Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful Adaptation of Jane Austen's Novel
Review: This film is the best adaptation of Pride and Prejudice! Casting of Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle was brilliance on the director's part. Even though the movie is roughly 5 hours long, it's the best five hours you'll spend on a movie because the film is so close to the book. I'm glad they came out with a DVD version so the movie is now on two discs instead of 6 videos. The DVD extras on the making of the film are worht watching as well. Even if you have never read the book, the film is easy to follow and pulls you into the story that Jane Austen brilliantly tells.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Film
Review: I have the VHS version of this movie and I love it. I have watched it at least 10 times through. I am even considering buying the DVD version as I no longer have a VHS player. I highly recommend it. If you are a Jane Austen fan this is the movie for you (and even if you're not) I wished it would continue on. A sequel.
Rating:
Summary: Perfect adaptation!
Review: Austen fans and others will love this movie. A P&P fan will recognize the novel from the first images. The script follows the novel better than any video adaptation of any Austen I've seen, ever. The screenwriter takes a few tiny liberties with Darcy's decorum for the sake of demonstrating that he is a passionate man under the cool reserve, but the swim and fencing scenes work so well I forgave them immediately. The caste, wardrobe, sets, and script are all brilliant. Devices to condense the novel into only(!) 300 minutes are nearly seamless. I can't believe they developed the complex characters so thoroughly so quickly. The ONLY weak point is that the DVD special features are a little lacking--biography of Austen is the usual blurb, there aren't many caste interviews or bios, and the background is sketchy. I quite enjoyed the screenwriter interviews, and the picture quality is enough of an improvement to make the DVD worth buying over the VHS if you have the option. The VHS, however, will let you start and stop more precisely as you watch over several days.
Rating: 
Summary: Despite a few Petty Bugs, I deem it excellent
Review: I read the reviews about the color and such and I bought it anyway. After having watched many other adaptations of what is one of my most favorite books of all, I have to admit that this is the best. Not only does it follow Jane Austen's book, but it has the added enhancement of Colin Firth! The acting is wonderful, as is the setting, the script (as insinuated prior), and the costumes. They are all very accurate and there is nothing more that I despise then a good period movie/play/book that is ruined by the wearing of plastic wristwatch or obvious electric lighting when none was available at that time. My only complaints are the ones that have been listed in previous posts. The picture is over bright and there is not much to the 'EXTRA SPECIAL' additions. I can only surmise that the transfer from PAL was poorly done or they weren't watching their levels. The best thing is that I can go straight to the Bath scene and the Pond scene with just a click of my remote, and that more than makes up for the poor picture quality! I do not regret purchasing this DVD. That being said, I would not give up the opportunity to purchase a better quality DVD should it become available - as long as there is color correction and subtitles.
Rating:
Summary: I wish it lasts a little longer...
Review: Absolutely love it! I can't ever get tired of watching this movie. What a superior cast, performance, and scenery... Even my husband (who was suspicious at first) watched the movie couple of times. Every single character is very well portrayed; the movie is full of emotions and great scenes. I wish it lasts a little longer...
Rating:
Summary: Which adaptation is better? It depends on what you want
Review: I've lost count of how many times I've read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen - it's one of my very favorite books. Comparing the two screen adaptations of it -- the more recent one by A&E/BBC and the one done in the 80s by BBC (starring Garvie/Rintoul) -- there are definite advantages to each. The one you choose depends on what you want. If you want a really good and fun modern romantic comedy, watch the A&E version. But if you want what is closest to Austen's novel (which I prefer), watch the older version. POSITIVES OF THE A&E VERSION:
1) It is a visual feast: The costumes, sets and scenery are exquisite and make this version worth watching for that reason alone. They obviously had a larger budget than the 80s version.
2) Since this version is 75 minutes longer than the BBC version, you get to enjoy that much more of Austen's incomparable dialogue - the best ever written in the English language besides Shakespeare, in my opinion!
3) In the interplays between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, their emotions are much more pronounced and open than in the BBC version... which makes their relationship more openly romantic even than in the novel. This is developed further by some scenes of them individually that weren't in the novel. In the 80s version and the novel, many of the subtleties of their relationship and feelings are left to the imagination. The A&E version is more in the unsubtle style of a typical modern romantic movie, which gives a wonderful new dimension to the story. The "unexpected proposal" scene is absolutely perfect; I think Austen would have loved it!
