User Reviews

This is TV for the late seventies - faithful to source, stagey, studio-bound, with the odd bit of outdoor filming, so don't go looking for flashy film technique and 'modern' soap-like characterisation with a driving narrative. This is supposed to be Jane Austen on screen, not another ever so modern, emotionally over the top, easily delineated character put into period for modern audiences with the attention span of twenty five minutes.

So the pace is leisurely, life revolves around sowing, being gentile, with the odd highlight of dinner with neighbours or a small ball with four and twenty families! This adaptation presents this lifestyle excellently, which means that characters do not rev up for the audience. The acting is a little patchy - for instance, Elizabeth Garvie (of whom we saw too little afterwards) starts hesitantly but improves remarkably, while David Rintoul is left too stiff and starchy throughout (Fay Weldon's feminist revenge?). But the support is good, and not overplayed, except in the case of Natalie Ogle (Lydia). certainly Wickham and Mr Bennet are seen for what they are - the former a lying cheat but smooth, while the latter is totally disdainful of his simpleton wife.

Let's face it - those critics of this version do not seem to criticise Ms Austen for ignoring the life and death struggle of Britain facing Napoleonic France, but say that the characters are too passive to be interested in. The words of Ms Austen are there, and she was not writing Barbara Cartland!

I just don't know what planet some of these reviewers are from. I am agog that anyone can think this version vastly superior to the 1995 A&E version, or truer to the book or truer to the characters. Did we watch the same production? This one took all *sorts* of liberties with the book! Generally minor, pointless, and usually for the worse. One wise reviewer was dead-on in pointing out the wrongness of the change of Lizzy running to Darcy on getting the news about Lydia, instead of him walking in on her. But there are many lesser examples. How about the change of both scene and person saying the line about Mary having delighted everyone long enough? What did THAT achieve? At least when the A&E version added something, you can see why they did it, and I generally agreed with most (not all) of it and saw it as being in the spirit, if not the letter, of the original.

Look, this is a very good version of P&P. I would rate it as the 2nd-best I've seen. The A&E is unquestionably the best, but this is much better than the 1940 (now *that* one took liberties!) and light-years ahead of the 2005 (don't get me started!). I didn't mind that the production values weren't up to the lush 1995, I'm sure they were very good for their time and place. Lizzy was pretty good. I thought Mrs. Bennett was excellent. Mr. Collins was too transparently avaricious in his first scene but after that I thought he was very good. Lydia and Mary were quite good (although Mary seemed a bit too happy and not stern enough; my take on her was always that she retreated into her books because she found so little happiness in social life, that it was more a defense than a joy, but here she seems to take real joy in it). I liked the Gardiners, they came off as appropriately steady and sensible. And, of course, I very much like that, as a miniseries, they take the trouble to really go through the whole plot and not skimp on anything.

But there are, to be sure, flaws. I thought the father was poor. He has no mirth. He should have a twinkle in his eye and clearly find amusement as he makes his sarcastic comments about peoples' follies; as someone else here pointed out, he just comes off as grumpy. It's supposed to be a real change in him when he's all serious and unhappy about the Lydia affair, but we don't really see the change here because he's been so serious throughout the whole story. I also didn't really like Jane or Kitty. Kitty just somehow seems too old. And Jane just didn't convince me. About anything. That she was this rather innocent, almost naive person in the way she was always ready to think the best of *everyone*. That she really did love Bingley. Even that she was seriously ill when she was supposed to be seriously ill. It is very important that she really is seriously ill, not just has a little sniffle (if she just has a little sniffle, which is all it really comes across as here, then the mother is NOT foolish for devising the go-in-the-rain plan, and the father IS foolish for mocking his wife on that count. Which breaks both characters)

But perhaps the biggest disappointment to me was Darcy. I really tried very hard to like him. But I just couldn't. He isn't *likeable*. Ever. More than in any other version, more than in the book, it just seems absolutely *impossible* to believe the servant when she goes on about what a great guy Darcy is. The point of the story is supposed to be that it is largely Elizabeth's prejudice that sees him in such a bad light, but as a viewer who actually gets to see him objectively, I too find him quite unpleasant. He never really *does* warm up, even after the failed-proposal scene. So, in the end, I don't find myself at all pulling for him and Elizabeth to get together. There's no spark, no chemistry, no feeling that they really do belong together in the end. And anyone who didn't find *that* in the book read the wrong book.

(and don't think it's because I find Colin Firth sexy. As a heterosexual male, I promise you, I do not find Colin Firth sexy)

The result is, that for four episodes, I was quite engrossed and entertained by this version, but ultimately the final episode left me flat. Because it is here that the ultimate get-together of Darcy and Elizabeth fails to score.

