Product Description
JANE AUSTEN’S CLASSIC NOVEL ABOUT THE PREJUDICE THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN THE 19TH CENTURY CLASSES AND THE PRIDE WHICH WOULD KEEP LOVERS APART.Amazon.com
Jane Austen’s classic novel of 1813, Pride and Prejudice, still wins the hearts of countless schoolgirls with its romantic story of Elizabeth Bennet and her Mr. Darcy. Now, the 1996 BBC miniseries is winning over adults, with its faithful adaptation, gorgeous scenery, and superb acting. The essence of the sto… More >>
Pride and Prejudice – The Special Edition
Tags: bbc miniseries, classic novel, Edition, elizabeth bennet, faithful adaptation, gorgeous scenery, mr darcy, prejudice, Pride, pride and prejudice, romantic story, Special
#1 by Anonymous on March 21, 2010 - 10:29 pm
I am hard of hearing and the lack of captioning makes some of the dialogue difficult to follow and there are language issues. People these days walk on eggshells to avoid offending blacks and gays and Jews and femminists who will have a tempoer tantrum over even accidental offenses against them, but they think nothing of offending God by misusing his name. The use of Blasphemy in this movie is anachronistic, and even if the people making this movie don’t believe in God, they don’t seem to care that they are offending the people who do believe in God with that kind of language. I bought it because 19th century life was clean, and I am deeply dissapointed because it is another example of what i call “Cafeteria Bigotry,” whereby one preaches tolerance and respect for other’s opinion, while in actuality they are hypocritically selecting which groups they mind offending, and which groups they don’t mind offending.
Rating: 1 / 5
#2 by an adult with a life on March 21, 2010 - 10:36 pm
my GF tricked me into watching this movie… she said i would “love” it. well, i don’t.
Rating: 1 / 5
#3 by J. M. Greenwood on March 22, 2010 - 12:51 am
Jennifer Ehle is too fat. I am a fat woman, so I’m not dissing fat women. She doesn’t have the sparkle that Lizzie exudes in the novel.
Colin Firth would be better playing a pugilist. He has no class at all.
Entire film was a disappointment.
Rating: 1 / 5
#4 by Jean on March 22, 2010 - 1:48 am
I had not watched this when it was originally on A&E but have heard how great it was so decided to purchase it. I expected it to be much better than it was. Due to the length it had more of the book in it but seemed to drag and at times be down right boring. I made the mistake of reading the enclosure with the actors/actresses comments as the comments of the lead actress made me dislike her. I don’t remember ever seeing her in anything else and her complaining about how difficult the role was and how long it took to film probably affected by opinion. In a period piece like this I would also prefer the actors project a more masculine image since they have to wear such frilly clothing
I would say it is an average mini-series, nothing special about it. It was something nice to watch I had not previously seen during the writers strike.
Rating: 3 / 5
#5 by Anonymous on March 22, 2010 - 4:15 am
What is it that brings Darcy and Lizzy together? Not sexual attraction, apparently, there isn’t any. This sham romance undermines a beautifully crafted film brought to us by the BBC.
Glorious cinematography presents the English countryside, lovely homes, and exquisite costumes of this period drama to advantage. In the VHS version, the sunlight is often too bright and the coloring is sometimes off, green piano keys for example. Perhaps this is due to poor film quality because of a low budget.
Great editing techniques are used to lead the audience to different locations and time periods. The score and sound effects are also noteworthy. Classical music adds emotional depth to several scenes.
The screenplay is based on Jane Austen’s most popular novel. There is little deviation from the plot of the book, but the dialogue is less subtle. For example, in the film Charlotte says that on some days she sees her (irksome) husband for only a few minutes. Jane Austen’s character has too much discretion to say this; in the original story this information is inferred by Eliza.
The acting is sometimes overly sentimental but usually of fine quality. A list of the best performers would include Barbara Leigh-Hunt (Lady Catherine de Bourgh), David Bamber (Mr. Collins), Lucy Scott (Charlotte), Julia Sawalha (Lydia), Alison Steadman (Mrs. Bennet), Crispin Bonham-Carter (Mr. Bingley), and Anna Chancellor (Miss Bingley).
Jennifer Ehle’s performance is not bad, just annoying. Most of the time she appears to be on the verge of tears for no apparent reason. Her only resemblance to standard romance heroines is a pretty face and figure.
And Darcy is an unusual romance hero as well. Colin Firth portrays him as a feral young man almost totally lacking in social grace. In the beginning, Mr. Darcy acts very weird, which may be an attempt to look intense; this is especially noticeable during the first ball in Hertfordshire. Whether the director or the actor is at fault is not clear. He becomes more human-like over time, which is wonderful to see, especially in the end when he and Lizzy begin to relate well, like old friends.
It’s interesting that though most characters in the film resemble their corresponding characters in the novel, the lead man and woman differ radically from the hero and heroine of the book. Ehle’s pouty, sentimental, self-satisfied Eliza Bennet is very different from Austen’s sharp, classy, devil-may-care heroine. And the queer, nervous Mr. Darcy in this movie is the complete opposite of the calm, strong, fatherly Mr. Darcy in the novel.
This does not matter, however, because the screenplay, though of high importance, is merely one of many elements which combine to form the final product – a movie. This is a romance movie, and we expect a romance. Not just lover’s dialogue, sweet music, bared breast and muscle, but the thing itself: apparent sexual chemistry between the lead actor and lead actress. Alas, that one important element is lacking in this faux romance.
Rating: 4 / 5