Black). Inside Out 2 should have the biggest opening weekend of the summer so far, with estimates predicting an $80-plus million haul.

If you don't plan on going to the theater, stay home and stream a movie. FAST services offer thousands of free movies to stream without any hidden fees. Below, we selected three great free movies to stream this weekend. Our picks include the first film in an action franchise, a terrifying horror flick, and a stylish neo-noir. Bad Boys (1995)

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen chapter 17

Podcast Episode

Add a plot in your language

User reviews

June 5, 2024 (United Kingdom)
See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

Runtime 9 minutes

More to explore

You’ve Seen the Movie — Now Name the Book That Inspired It

By J. D. Biersdorfer June 17, 2024

Share full article

A blue, back and white illustration of a movie-set clapboard partly made out of stacked books.

Can you identify a book title just by looking at a photo from its film adaptation? (Or maybe if you had just a little hint?) That’s the challenge in this week’s installment of Great Adaptations, the Book Review’s regular multiple-choice quiz about books and stories that have gone on to find new life in the form of movies, television shows, theatrical productions and other formats.

Just tap or click your answers to the five questions below. And scroll down after you finish the last question for links to the books and their screen adaptations.

A white man in a 1930s prison guard uniform stands next to a taller Black man in overalls as they both look upwards.

Hint: The novel used as the basis for this film was originally released in six serial installments.

“The Shawshank Redemption”

“Road to Perdition”

“The Green Mile”

“Forrest Gump”

Four white girls in 19th-century dresses looking out a window.

Hint: Before she did “Barbie,” Greta Gerwig directed and wrote the most recent film adaptation of this book in 2019.

“The Old Curiosity Shop”

“Pride and Prejudice”

“Jane Eyre”

“Little Women”

Two men in leather jackets stare ahead, with one of them holding a flamethrower.

Hint: The book — about censorship and published in 1953 — has been banned itself in some places.

“Stranger in a Strange Land”

“Fahrenheit 451”

“American Psycho”

A group of young women singers holding microphones under a spotlight,

Hint: This 2008 nonfiction book sparked a 2012 film and two sequels.

“The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory”

“When Colleges Sang: The Story of Singing in American College Life”

“Pitch Perfect: The Quest for Collegiate a Cappella Glory”

“Powerful Voices: The Musical and Social World of Collegiate a Cappella”

Two Black women in 1920s wardrobe sit on a stoop in a black-and-white photo.

Hint: The book was published in 1929 by a member of the Harlem Renaissance whose previous novel was “Quicksand.”

“Every Tongue Got to Confess”

“Unfinished Masterpiece”

“The Living Is Easy”

