Pride & Prejudice

I still can’t believe I loved this movie so much. A sprawling and unimaginative plot stretched out over two hours, peppered with Keira Knightley's sweet smile, romantic sets and a perfect happy ending... am I really supposed to like that? Well yes. Perhaps I forgot to mention what a huge charm that sweet smile has, how apt and captivating the romantic and history-laden production design is, how skilled a director Joe Wright is and that the story under his baton is brimming with weddings, engagements and carefully spaced out emotions so unobtrusively, and of course, you just can't resist. It's a pity that the director sometimes visibly skipped ahead a few pages and tried to shorten and simplify the very rich plot of the book, and it took me a while to sort out everything in my head. Otherwise, however, a refined and brilliantly executed spectacle with all the trimmings... (07/16/2012)

The folly of the powerful in a British form from the pen of Jane Austen couldn’t have been better. Her world is very far from what I imagine as an ideal bedtime story. Reading her books would be make me totally desperate. The movie is a different case, however. Joe Wright honors the source material and so there is a number of higher-class conceited characters that you would like to shoot with a cannon from a Soviet T-100 tank. But the film is lucky because the dialogues are brilliantly written so there is always somebody to shut them up with a polite, cynical word. That and the very pretty shots prove that it would be a shame to overlook this film. (09/21/2018)

One would think that a guy wouldn't enjoy this, but the opposite is true. Magical performances, as well as a timeless love story that almost didn't come true just because people are idiots, simply captivate even today's men. True, at times it can be a bit boring, but this time it's not such a high price to pay. However, those two hours still go by quite quickly, thanks to Wright's confident direction. (02/26/2014)

I've read the book, I haven't seen any other adaptation of it, so I can say I'm very satisfied. This breathtaking production won me over with beautiful images, superbly shot scenes like the one at the second ball, Marianelli's haunting music and, of course, the performances of the actors. You could say that I imagined all the characters exactly as I saw them here while reading. Only, admittedly, Mr. Collins wasn't as funny in the book, and old Mr. Bennet as likable (Donald Sutherland is Donald Sutherland). As for Keira Knightley or the fantastic Matthew MacFadyen, I have no reservations. The only flaw is the few moments that I found slightly boring and unnecessary (they came in the last third), which I could tell by suddenly looking at how many minutes were left to the end. Four and a half. (07/23/2011)

I cannot review this film completely objectively - the problem is not that I consider the subject matter to be too "feminine" or that there is no trace of romance in me. However, I am a descendant of the plebeian society and plebeian ancestors, so instead of being moved by noble manners and witty sparkling dialogues, I feel like grabbing a pitchfork, poking Mr. Bingley in the backside, and shouting: "To the Bastille!" Besides, I get the feeling that the creators did not capture Jane Austen's essence very well. In reality, she was more like an English Chekhov of the late 18th century. She had her own thoughts about the manners and conventions of the confined aristocratic society, and her novels can be read more as a gentle social satire on contemporary morality. However, the humor in the film shifted more toward romantic comedy than satire. Keira Knightley is perfect for her role - delicate, fragile, romantic, and charming. However, her male counterpart lacks the charisma that Colin Firth showed ten years earlier. The cinematography and the selection of exteriors are very good, and the period music accompaniment is pleasant as well. Overall impression: 70%. (07/18/2006)