4) Casting Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. Although not as strikingly handsome as David Rintoul's Darcy in the 80s version (in the book, Darcy is far handsomer than Bingley), Firth adds the right amount of visible emotion to the character which David R. did not, while also maintaining a very aristocratic, refined air about him. POSITIVES OF THE 80s BBC VERSION:
1) It is much more faithful to the historical setting of the novel. It captures much more accurately the slow-moving, thoughtful, refined, restrained, purist, obsessed-with-manners (but still quite amusing) aristocratic society of 18th century England. This to me gives not only a needed believability to, but also a much deeper understanding of, the characters and story. Austen's novels were very realistic and true to their time and place, so if you want the genuine Austen feel rather than the 'in-your-face' Hollywood style, see the 80s version (or just stick to the book). The A&E version comes across as being 20th century American, just cloaked in 18th century England costumes and sets. (For example, Bingley's two supposedly high class sisters slouch around, make faces and giggle audibly behind people's backs. Everyone seems to be constantly running, skipping or galloping somewhere. The less-than-savory characters, like Mary, Lydia, Kitty, and Mr. Wickham, look and act like they are from a much lower social class, in ways that go below what would have been acceptable in their class. A visitor to the Bennett home accidentally sees one of the sisters in her undergarments. When E. visits Pemberley, she sees Mr. D. coming from a dip in a pond with a wet undershirt on, rather than just having arrived in a carriage as in the book.) Some people have praised this aspect of it, saying that the BBC version is boring by comparison. But I believe that Austen's intent was that the interest in her novels would lie with her detailed character studies and intricate relational plots. That's what made her books so interesting, without all the action-packed gallivanting around and crassness which Hollywood seems to think is a necessity to entertainment. The BBC version recognizes this and retains a historical elegance and dignity; the A&E version does not.
2) The casting is better. In the BBC version, each actor is completely natural and believable in his or her role. In the A&E version, much of the casting does not seem to fit the characters. Elizabeth comes across as being about twenty years older than she is, with a constantly knowing look as if she's already married with children. Mrs. Bennett seems too intelligent to be so silly. Charlotte seems snobby rather than humble. Miss Bingley seems cold and sharp rather than sweetly slimy. Mr. Collins is like a cartoon and not a believable person. The five Bennett sisters don't look at all like they could be related to each other. The actors seemed quite competent, just not cast in the right roles, and maybe directed to overplay them. The only one that was spot on was Colin Firth as Darcy. His was the only portrayal that I could totally believe to be a real person in 18th century England.
3) The BBC version gives the same attention to each character that Austen's novel does. In the A&E version, only the principal characters are focused on, with the result that many of the characters whom we should have gotten to know better seemed to just be cardboard props, and their relationships with each other don't come across as being as intimate and familiar as they really are in the novel. For example, Elizabeth had a much deeper relationship with both her father and with her Aunt Gardiner than the A&E version portrayed, because it left out some key scenes between those characters. The only ones I could perceive as being really close in the A&E version were Elizabeth and Jane - and in the last half, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. This is a great loss, because Austen's novels are all about the relationships between people, and each of their interesting personality quirks. They are character studies -- not just of the main characters, but of ALL the characters. Sorry for the length, but P&P is a special book and I wanted to share my full views on these adaptations for anyone trying to decide between them!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent On All Counts!
Review: It is very rare to see justice done to a favorite 19th Century novel by a 20th Century film, but this is one exception, as it is remarkably true to the original work. I could even go so far as to say that the dramatisation improves upon the book - the characterizations of both Mr. Bennet and Mr. Collins were brought to life in the film so as to add to a reader's appreciation of them. Eliza and Jane were perfectly cast, and beautiful actresses, to boot; Mr. Darcy was uncannily portrayed by Colin Firth to the degree that I shall never read the book again without picturing his face (with a fond memory!). The music was a delightful feature in this production - as a musician myself, one of my favorite parts is to witness Mary Bennet's abysmal rendition of Handel's "Ombra mai fu" (in English) and the ensuing reaction by the crowd! Such is the example of a delightful subtlety in comic timing that occurs repeatedly in this film. I cannot say enough good things about it; I am rarely this pleased by a dramatic treatment of a great literary work.
Rating:
Summary: This movie rocks!
Review: This is a wonderful, captivating movie, and I love it from begining to finish. Firth and Ehle make a wonderful couple, and the story of head-strong Elizabeth Bennett and her suitor Fitzwilliam Darcy will reach the hearts of anyone. Don't miss this wonderful story!
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT MOVIE!!
Review: I have watched this movie over and over and I just can't get enough. The story line follows Jane Austen's novel perfectly. Colin Firth gives a fabulous performance! Definitely worth the $35.
Rating:
Summary: One of the all time best...
Review: I always swear that I'll just watch one episode... six hours later, I'll have sat through the entire series and am begging for more. Beautifully shot. Unbelievable acting. One word of advice, buy the VHS as opposed to the DVD. I own both and they messed up the lighting in the transfer to DVD. Dimly lit rooms suddenly are blazing with light on the DVD, and not in a good way. Subtle shadows are gone. Colors are washed out. It makes a huge difference.
| 
