board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Pride and Prejudice

Post Reply   Page 5 of 5  [ 93 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Author Message
mrs_whatsit
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 23 Oct , 2005 6:46 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri 22 Jul , 2005 4:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
 
Great review Di- Will have to see it soon

I was a big fan of Keira in Love, Actually (yes I'm a smooshy romantic)

so hoping to see her do well in this, too.


Top
Profile Quote
sh_wulff
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 12:21 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu 10 Mar , 2005 4:44 am
Location: light my fire
 
Quote:
For no other reason than to see that tantalising glimpse of Matthew Macfadyen's nicely hairy chest, as he comes striding through the morning mist.
certainly worth thw price of admission



Downsides

Keira Knightley's asymetrically plumped up lips in some scenes and her gauntness were off putting

and some of her emotional moments rang false to me


generally rushed pace

George Wickham very undeveloped


other comments

the barn is very close to the house....
thus the animals parading past

loved the weather.... the BBC version did not have "Weather"

some of the strict social boundaries and mores were overlooked

there were nods to "Bride and Prejudice" that I found amusing


loved

Macfadyen's Darcy...ooooh his voice is perfect... I wnated to close my eyes just to listen... downside being I was missing the beautiful cinematography

now I'm not saying Firth's Darcy is unsexy..yadda yadda yadda... but having read the books many times before seeing the BBC version I wasdissatisfied with Firth's darcy...some of the physicality was not what I imagined ( although they did get the dark curly hair right ;) thin lips and lacking a suitablu hirsute chest were otherdetails that fazed me :( ) and he was a bit too old ( Darcy beibng 28 rather than late 30's in age)...


I also liked that ..er.. they showed modes of transport , rutted roads, and horse crap... the other costume dramas tend to overlook these things

overall a very sensual movie.. could imagine the sounds. confusion ,and smells... more akin to the"name of the Rose" movie rather than the nore chocolate box presentations

would recommend seeing it in the large screen

just as LOTR is better on a big screen.. can submerge oneself in the sights and sounds in a way that a home theatre system cannot duplicate

_________________

[ img ]


:grouphug: :gropehug: :grouphug:


Top
Profile Quote
RELStuart
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 26 Oct , 2005 4:56 pm
Legendury speller
Offline
 
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon 14 Mar , 2005 2:06 pm
Location: US of A
 
I think I shall have to take my sister to this.

(Good excuse as any to see it myself eh. :P)


Top
Profile Quote
samaranth
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Nov , 2005 4:27 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Sydney
 
Against my will, reason and better judgement, I capitulated and went off to see Pride and Prejudice too. And thoroughly enjoyed it, much to my surprise.

Pearl, Q_B and sh_wulfff have all summed it up well, and I can’t really add much more. Yes I did spent the first quarter hour or so thinking ‘oh no, oh dear, oh no’, but somewhere around ‘tolerable, but not handsome enough’ I began to change my mind.

I liked the location shots (Bronte-esque as they are). The light and space are different and this impacts on the delivery of the dialogue, resulting in some lines, some words within lines, being given a different stress which I found a little unsettling, and then kind of interesting.

Of course, because there are only 2 ½ hours which to tell the story a lot of the narrative is compressed and many minor characters have been dropped. While I missed them, I didn’t find that necessarily to be a bad thing because it allows the central story of D’Arcy and Elizabeth to be placed in sharper relief.

I was quite impressed by the scripting. There has been some condensing of Austen’s original words, and some dialogue has been added which puts a slightly more explanatory gloss on some characters, but this doesn’t jar over-much. Apparently Emma Thompson was involved in revising the script, and I think her fingerprints on it showed.

As the second review posted up there indicated, there are a lot of possible filters through which you can read this story. However, this version plays it pretty well straight down the line as a romance. It doesn’t explore any of the potential social issues or historical issues in any depth at all, although one of Mrs Bennet’s lines to Lizzy might be taken as am attempt to do that.

I could quibble about shifting the period, about the costumes, about the hair!, about the odd (late 18th/early 19th century) mix up of manners and social protocols, about the decision to make Longbourn’s farming side so adjacent to its home side (I really do think that having livestock going almost into the kitchen was a bit much). But I won’t. It didn’t bug me enough to spoil the movie.

