Pride and Prejudice (1980)

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I own the three most recent adaptations of "Pride and Prejudice". They are all good in different ways, but I would rate the 1980 version the best. If the 1995 BBC version has a fault, it seems to me to caricature some of the characters. This is especially true of the portrayal of the Bingley sisters, who are almost pantomime "ugly sisters" ; Alison Steadman's portrayal also seems a bit OTT. The portrayal of Mr Collins in the 1995 version also misses his bulky clumsiness. Another weakness in the casting is that Susannah Harker as Jane is not the beauty of the family. Jennifer Ehle is, to me, the more attractive. I think the same criticism could also be levelled at the film version. The Keira Knightley film, because of it's limited length, must, of necessity, miss out quite a lot of detail and dialogue. The film portrayal of Mrs Bennet is probably the most sympathetic of her, though Jane Austen is hardly sympathetic to her in the book. I think all three versions, with the above provisos, are all well cast, and the productions are enjoyable. It is quite interesting to see how the 1995 version has filled in bits of the story. Perhaps the one weakness of the 1980 version is that some of the scenes are clearly shot in a studio, with rather artificial views out of windows. The other mistake, as noted by other reviewers, is the Brahms music on the instrument. Elizabeth Garvie is, for me, perfect as Elizabeth. She is attractive, without being the beauty that Sabina Franklyn is. Her eyes are lovely, as they should be. She displays a wonderful range of expression to convey her feelings, without ever overacting, which is in keeping with Jane Austen's style. David Rintoul has been criticised as Darcy, especially by comparison with Colin Firth. Both are very good, but different. Firth is the more passionate, but Rintoul seems the more aristocratic and arrogant. Moray Watson is very good as Mr Bennet, conveying both the character's wit, but also other aspects - like his frustration with his wife, and overall laziness - well. Priscilla Morgan is excellent as Mrs Bennet, but the portrayal does not descend into caricature, and can at times elicit some sympathy. The portrayal of Mr Collins is excellent - large, pompous, clumsy, tactless, obsequious. Judy Parfitt is excellent as Lady Catherine. She is arrogant and dictatorial, simply as a matter of nature, while she never seems petulant, which Barbara Leigh Hunt at times appears in the 1995 version. The Bingley sisters are also well played, arrogant, and at times bitchy, but in a rather understated way, as they appear in the book. All in all, I find this a most satisfying adaptation. It is very true to the book, both in detail and in the spirit of the book. It conveys the wit of the writing in the spirit in which it was written, without ever over-romanticising, or caricature. The casting seems to me the best and most consistent, with the principal players, especially Elizabeth Garvie who is a delight in her part, very good indeed. I will return to this version often, with delight.

I'm not saying the other adaptations of Pride and Prejudice aren't good; they are. However, this one was the one I saw first (other than perhaps the Lawrence Olivier version), and I love it. It's done very sympathetically to the period, I think with my uneducated eye, and the actors aren't conventional or modern looking, and the script is brilliantly portrayed. David Rintoul is the perfect Darcy, old fashioned and haughty, and Lady Catherine is just splendid. Miss Elizabeth Bennett is the right combination of attractive, intelligent and with her own type of feminine arrogance, applicable to the day. All the characters are so amplified yet not so much that they are caricatures of themselves, which makes for memorable watching. Other versions are sort of watered down versions of this one. Watch it, the only problem is that it's quite hard to get hold of - I got my copy on DVD from the US on Amazon having only the video before. It's great easy watching for a mini series, and it's both touching and hilarious in equal part. It's a little cheesy in places but that's intentional I think.

Definitely the worst of the three versions of P&P that I've seen. (The others being the best, the 2005 movie, and in the middle, the Colin Firth TV version.) While it may be somewhat faithful to the book, almost none of the energy, vitality, or even wit of the book comes through here. The production is overcome by too many dull scenes, some bad acting (esp. David Rintoul as Darcy, who provides another answer to the question from Monty Python's Sir Bedivere, "What else is made of wood?"),and way too much inappropriate music. At times I thought I was watching a nature film made in the 60s or 70s.Skip this one. If you want something faithful to the book, try the Firth version. If you want one that captures the feeling, the energy, and the spirit of the book, then definitely try the 2005 Keira Knightly version.

I just don't know what planet some of these reviewers are from. I am agog that anyone can think this version vastly superior to the 1995 A&E version, or truer to the book or truer to the characters. Did we watch the same production? This one took all *sorts* of liberties with the book! Generally minor, pointless, and usually for the worse. One wise reviewer was dead-on in pointing out the wrongness of the change of Lizzy running to Darcy on getting the news about Lydia, instead of him walking in on her. But there are many lesser examples. How about the change of both scene and person saying the line about Mary having delighted everyone long enough? What did THAT achieve? At least when the A&E version added something, you can see why they did it, and I generally agreed with most (not all) of it and saw it as being in the spirit, if not the letter, of the original.Look, this is a very good version of P&P. I would rate it as the 2nd-best I've seen. The A&E is unquestionably the best, but this is much better than the 1940 (now *that* one took liberties!) and light-years ahead of the 2005 (don't get me started!). I didn't mind that the production values weren't up to the lush 1995, I'm sure they were very good for their time and place. Lizzy was pretty good. I thought Mrs. Bennett was excellent. Mr. Collins was too transparently avaricious in his first scene but after that I thought he was very good. Lydia and Mary were quite good (although Mary seemed a bit too happy and not stern enough; my take on her was always that she retreated into her books because she found so little happiness in social life, that it was more a defense than a joy, but here she seems to take real joy in it). I liked the Gardiners, they came off as appropriately steady and sensible. And, of course, I very much like that, as a miniseries, they take the trouble to really go through the whole plot and not skimp on anything.But there are, to be sure, flaws. I thought the father was poor. He has no mirth. He should have a twinkle in his eye and clearly find amusement as he makes his sarcastic comments about peoples' follies; as someone else here pointed out, he just comes off as grumpy. It's supposed to be a real change in him when he's all serious and unhappy about the Lydia affair, but we don't really see the change here because he's been so serious throughout the whole story. I also didn't really like Jane or Kitty. Kitty just somehow seems too old. And Jane just didn't convince me. About anything. That she was this rather innocent, almost naive person in the way she was always ready to think the best of *everyone*. That she really did love Bingley. Even that she was seriously ill when she was supposed to be seriously ill. It is very important that she really is seriously ill, not just has a little sniffle (if she just has a little sniffle, which is all it really comes across as here, then the mother is NOT foolish for devising the go-in-the-rain plan, and the father IS foolish for mocking his wife on that count. Which breaks both characters)But perhaps the biggest disappointment to me was Darcy. I really tried very hard to like him. But I just couldn't. He isn't *likeable*. Ever. More than in any other version, more than in the book, it just seems absolutely *impossible* to believe the servant when she goes on about what a great guy Darcy is. The point of the story is supposed to be that it is largely Elizabeth's prejudice that sees him in such a bad light, but as a viewer who actually gets to see him objectively, I too find him quite unpleasant. He never really *does* warm up, even after the failed-proposal scene. So, in the end, I don't find myself at all pulling for him and Elizabeth to get together. There's no spark, no chemistry, no feeling that they really do belong together in the end. And anyone who didn't find *that* in the book read the wrong book.(and don't think it's because I find Colin Firth sexy. As a heterosexual male, I promise you, I do not find Colin Firth sexy)The result is, that for four episodes, I was quite engrossed and entertained by this version, but ultimately the final episode left me flat. Because it is here that the ultimate get-together of Darcy and Elizabeth fails to score.