Comments on: 5 Versions, 5 Characters: The Best of Pride and Prejudice in Film and Television

By: Gene

Gene — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 18:10:46 +0000

In reply to Mie Ellekilde. Exactly!

By: Amber Topping

Amber Topping — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:57:54 +0000

In reply to Sage. It's all subjective, and we all read Austen's books differently. So, I disagree that you can't appreciate Knightley and understand Austen.

By: Sage

Sage — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 08:38:01 +0000

Knightley is the worst of the five. Only someone who doesn’t understand Austen’s work would think otherwise.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:37:28 +0000

In reply to Mie Ellekilde.

Having seen all of these, and having written my Masters Thesis on “Pride and Prejudice,” I am utterly shocked that the greatest adaptation of all, the 1980 BBC, is so neglected here. Gay Weldon’s adaptation is at once the funniest, most literate, and faithful of all “P&P” screenplays. Elizabeth Garvie was sheer perfection as Lizzie, and Judy Parfitt’s Lady Catherine de Bourgh was sublime, and there was never a sexier or more supercilious Darcy than David Rintoul.
Jane Austen would have despised the 2005; what an embarrassment. Lousy script, far too 21st century in sensibilities, and the big, oafish Mr McFadyen, with his ludicrous pseudo-Roman coiffure, is the worst Darcy of all time.

By: The Silver Petticoat Review

The Silver Petticoat Review — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 12:12:33 +0000

In reply to Trish.

That’s a great idea for a list. I’ll look into it and see if I can find the Pride and Prejudice you’re talking about. Could it be the 1967 adaptation? That seems very possible. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155051/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_58

By: Trish

Trish — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 01:15:35 +0000

Do you have a list of all 17 adaptations? I would like find one that I remember watching about 20 years ago. It was in color– probably from the 1970s or 180s, but was NOT the 1980 version listed above. I so wish I could find it!!

By: Mie Ellekilde

Mie Ellekilde — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 07:40:00 +0000

In reply to Alexia Marie. Yes! Thank you, Alexia! And I totally agree - that look sends shivers down my spine every time! :-)

By: Alexia Marie

Alexia Marie — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:34:00 +0000

In reply to Mie Ellekilde. exactly, i 100% agree. Also the scene when Darcy meets Elizabeth's eyes after she ends the conversation about Wickham when his sister is present is unbeatable. Colin Firth played Darcy with way more subtlety which is how it should be.

By: Mie Ellekilde

Mie Ellekilde — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:58:00 +0000

Sorry, no. I actually agree on all other comparisons on this site, but my heart will always and forever belong to Ehle and Firth! I remember I almost crawled under the seat while watching the 2005 cinema version, brrr. True, Matthew Macfadyen is really sexy, but Keira Knightley as one of my favorite heroines? Never! I could hardly recognize the character in that sullen face. I will stick with the 1995 version 😉
PS. As a stand alone romantic movie that has nothing to do with p&P I think I could enjoy the 2005 version, but it really does not give justice to the source material.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:12:00 +0000

In reply to Yaroslavna Simdyankina.

The 1995 and 2005 versions are definitely a source of great debate! It is far easier to stay truer to the source material when you have multiple episodes to tell the story. Both took liberties in their interpretation, refocusing the narrative on different aspects than the book. Of course, for the sake of a movie, that’s often necessary. The 2005 version actually changed the timeline to the period when the book was written vice published and then the 1940 version moved it ahead by YEARS, in order to have more elaborate costumes (and reuse costumes from Gone with the Wind!).
I’ve never seen Doctor Who (scandal!) so I really had nothing to compare Matt Smith’s performances to. It’s hard to give a definitive answer to anything so subjective! 😉