Apart from Donald Sutherland’s Mr Bennet, who seems rather more rustic and incompetent (and Canadian, accent-wise!), and less well-read than I’d imagined, and Bingley, who was not just easy-going he was an easy-going idiot, the casting is very good. We barely saw Wickham and Lady Catherine, and I’m not sure I would have understood the significance of Wickham to Lizzy if I hadn’t already read the book (and seen every other version of the story I could get my hands on ;) )

I was positively surprised by Keira Knightley’s performance. She does fit the bill in terms of the ‘fine eyes’, although lacking some other physical attributes (an absence of which became rather noticeable, given the style of dress). Even her mouth isn’t tooooooo distracting. :roll:

I found her to be a credible not quite one and twenty. Clever, but still quite innocent and just realising there may be more to love than playing word games. I suppose that was one reason whey Longbourn has been placed fair and square in the farmyard, to emphasize that this was not just a comedy of manners but one with it’s feet on the earth, holding the distinct promise of sex. Not that any more ‘happens’ than in the other vesion, in fact probably less, but sex is there as an undercurrent all the way through. There’s one curious scene at Pemberley which practically hits you over the head with it.

Matthew MacFadyen is suitably taciturn, although younger and more vulnerable than I had read D’Arcy to be. As Pearl says, that scene of him striding along through the early morning mist is particularly…memorable. There is a quite distinct sexual tension between this D’Arcy and Elizabeth.


Top
Profile Quote
Wittman
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 06 Nov , 2005 5:02 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue 01 Nov , 2005 8:11 am
Location: The Gorge of Eternal Peril
 
Keira Knightly bugs the hell out of me, with her huge jaw and puffed up lips - she looks like an alien.


Top
Profile Quote
sh_wulff
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 08 Nov , 2005 12:44 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu 10 Mar , 2005 4:44 am
Location: light my fire
 
Samaranth
I'm so glad you did make it
I find doing Wildwoods like shooting yourself in the foot!

and although the film is not perfect, hey it wasn't too bad

(and yup Donald Sutherland, 'nuff said..a s for Bingley being not the brightect cand;e, well there are some throwaway lines in the book that point to tha particular fault)..."ductility" ;)

_________________

[ img ]


:grouphug: :gropehug: :grouphug:


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 08 Nov , 2005 9:10 am
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
I saw it the other week and given that it inevitably was up against the BBC version and didn't have the luxury of the same amount of time I thought it very good. The cinematography was excellent, the sets and art design captured a more 'Tom Jones' world than the usual chocolate box and Keira showed the character's sharp intelligence. Minor minus points were her slightly exagerated mugging - her face and eyes were sometimes a bit too overactive and gave an unsettling modern 'actorly' look; the dialogue was often muffled and hard to hear but perhaps that may have been the fault of the cinema and I thought Darcy striding through the mist to a swelling orchestra a trifle cheesy. But those are quibbles.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 15 Nov , 2005 1:52 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I had to post this review (found at The Flick Filosopher) by MaryAnn Johanson, probably my favorite online film critic and a serious fan of the 1995 miniseries. Pretty much an out-and-out rave:
Quote:
This is what, the 18,562,012th film version of Jane Austen? How many times can Lizzie Bennet and Mr. Darcy misunderstand each other and yearn and burn and fail to see past their own snobbery and stubbornness until they finally do? Oh my god, do we really need another Pride & Prejudice?

But hot damn, we do, we really do need this new Pride & Prejudice: it's beautiful and luminous and sexy and rambunctious and suspenseful and passionate and visceral... Oh, it's downright exhausting just thinking about how wonderful and even necessary this movie is. Yeah, necessary, a desperately essential reminder -- amid even all the really great and amazing movies about stuff blowing up and crime and corruption and noses getting driven up into cerebral cortexes and people getting vaporized by alien tripods and all -- that this is what life is all about, or should be: the mysteries of attraction and the adventure of falling in love and the bittersweetness of learning about yourself as you do.

This movie is so alive you want to cry, and the feeling hits you right away and never leaves: at the dance at the beginning of the film, where everyone has an earthy, natural, real face and the guys are grinning their heads off and the girls' only makeup is the glow of exertion as they dance, dance, dance. No stuffy drawing-room drama, this: this is a Regency rave, the whole damn film, not just the dance scene, and you want to get up and dance with them, with the shabby-genteel Bennet girls Elizabeth (Keira Knightley: Domino, The Jacket) and Jane Rosamund Pike: Doom, Die Another Day), with the delightfully goofy-sweet Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods)... though perhaps not with his steely-eyed snoot of a sister, Caroline (Kelly Reilly), nor with his friend, Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen: The Reckoning, MI-5), as standoffish and aloof as a man can be without actually have a stick up his nether regions.

