Pride & Prejudice

I've read the book, I haven't seen any other adaptation of it, so I can say I'm very satisfied. This breathtaking production won me over with beautiful images, superbly shot scenes like the one at the second ball, Marianelli's haunting music and, of course, the performances of the actors. You could say that I imagined all the characters exactly as I saw them here while reading. Only, admittedly, Mr. Collins wasn't as funny in the book, and old Mr. Bennet as likable (Donald Sutherland is Donald Sutherland). As for Keira Knightley or the fantastic Matthew MacFadyen, I have no reservations. The only flaw is the few moments that I found slightly boring and unnecessary (they came in the last third), which I could tell by suddenly looking at how many minutes were left to the end. Four and a half. (23/07/2011)

The deep and stunning eyes of Miss Keira took me to a place where no road is long enough or too muddy, and where no game is good enough not to have a better one. When, in addition, the enchanting music reaches its strongest twist, you want to be Mr. Darcy, who gets a chance to show himself in the right light, or be Elizabeth and suggest the truth to everyone with her straightforwardness. But what fascinates me the most is that even though Jane Austen's original is charming in its verbosity and lushness, director Wright managed to reduce it so excellently that it clearly surpasses it. (20/02/2006)

The folly of the powerful in a British form from the pen of Jane Austen couldn’t have been better. Her world is very far from what I imagine as an ideal bedtime story. Reading her books would be make me totally desperate. The movie is a different case, however. Joe Wright honors the source material and so there is a number of higher-class conceited characters that you would like to shoot with a cannon from a Soviet T-100 tank. But the film is lucky because the dialogues are brilliantly written so there is always somebody to shut them up with a polite, cynical word. That and the very pretty shots prove that it would be a shame to overlook this film. (22/09/2018)

A simple glance at the thickness of the book suggests that the task of cramming a sprawling plot into two hours of film was a daunting one for the director. Wright opts for a rather unfortunate method of occasional abbreviation, which produces a terrible stew of names and family-social ties right from the get-go. This hesitation is unfortunate because if the runtime had been extended by 20 minutes, the beautifully staged emotions would have stood out a hell of a lot better. Thus, all we have left is a promising hint of how catchy of a story the director can tell: the cinematography is charming, the set design is settling, the actors are decent - as befits the English - and the overall composition smacks of the sweetest kitsch. However, this merry-go-round of engagements and weddings is so sensitively, humorously, pleasantly, and above all sincerely filmed that much can be forgiven. At present, the boundaries of the genre could not be better. (11/03/2007)

Formally it’s absolutely great, but, unfortunately, in every other shot or dialogue I felt like I've seen exactly this countless times before and executed better. Pride and Prejudice did not offend me in any way, it has unusually sharp and witty dialogues for the period it is set in. Similarly, I liked Keira Knightley’s frankness and honesty. However, as a story about love and relationships, this piece didn’t resonate with me deeply, which is quite a mystery considering my taste and feelings. Perhaps it is too artificial – that's how I would characterize the whole thing in one short and telling sentence. There is emotion, yes, but everything somehow drags on, it creeps... concealment, true love, artificial love, the customs of the aristocracy... I've seen it all elsewhere... nothing new under the sun. (15/10/2006)