It is always hard to adapt even a medium length novel to the screen satisfactorily due to time constraint. It is doubly hard to adapt a literary novel as opposed to a potboiler because often case, literary novels are less about advancing the plot than about character development. In this case, the words are of paramount importance. Understanding such pitfalls, I've limited my expectation beforehand even though I was quite eagerly looking forward to have a good time. Well, it IS moderately enjoyable, especially if you compare it to many of the mindless action movies (the bad ones, not the good ones). However, it just cannot hold a candle to the superb 1995 A&E version. (One of the reviewers here pointed out that the BBC version is actually from the 1980s and the 1995 version is not produced by BBC but by A&E.)
I tried not to compare this to the '95 version and judge it on its own merit, but I simply couldn't and having made the fatal mistake of rewatching the '95 version a month before this movie opened, it was well nigh impossible not to do so. There is only one character that I think is better portrayed here than the '95 version: the inestimable Judi Dench. Her Lady de Bourgh is far more formidable. Everyone else from this new version is inferior. Even from the first trailer, I've thought MacFayden's Darcy looked sickly and now I think he looks both sickly and constipated (and what a humongous forehead he has). He doesn't convey pride so much as confusion. Much has been said about Colin Firth's superb interpretation of Darcy but not enough credit (or at least it wasn't mentioned as often by the ladies) is given to Jennifer Erle incandescent portrayal as Lizzie Bennett. She is the quintessential Lizzie to me. True, Knightley is closer in age to the character (19 to 21) but Erle is only all of 26 when she made the series. Erle's Elizabeth has the spiritedness but acts with the right propriety and she cuts a much better figure than Knightley. Both Kitty and Lydia are played the same way that I couldn't tell them apart. Charles Bingley has really puffy modern hair and acts way too silly. But the one character that absolutely fails is that of Mr. Collins. Tom Hollander has simply no nuance and having no screen time doesn't help. David Bamber from '95 has such great body language and comic timing that he brings alive Mr. Collins's servility and sycophancy. He provides many priceless comic moments in the series.
Aside from the actors, what's with the technical problems? The film seems grainy and dim and the color washed out. The Bennetts are portrayed as dirt poor. The house is run down. It has a been a while since I read the novel, but I don't remember them living on a farm with live stocks running around! The social chasm between them and the Bingleys and Darcys are simply too great for them to socialize if that's the case. Charles dropping in on Jane when she is in bed in her night gown!?! And numerous other faux pas already pointed out.
So, if given a choice between Aeon Flux and P&P, of course one should choose P&P however disappointing it may be in comparison. However, better rent or buy the '95 version and enjoy a near perfect presentation of Jane Austen's timeless novel in 5 hours than watch this watered-down verison in 2.
I tried not to compare this to the '95 version and judge it on its own merit, but I simply couldn't and having made the fatal mistake of rewatching the '95 version a month before this movie opened, it was well nigh impossible not to do so. There is only one character that I think is better portrayed here than the '95 version: the inestimable Judi Dench. Her Lady de Bourgh is far more formidable. Everyone else from this new version is inferior. Even from the first trailer, I've thought MacFayden's Darcy looked sickly and now I think he looks both sickly and constipated (and what a humongous forehead he has). He doesn't convey pride so much as confusion. Much has been said about Colin Firth's superb interpretation of Darcy but not enough credit (or at least it wasn't mentioned as often by the ladies) is given to Jennifer Erle incandescent portrayal as Lizzie Bennett. She is the quintessential Lizzie to me. True, Knightley is closer in age to the character (19 to 21) but Erle is only all of 26 when she made the series. Erle's Elizabeth has the spiritedness but acts with the right propriety and she cuts a much better figure than Knightley. Both Kitty and Lydia are played the same way that I couldn't tell them apart. Charles Bingley has really puffy modern hair and acts way too silly. But the one character that absolutely fails is that of Mr. Collins. Tom Hollander has simply no nuance and having no screen time doesn't help. David Bamber from '95 has such great body language and comic timing that he brings alive Mr. Collins's servility and sycophancy. He provides many priceless comic moments in the series.
Aside from the actors, what's with the technical problems? The film seems grainy and dim and the color washed out. The Bennetts are portrayed as dirt poor. The house is run down. It has a been a while since I read the novel, but I don't remember them living on a farm with live stocks running around! The social chasm between them and the Bingleys and Darcys are simply too great for them to socialize if that's the case. Charles dropping in on Jane when she is in bed in her night gown!?! And numerous other faux pas already pointed out.
So, if given a choice between Aeon Flux and P&P, of course one should choose P&P however disappointing it may be in comparison. However, better rent or buy the '95 version and enjoy a near perfect presentation of Jane Austen's timeless novel in 5 hours than watch this watered-down verison in 2.