COMMENTS

Pride and Prejudice movie review (2005)
Roger Ebert praises Keira Knightley's performance as Elizabeth Bennet and the film's adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. He describes the romance as "heartwarming" and the characters as "strong-willed" and "realistic".
Pride & Prejudice Movie Review
Our review: Parents say ( 29 ): Kids say ( 64 ): Based on the Jane Austen novel, this film's overly dramatic music and golden-lit fields are salvaged by Keira Knightley's remarkable charm. She's well-suited to play Elizabeth. In the usual Austen pairing off, designated couples are defined, divided, and brought back together.
Pride & Prejudice
As the eldest, she faces mounting pressure from her parents to marry. When the outspoken Elizabeth is introduced to the handsome and upper-class Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), sparks fly. Although ...
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Pride & Prejudice: Directed by Joe Wright. With Keira Knightley, Talulah Riley, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone. Sparks fly when spirited Elizabeth Bennet meets single, rich, and proud Mr. Darcy. But Mr. Darcy reluctantly finds himself falling in love with a woman beneath his class. Can each overcome their own pride and prejudice?
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Pride and Prejudice (2005) I began my "Pride and Prejudice" attempt with the well regarded 1995 five hour classic with Colin Firth, a BBC mini-series. And it is so poorly filmed (visually) and so utterly about recreating the text (the Austen original), it ends up being awkward and sort of awful. As a movie.
Marrying Off Those Bennet Sisters Again, but This Time Elizabeth Is a
Stephen Holden reviews movie Pride & Prejudice, directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen and Brenda Blethyn; photo (M)
Pride & Prejudice
Pride And Prejudice Is a beautiful movie, its lexis, and setting are amazing, I've seen it a million times but worth it totally, you be captivated by the intelligent and rebel Elizabeth and the presence of Mr. Darcing. ... We recap the just-concluded festival with a list of award winners and review summaries for dozens of films making their ...
Pride & Prejudice
The acting, peppered with performers making their film debuts, is largely awful. Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4 | Apr 30, 2004. Donald Munro Fresno Bee. Feels like 10% Austen and 90% ...
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
37 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com. Keira Knightley, in a witty, vibrant, altogether superb performance, plays Lizzie's sparky, questing nature as a matter of the deepest personal sacrifice. In the end, the finest achievement of Wright's movie is that it fully captures what Martin Amis, writing on Pride and Prejudice, said of Austen ...
BBC
Contains very mild innuendo. Jane Austen's classic rendering of passion in polite society got a rude awakening in Bride & Prejudice, but this adaptation of her 19th-century novel Pride & Prejudice ...
Pride & Prejudice
Pride and Prejudice is a gorgeous and well-acted adaptation. Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | Apr 29, 2009. Director Joe Wright's filmic rendition of Jane Austin's classic novel is sumptuous ...
Review: How the 2005 film adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice' vivifies
Although it is hard for movies to explore the same level of depth given its time limitation, "Pride and Prejudice," starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen, nevertheless successfully illustrates the reserved yet beautiful romance that blooms between Elizabeth and Darcy through its own film language.
Pride and Prejudice 2005
Overall, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice has the best of what good period dramas have to offer. The script with its clever dialogue, the set design, the beautiful costumes, the performances, the smoldering, the realistic female relationships, flawed and human female characters, the epic old-fashioned romance where the touch of a hand is worth its ...
Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie
A Great Introduction for the Uninitiated. In the end this film version of Pride and Prejudice was beautifully produced, visually stunning, and quite humorous. The English manor houses (including Chatsworth where some claim that Austen got her inspiration for Pemberley from) were a welcome visit.
Pride & Prejudice
Yet with Pride and Prejudice, one of English literature's great classics, he may have accepted his most imposing challenge to date, and the production's success is a notable achievement. For those who love the work of Jane Austen, 1995-6 has been a rare time. For those unfamiliar with her novels, this is the perfect opportunity to change that.
Pride & Prejudice
Movie Review. In 18th century England, the Bennet household bustles with five nearly grown daughters, one bemused father and a giddy mother with a singular goal—to arrange for her daughters "advantageous" marriages to wealthy men. ... Darcy sacrifices both his pride and his prejudice to help Lizzie's family and earn her respect and love ...
Pride and Prejudice Review
Reviews. Pride and Prejudice Review. Hearing their new neighbour is a wealthy young bachelor, Mrs. Bennet (Blethyn) goes overboard contriving a match for one of her five daughters. Amiable Bingley ...
Pride and Prejudice (2005): Review
When given the name Pride & Prejudice, a great number of people tend to automatically think cheesy, boring love story. However, the depth and beauty of Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice goes so much more beyond that. Wright transforms this classic 19th century love story into a heartwarming and fantastic cinematic experience. A tale of a typical 19th century family with five sisters intertwined ...
Pride & Prejudice
In condensing to a mere two hours Austen's elaborately arrayed tale, this P&P will probably not pass muster with those viewers who still tremble happily at the memory of the BBC's five-hour ...
How is Pride and Prejudice (2005) so good? : r/movies
And yes, the movie benefits from the fact that Jane Austen's written dialogue is so tight and informative about all of the characters. The soundtrack has also stuck with me throughout the years. As a fan of the book and of Jane Austen I think that the 1995 miniseries with Colin Firth is a lot better than the movie.
Pride and Prejudice (2005) Movie Review
Elizabeth Swan and Elizabeth Bennet are equally feisty, spirited, independent women who want to make choices for themselves and struggle to hold onto their values, opinions, and agency in a world where so much is already dictated for them. I forgot President Snow was Mr. Bennet in this movie! This is awkward.
Why I Love 2005's 'Pride & Prejudice'
However, Pride & Prejudice garnered mixed reviews from audiences: Some loved it, but Austen enthusiasts were less enamored. In the audio commentary for the film, director Joe Wright describes how it was influenced by films from his childhood, like classic 1980s American teen movies. This influence is evident in the sense of fun and startlingly ...
Movie Review: Pride & Prejudice (2005)
If you enjoy Austen for the romance, this movie should be a winner for you! But probably no one will ever enjoy it as much as the woman in Chile who, Netflix reported, watched the film 278 times over the course of a single year. That's a true fan, right there. Pride & Prejudice (2005) stars Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, and Matthew ...
Pride And Prejudice: 20 Most Memorable Quotes, Ranked
Story by Shawn S. Lealos. • 2mo • 18 min read. Pride and Prejudice movie adaptation connected with new audiences, still widely admired. Jane Austen's timeless works stand the test of time ...
3 BritBox shows you should watch in June 2024
3 action movies on Netflix you need to watch in June 2024. The summer action movie season continues in June. Last weekend marked the release of Bad Boys: Ride or Die, the fourth installment in the ...
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen chapter 17
IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content. Find ratings and reviews for the newest movie and TV shows. Get personalized recommendations, and learn where to watch across hundreds of streaming providers.
Do You Recognize This Film (and Book) From a Movie Still?
Joseph O'Neill's fiction incorporates his real-world interests in ways that can surprise even him. His latest novel, "Godwin," is about an adrift hero searching for a soccer superstar ...