And you know -- you know -- of course how the whole affair will end, that Jane and Bingley's perfection for and attraction to each other, obvious from the moment they meet, will survive all the bumps along the way to the altar, and that the electric sparks that fly off Lizzie and Darcy that they mistake for antagonism and disdain will at last be recognized for the explosive sexual chemistry that it is. But this movie version is like Austen's novel in that every time you read it, it's so gripping and so expert a portrait of insecurity and uncertainty and denial that it seems possible that this time around, Lizzie and Darcy will not, in fact, end up together. And so there's tremendous apprehension and doubt woven into this magnificent movie, and some of that is down to director Joe Wright, who makes you ache along with Lizzie and Darcy (and Jane and Bingley) with languid shots of misty morning fields and long visual sighs of despair -- like Lizzie's dress flying around the flapping geese in the yard as she flees the dreadful proposal of marriage from her cousin Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander: Stage Beauty, Possession).

The cast is fantastic, and fills the movie with unforgettable moments of humor and pathos: Hollander's timid preacher cowering like a puppy about to pee on the floor before the iceberg of Judi Dench's (Ladies in Lavender, The Chronicles of Riddick) Lady Catherine, Darcy's aunt; Donald Sutherland's (Lord of War, The Italian Job) Mr. Bennet, in quiet agony at the prospect of losing his Lizzie; Brenda Blethyn (Beyond the Sea) as Mrs. Bennet, so eager to see her girls married that she inadvertently almost scuttles their attempts to do so; Rupert Friend's Wickham, so charming and debonair that you'll steadfastly refuse to admit that you know what a villain he'll turn out to be.

But as it must be, the success of this Pride rests with Knightley and MacFadyen, who are the Lizziest and the Darciest Lizzie and Darcy ever, and who'd have thought anyone could say that after Colin Firth's previously Darciest performance in the 1995 British TV miniseries? Sure, they smolder, together and separately onscreen, but it's not the posing kind of smoldering that beautiful people in the movies is usually about -- they not only become Lizzie and Darcy, they allow us to become them, too, allow us to hurt and hope as we were there in those misty morning fields too.

--MaryAnn Johanson
11.14.05

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
prettyinpink
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 29 Nov , 2005 8:30 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 02 Nov , 2005 7:39 am
Location: new jersey when I'm @ school and Boston when I'm at home
 
Well it wasn't as exact and thorough as the BBC version, but it was quite good anyway!! I thought Kiera Knightly did a lovley job. I was having a hard time beliving anyone could be good next to Colin Firth but I was pleasantly surprised at how much I liked the new Darcy!! I thought it was all very good and sweet. but I would have to agree the walking through the mist was a bit cheesy. I LOVED IT ANYWAY!! :D

_________________

[ img ]

<3 Happy Valentines Day <3


Top
Profile Quote
cemthinae
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 01 Dec , 2005 7:53 pm
TTBK's cemmie
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Thu 07 Jul , 2005 11:13 am
Location: Surfin' the Web
 
I hope I'm not making redundant remarks, but I've avoided this thread til I could actually see the movie.

I really liked this movie. Didn't think I would & almost didn't go, but I'm glad I did.

I liked seeing a greater contrast between the classes. I liked the noise, the dirt, it felt real to me.

The dances were loud, people were laughing, not everyone was gorgeous by typical standards. I don't know what it was really like back then, probably never will, but I like the idea that these people were real & laughed loudly & clapped their hands & whirled about madly.

Could just be me, but I had fun & enjoyed the movie.

*SPOILERS*

Things I liked:

I got a very clear sense of the differences between "good" & "bad" connections. The Bennets may have been knocked down a peg or two, but I think that it helped with the drama aspect.

I loved the relationship between Elizabeth & Jane. Having 4 sisters I understand the complex relationships we can have with one another. From shared giggles under the sheets before bed, to the revelation of a beau once thought indifferent, I knew the feelings and they came across well.

Darcy. Matthew MacFadyen is not Colin Firth, but he doesn't need to be. He's not so unsmiling or unforgiving as our beloved book character, but for the pace of the movie he was excellent casting. And he left me longing to head home to a version of him... isn't that what movies are supposed to do?