Not as great as the 1995 masterpiece, (starring Colin Firth as in one of his many Darcy roles to come!)but a faithful and engaging version of Jane Austin's tale of female character, primogeniture, and money as a motivator. The story focuses on five unmarried girls, in particular the second-eldest, in turn-of-the-19th century England. Elizabeth Garvie portrays this spirited but sensible girl in contrast to her sisters who are Sweet but Boring (Jane), Bookish and Plain (Mary), Pretty yet Scheming (Lydia), Lovely but Whinging (Kitty). Elizabeth is her judicious father's favorite. It is eventually clear that her mother, favors the eldest (Jane) on a societal level, but seems to identify most with and take the part of the pretty and scheming Lydia. The tale surrounds the mother's attempts to get the respectable and penniless girls married off as soon as possible. Her mother's (priscilla Morgan as Mrs. Bennet)non-stop nattering about her nerves is deliciously keyed to drive any sane man to drink and any respectable girl to roll her eyes in utter mortification. Natalie Ogle as Lydia captures the conceit and naive enthusiasm of a 15-year-old girl who is in over her head and still charging into the deeper water. Malcome Rennie as the daft Mr. Collins (cousin to the five girls and the male heir to the entire family estate upon their father's death) is unparalleled at guilelessly delivering the Left Handed Compliment (''Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us, which becomes herself and daughter."). His imperious patroness, Lady Catherine de Burgh, is forcefully played by Judy Parfitt. The brooding Darcy character (David Rintoul) is a difficult role to convey due to the pervasive call for stiff formality and a concealment of feelings. However, there should be a forcefulness to the man as he is eventually revealed to be powerful and respected. It is difficult to ascertain whether this actor was led astray by the director's calls for a flat brooding portrayal, or the actor was not able to evince the minuscule nuances that must be dragged out of this role. The joy of this story, when well told is that it is romantic and funny, but also serves as a reminder of how restricted both men and women were to their societal roles by the nature of property and finances at the time. It demonstrates how the manner in which money moves in a society influences greatly how that society must behave. By example, since reputation is an important factor in this highly networked community, a girl with no dowry and a tainted reputation is devastating to both herself AND the her entire family, since there is no anonymity in the vastly cooperative English countryside. Overall, an unglossy, but satisfying and faithful production of an enjoyable classic.

Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book since I was eleven years old, and I've seen every other adaptation of it--even taken a class on Romantic Comedy, in which P&P was included. However, I was determined to take this version on its own merits and try not to compare it to the other versions. Those don't matter as much as its trueness to the book in spirit and content.

This is what I told myself when I put the DVD in. During the first scene, my hopes were dashed--Mary brings the news of Bingley? They just cut out the great opening banter between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet! Really, it's all downhill from here.

The greatest complaint is that the people behind this movie completely sucked the life out of the story. This is a comedy of manners, people, not solely a love story. It's about human character, and here, the characters have no life at all. Look at Mr. Darcy: Aie! He looks like a walking corpse with a burr up his you know what. It seemed as if every line was painful to utter and that he was bored to death. Elizabeth has altogether no wit and shows a strange contradiction regarding her family: She whines and pleads with Jane to get better faster so she can go home! What!?!? Whining, selfish creature! She then comments with a sign of satisfaction how good it is to be home, and coddles her mother too! Agony. Because of these flaws in writing/acting, the ending is improbable, even laughably ridiculous.

Sorry, did the casting director think that chap playing Wickham was a hottie? Youch.

Did anyone notice how awful all of the grand houses looked? I mean, since Darcy has ten thousand pounds a year (that's a LOT of money) he could at least have the stone on Pemberley cleaned up a bit. It was all stained and icky. *shudder*

If I detailed everything that was wrong with this, I'd be here for hours. I know many of you love it dearly, but I'm sorry, I see nothing to love. I see a dried-out husk of an adaptation of the most brilliant book ever.

I think the 1980 version did not show a true romance between Darcy and Elizabeth. I thought that the A&E Wickham came off a lout and very villainous (sp?) simply because he was truly able to fool everyone. IN the 1980 version, Wickham was sort of a simpering fool (to me) and made his character seem such... as he was. I think a true villain is able to hide it better, as the A&E Wickham was able to. I did like the 1980 version better except that Colin Firth let us feel his love, see it in his eyes, whereas David Rintoul was not very forthcoming at all, not even to us. IN the A&E version, I longed for them to come together. In the 1980 version, I expected them to come together. I did like the 1980 ending better as well. Having both in your collection is a must.

I saw this version of P&P when I was about 12 on Masterpiece Theatre and was enchanted with the story. I have read the book over 30 times since then and I have seen the 1995/2005 versions as well. With this P&P, Elizabeth Garvie played a good Elizabeth and David Rintoul, though quite handsome, played a rather too-stiff Darcy. The ending was always my favourite part because of the way Darcy smiled and relaxed when Elizabeth returned his affection. Another part that became my favourite just recently: the scene where Lizzy is talking to Charlotte in the assembly room, and Charlotte points out that Mr. Darcy was admiring her (Lizzy). The camera then showed Darcy with just a hint of a change to the hard line of his mouth that softened his face. What a heart melting look (sigh). The 1995 A&E version is better by far, but this version has its redeeming qualities.