SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

MonsterPerfect Good idea lost in the noise

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

fab88 This is my first review. I watched this movie like 6 times and felt like it deserves a review. After all this time I still love every bit of it. The actors are brilliant and I can feel the passion between the two main characters. The ending is perfect and just the way austen movies should be.

Hermione Granger There are other versions of Jane Austen's classic (whether a TV series or zombie movie), but let's not compare to those and just say that this is an adaption of the book, looking only at the book and itself.This movie is so romantic, so beautiful--great acting, too. There's lively and enchanting music, a well-written script, moments you won't forget. There are three things (positive and negative) that truly stand out about it:1. Characters. The characters are engaging. However, they don't match the book often. Mr. Collins isn't funny, Mr. Wickham is not as cheerful, and Mr. Darcy is more shy than proud. Jane has personality and isn't just a pretty girl. The characters would have been better and richer if they were like they are in the book (except for Jane; she had an improvement), but there's also a gain of making it interesting--you don't know what to expect.2. How organic it is: Did you know, that, if Jane looked like she does in this movie back in the early 1800s, she would have been considered ugly? (Whoa!) She's pretty in today's style not "back-then" pretty. Also, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy have their fight, constantly interrupting each other and shouting. Did you know that, if that's what they'd done back that, that would be considered horribly rude? (Whoa again!) Yes! It's unreal! But this isn't a problem--though it's not accurate to yesterday's standards, it is according to today's, and that makes the movie one thing: RELATABLE. You aren't from the 1800s, you're living in the 2000s. The way things are presented makes everything seem organic to the audience.3. Scene openings: At the beginning of each scene, there's a really long introduction to it. This movie is around the average length of movies (two hours), but the opening to scenes made it seem even longer. The introduction to each setting is dull. For example, you see a dance for one minute, the camera focused on no one in particular and just going through the ballroom, showing random people laughing and dancing. Or, Elizabeth goes out into the meadow, walking, walking, walking, and walking. Then Mr. Darcy comes along, walking, walking, walking... walking... and STILL walking. I suppose the reason all of this was here was to make the viewer get the feel of the scene, but those minutes (and all that walking!) could have been replaced with more story, and we would get the feeling just as much.So, we have a great story. Some characters are left out, while others are changed. The movie feels a bit dull at some points, making the story drag and its excellence dim a bit. But the way it's presented makes it feel real and fantastic.

chickennoodlesoup9 "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." Everyone knows this notorious line as the beginning sentence for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The beloved novel about Elizabeth Bennet falling in love with the man she had sworn to hate, has captivated readers for over 200 years through its classic themes of love, humor, and early 19th century English culture. Many have tried to capture the story's magnificence through film. From 1938 to 1996, there has been over ten movies and television shows based on the novel. There has even been parodies of the story such as "Bride and Prejudice" and "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies." Nevertheless, the 2005 movie, featuring Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfardin, is by far the best film version of the novel that perfectly transports from paper to television the wit and emotions of the characters and the beauty of the setting. Jane Austen has written many novels about women, love, and domestic life in England during the turn of the 19th century. Pride and Prejudice is particularly one of her best works. The story follows the ladies of Longbourn estate, namely the second oldest of the five daughters, Elizabeth Bennet. She learns the wrongness of hasty judgment when she meets the incredibly wealthy and seemingly ill-mannered Mr. Darcy. Jane Austen is able to depict the fawning and flattering of a neighborhood full of young eligible women when a man from an affluent society comes to town during the British regency. Such an iconic novel has left Hollywood trying copy the story's delight. Only Joe Wright, director of 2005 Pride and Prejudice, was able to bring the novel justice.One reason the the film is so superb is the characters. The movie was cast to such perfection that I thought characters jumped right out of the book and onto the big screen. The stubbornness, poise, gracefulness, intelligence, and beauty of Elizabeth Bennet is flawlessly personified in leading actress Kiera Knightly. The arrogance, egotism, and kindness of Mr. Darcy is wholly seen in leading actor Matthew Macfardin. The silliness, chaos, and affection of the Bennet family- Rosamund Pink as Jane, Cary Mulligan as Kitty, Talulah Riley as Mary, Jena Malone and Lydia, Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, and Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet- is achieved to such perfection that the movie scenes that take place in Longbourn Estate, the Bennet's house property, will make you cry and laugh out loud. Even the performance of Tom Hollander makes you want to cringe as his character Mr. Collins, the awkward and silly cousin of the Bennets, proposes to Elizabeth. Without such a cast, the movie would be just another Hollywood producer tIn addition to the cast, the music perfectly sets the peaceful and calm mood of early 19th century English countryside, and it embellishes the ever-changing emotions of the characters. The soundtrack is an arrangement of classical piano and orchestra music, composed by Dario Marianelli. The movie starts off with Elizabeth Bennet walking and reading in an empty field while a piano piece by Andrew Lapp, titled "Dawn," plays in the background. This opening scene immediately captivates the audience. Due to the music, the watcher is immediately set in the beauty and serenity of the English countryside and in the peaceful thoughts of the protagonist, Ms. Elizabeth Bennet. The music has also enhanced other powerful scenes in the movie, including Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth's dance and field scene, in which the two admit their feelings for one another. Marianelli's work for the film has even gotten him an Oscar nomination for "Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures" and two World Soundtrack Academy nominations for the film. Nevertheless, the filming is by far the best part of the movie. When reading a novel, the author is able to explain and clarify the thoughts and feelings of the characters. However, on film the director does not have the luxury of doing so. Despite this, Wright flawlessly rendered Austen's writing. His vision and creativity has made it both clear and mysterious to the audience the thoughts and emotion of the characters at moments where others have made it ambiguous. For instance, during the scene in which Darcy and Elizabeth dance together at the second ball, the scene suddenly changed from the two dancing together in a crowd of people to the two dancing together in an empty ballroom, showing how they are focused only on each other despite the multitude of people around them. I am particularly fond of the way Wright showed the passage of time: Elizabeth spinning on a swing watching the seasons go by. Such originality and artistry has made this film the best version of Pride and Prejudice. Even though you can choose to watch many different film versions of the novel Pride and Prejudice, I recommend the StudioCanal 2005 film featuring Kiera Knightly. Unlike the others, it has been nominated for 34 awards, and has won six: Boston Society of Film Critics for 'Best New Filmmaker', British Academy Film Awards for 'Most promising Newcomer', Empire Awards for 'Best British Film' and Best Newcomer', London Film Critics' Circle for 'British Director of the Year' and "British supporting actor of the year". Many say the book is better than the movie. However after watching this magnificent version of Pride and Prejudice, one would argue the movie is better than the book.

soranamicooper I watched this with my 6-year-old daughter and we had a great time, laughed a lot, mostly at the same things and found it very entertaining. It's a more frivolous, less faithful version, with little sense of the social repression of the time it's supposedly set in, and some of the incongruities are a bit difficult, but it's funny and there are some good performances (Tom Hollander's Mr Collins stood out for both of us for sheer comic value and we found ourselves rewinding his bits). It will inevitably meet with criticism from some Austen fans (of which I am one), but it has its niche; I would probably only watch it again under similar circumstances but would do so happily.