Movie Reviews

Roger Ebert

Now playing

I Used to Be Funny

The Young Wife

The Garfield Movie

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

Back to Black

Young Woman and the Sea

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Directed by

Based on the novel by

Latest blog posts

Black Writers Week 2024: Table of Contents

The LightReel Film Festival Finishes Strong

How Women of Color Are Shifting the Narrative

It's Physical Work: Barry Jenkins on The Underground Railroad

Or browse by category:

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Common Sense Selections for Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

Kids' Mental Health Apps and Websites for Anxiety, Depression, Coping Skills, and Professional Support

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

A Lot or a Little?

Positive Messages

Positive Role Models

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Parents Need to Know

Where to Watch

Community Reviews

Perfect for entire family. Help boys understand how to treat the female sex with honor, dignity, and respect.

Is It Any Good?

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Movie Details

Did we miss something on diversity?

Suggest an Update

Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Sense and Sensibility

Pride and Prejudice

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Email not verified

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Movies / TV

Pride & Prejudice Reviews

Arts and Entertainment

Review: Why Mitski is the indie rock artist women of color have been waiting for

Protecting pages: The culture war on literature and fighting for literary freedom

Los Alamitos High School to introduce boys dance elective starting next year

Opinion: Women changing the game

Discover more from HS Insider

Pride and Prejudice (2005) – A 10th Anniversary Review

RELATED: Pride and Prejudice (1995) A 20th Anniversary Review

RELATED: Classic Romantic Moment Series: Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy

10 thoughts on “Pride and Prejudice (2005) – A 10th Anniversary Review”

Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review

MOVIE INFORMATION

Share this:

46 thoughts on “ Pride & Prejudice (2005) Movie – A Review ”

Please join in and have your share of the conversation! Cancel reply

Pride & Prejudice (United Kingdom, 1995)

Comments Add Comment

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

Pride & Prejudice

Content Caution

In Theaters