One scene completely not even remotely needed nor from the book. The scene where Bingley is trying to figure out how to propose to Jane. It was hilarious to me, having seen a brother go through something similar.

The deliverance of lines. It was very fast paced, but once again it felt real to me. If Lizzie was going to deliver a snappy comment she wouldn't have deliberated.

The houses. *swoon* Even the Bennet household, with its lived in feel and mess, was decorated elegantly. Pemberly was *gasp* to me. Not used to seeing such things I can understand the awe Lizzie must have felt.

Things I didn't like:

The ending. When Darcy comes back to propose it felt rushed. It fit within the context of the pacing, but I longed for a little more. I loved the fact that they didn't kiss upon engagement. That would just be completely me though.

Charlotte. *ugh* She almost seems to love Collins. However... I did like Charlotte's desperate speech to Lizzie after becoming engaged to Collins. The heartfelt "Burden on my parents". Poor Charlotte.

Collins. He's played wonderfully & you aren't supposed to like him.

Same goes for Miss Bingley. I wish she had gotten more screen time. She primped & simpered so wonderfully... I had hoped to get more of her, but there wasn't time.

I am going to start calling this the "noisy" version of P&P. There's the "Indian" version, the "pink" version, the "good" version, the "black & white" version, the "old" version, the "boring" version & now... there's the "noisy" one. Not, by far, the best, but very much enjoyed & I'd say I'd probably go see it again, would that I could afford to.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 13 Jan , 2008 10:12 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
You are in for a treat. I just finished watching the last episode of the new 3-part Sense and Sensibility on BBC TV. It was adaptated by Andrew Davies and incredibly gives the wonderful Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman and Kate Winslet movie a good run for its money.
I definitely had to dry my eyes by the time it had ended.

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Di of Long Cleeve
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 11:54 am
Frodo's girl through and through
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun 06 Mar , 2005 10:08 pm
Location: The Shire
 
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
It was adaptated by Andrew Davies and incredibly gives the wonderful Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman and Kate Winslet movie a good run for its money.
Yeah, it did. :) And I love the Ang Lee movie, it's one of my very favourite films.

Hattie Morahan and Charity Wakefield (what a very Jane Austen-y name!) were superbly cast as Elinor and Marianne. I liked them every bit as much as Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet in the roles (Winslet's Marianne is one of my favourite performances of hers ever). But Hattie Morahan looks much closer in age to Book Elinor than the excellent Emma was. And Charity was wonderful, communicating just as well as Kate did Marianne's warm, impulsive, romantic nature.

And I much, MUCH preferred the BBC Edward to Hugh Grant in the role! Coo, what a dish. And he was so nice. :love:

That guy's casting as Edward almost made up for the sad lack of Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon. :damnfunny:

I will always love Alan Rickman best as Colonel Brandon because I adore Rickman full stop, whatever he's in, and he is wonderful in the role. But David Morrissey acquitted himself very well in the part. And it was great to see Marianne recognise Brandon for the true, faithful-hearted romantic that he is. :)

What I liked about this production was that everybody looked as if they were really in love with everybody else ... even if they were, at first, the wrong people to be in love with. :D :)

The duel was cool. Is that in the book???
Quote:
I definitely had to dry my eyes by the time it had ended.
Oh, me too! And the film makes me cry: I get very teary-eyed when Emma's Elinor pleads with Kate's Marianne not to die and leave her all alone. But I got teary-eyed last night too, in that scene. And Elinor's reaction to the revelation of Edward's true feelings for her was just as touching and emotional as it is in the film.

_________________

"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... " Letter no. 246

Avatar by elanordh on Live Journal


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 3:20 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Quote:
The duel was cool.
No it wasn't; I could have had 'em both. Waving their blades in the air like boy scouts practicing semaphore!
:D
Hattie Morahan was absolutely wonderful; a face as open as a book. She above all made this series for me however much I loved Emma Thompson's version too. I thought David Morrisey rather good and dour.
The actor who played Edward didn't do it for me. He was pretty and polite enough but he came over a tiny bit smarmy at the end. Hugh Grant made a better, lighter fist of it despite his trademark mannerisms.

I love Daisy Haggard!

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 5  [ 93 posts ]
Return to “Made in Dale: Hobbies and Entertainment” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5
Jump to: