Pride & Prejudice (2005)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Sublime film de même du livre...Une histoire d'amour magique.

Do yourself a favor. Watch with your significant other. This is Just a FANTASTIC movie at all levels. Extremely entertaining (NO LULLS) Smart script. Incredible cinematography great acting and story. Draws you in and doesnt let go until its over. It comes loaded with all of the old school grace and charm that is lacking in our society. As an example one scene where Mr. Darcy is helping Lizzie into her carriage he gently guides her hand as the camera zooms in on their hands and then backs off to Mr. Darcy walking away then zooms in to him extending his fingers showing the effect just her touch had on him. Another Scene Lizzies sister is wearing a sheer white dress to a ball and her love interest walks up behind her and for a split second grasps the dress material between his thumb and forefinger. We get the point. He is mesmerized by her presence. I would be remiss if i didnt mention the FLAWLESS character of Lizzies father Donald Sutherland. His role as father to several daughters is amazing. Especially the relationship between him and Lizzie, his obvious favorite. Any father who has daughters will totally relate.One complaint. The old english verbiage is so pedantic that i like to watch with subtitles to understand - "what they hell did she say?? 10 stars for sure and BRAVO !!!

after you read the novel, after you see the adaptations, it is the basic question. because each adaptation propose the vision of director and the novel is almost perfect. so, reading it is enough. but... the virtue, basic virtue of this film is far to be the best adaptation. but it is courageous, inspired and useful. because Mr. Darcy by Matthew Macfadyen is not exactly the ice man, his delicacy, vulnerable actions being a seductive surprise. Keira Knightley has the gift to be , more you expect, Elisabeth. like Rosamund Pike, who does an admirable Jane. the flavor of novel. this is the gift of this honest, inspired and profound beautiful adaptation. but the motif to see it is, maybe, the feeling after its end. who seems be, maybe only in my case, like the old feeling after I finish the book.

I think ones tastes depends on which movie was seen first. I am a huge fan of Austen and the Bronte Sister, and yes, I have read the books.I had no interest in seeing any adaptation, as I was never sure I would come to like them. The book, a commentary on the treatment of women, whose lives and social status depended upon having a suitable husband and marriage. It is also a book about perception, prejudices based on first impressions.This movie was passionate, and lush, with beautiful cinematography. Keira Knightly was outstanding, as was Matthew McFayden as Mr. Darcy, the towering man of wealth, suffering unrequited love of Elizabeth Bennett, who despises him. The entire cast was stellar, and Rosamund Pike as Jane was lovely, and her acting superb. This was a very well-rounded cast. Mrs. Bennett was as shrill and nervous as expected, and Mr. Bennett as indifferent and dismissive as I expected him to be.Keira delivered her lines with such aplomb, I can watch this movie over and over again. I would have loved to her with Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy,, can you imagine how outstanding that would be? That said, Matthew McFayden is EQUALLY fantastic as Colin Firth in this role. But far more sympathetic to me than Firth's Mr. Darcy. McFayden's Mr. Darcy almost seemed too vulnerable and lovelorn, but his performance makes up for the liberty taken with this aspect of Mr. Darcy's character.My thoughts on the 1995 version... Ehle smirked too much. And at inappropriate times. And her eyes wandered, she often looked away from the other actors when speaking to them in scenes. Almost like she is lost in thought. And that bothered me. Elizabeth is a fiery spirit, and Ehle was far too passive in her depiction. I feel that Keira embodied everything I imagined Elizabeth Bennett to be. I felt that Ehle's acting was below average. But she was the first to tackle our beloved Elizabeth, so she receives more credit than she deserves for the role. I also found the final proposal from Mr. Darcy to Elizabeth a bit perfunctory, and unromantic. But I blame the director, not the actors. They didn't even look at each other. Ehle spouts her dialogue, like an 8th grader in a school play. Though, in some scenes she excelled. Firth was everything I expect of Mr. Darcy. Jane, from the 1995 version, was not the beauty the book wrote of, and I found her face and smile off-putting, if you'll forgive me for saying such a rude thing. She's fine, but not what I imagine Jane to look like, Ehle was much pretty when Jane was supposed to be the prettier of the sisters. I felt 2005 got this right, while managing to cast a stunning beauty like Keira in the role of Elizabeth, muting her attractiveness just enough so that Rosamund Pike could truly shine.