WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

James Hitchcock Jane Austen's novel "Pride and Prejudice" was originally written in 1796/7 but not published until 1813. Most producers of television adaptations have been guided by the latter date and have set the story during the Regency period, although the 2005 film version was set in the 1790s. This film, however, shifts the action to the 1830s or 1840s, that is to say 20 or 30 years after Austen's death. Two explanations have been given for this change. The official one is that the studio, MGM, wished to use more flamboyant costumes than the relatively restrained and simple ones of the Regency era. The other is that MGM had recently made another film set during the early Victorian period and wanted to re-use the sets and costumes. The film was originally intended to be in colour, to which it would have been well suited, but ended up being made in black-and-white because "Gone with the Wind" had used up all MGM's stocks of colour film.I will not say much about the plot because it is so well-known. The film does, however, differ from the novel in a number of ways. Most of these are fairly minor; whenever a novel is adapted for the screen some scenes will inevitably need to be shortened or omitted altogether if the film is not to become intolerably long-winded. In the novel the insufferable Mr. Collins was a clergyman, here he becomes a librarian, a change driven by the Production Code which forbade unsympathetic portrayals of the clergy. (This piece of censorship would have disappointed the devoutly Christian Austen, who was using Collins to satirise those who entered the priesthood out of mercenary, self-seeking motives rather than genuine religious feelings). The film ends with all five Bennet sisters married or about to be married, unlike the book which ends with only Jane, Elizabeth and Lydia married or engaged.Perhaps the most significant change is that made to the character of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, in the novel a monstrous old snob and hypocrite but whose personality is here considerably softened, again blunting Austen's satire. She is still a formidable old lady, but is actually sympathetic towards Elizabeth's proposed marriage to Darcy, something which in the book she does her damnedest to prevent.The film was made in the United States by an American studio, but in the thirties Hollywood was generally respectful towards the British classics so Austen's English setting is kept. (This would not be something we could take for granted today; when Alfonso Cuaron made a film of Dickens's "Great Expectations" he not only switched the action to America but also gave it a contemporary setting). This meant that the cast, most of whom were American themselves, had to put on their best English accents, and most cope well with the challenge, although one or two occasionally slip.Laurence Olivier, who here plays the proud Mr. Darcy, had the previous year acted in another adaptation of a nineteenth-century classic, "Wuthering Heights". Superficially Heathcliff and Darcy are quite different characters, but both are passionate men, the difference being that in Darcy's case his passion is constrained beneath a formal exterior of manners and breeding. With Olivier's performance one always senses the strong emotions hidden beneath his immaculately starched shirt. With all due respect to admirers of Colin Firth's interpretation, and of Matthew MacFadyen's (if he has any), Sir Laurence is still for me the greatest Mr. Darcy.As for Greer Garson as the prejudiced Elizabeth Bennet, she is fine if one can overlook the fact that at 36 she is considerably older than the character imagined by Jane Austen (21 in the book). In the early nineteenth century young women were regarded as being well on the way to becoming an old maid if they were still unmarried in their late twenties, like Charlotte Lucas here or Anne Elliott in "Persuasion". Austen would have been very surprised had she known that in the twentieth century her heroines would be played by actresses in their late thirties. The original choice for Elizabeth was Norma Shearer, two years older even than Garson. Emma Thomson was a similar age when she played Elinor in "Sense and Sensibility", but that seems to matter less as the ultra-sensible Elinor is very much an old head on young shoulders. Nevertheless, Garson brings out well Elizabeth's determination and sense of self-respect; we sense that she and Darcy are a fine match for one another.Maureen O'Sullivan makes a sweet and lovable Jane, even if she is one of those who occasionally let their accents slip. (O'Sullivan is best remembered today for playing another Jane, in the "Tarzan" films). I also liked Edmund Gwenn as Mr. Bennet; the contribution I liked least came from Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine, although the fault may lie less with the actress than with the changes made by the scriptwriter.Now that Jane Austen is so firmly established as good box office, it is strange to think that this "Pride and Prejudice" was the first feature film to be based on her work. Stranger still that it remained the only one until the nineties. It is very different from a modern "heritage cinema" adaptation, but as an example of a 1940s romantic comedy it is an excellent one, keeping a lot of Austen's wit and powers of characterisation. 9/10A goof. We see carriages driving on the right-hand side of the road, but we Brits drive on the left, and did so even in the horse-and-carriage days of the nineteenth century.

richard-1787 I haven't read Austin's novel of this name since high school, over four decades ago, so I really have no way of knowing how faithful an adaptation this is.Nor, frankly, do I particularly care.If you can divorce the two works and not expect the movie to reproduce the novel, you are left with one really remarkable film.First and foremost, the script, by Aldous Huxley, no mean novelist himself, is brilliant. I don't know how much of it is borrowed or adapted from Austin and how much is Huxley's clever creation, but it's just plain wonderful. Witty without being nasty or supercilious, it's a joy from beginning to end.Second, the script's wonderful dialogue is delivered with zest and nuance by great actors, chief among them Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. They seem to the manner born - which evidently they were.Then there is Edna May Oliver. She did so many different things so well, such as Pross in *A Tale of Two Cities.* She steals every scene in which she appears here, sending even Olivier into the shade. She's just a joy to watch.As, frankly, is this whole movie.

SimonJack I recently watched again this film version of Jane Austin's classic novel. Of course, by now, I have had the opportunity to watch all the later versions as well. This 1940 film and the 2005 film might best be viewed as adaptations of the Austen story, based more on the modern mores and culture of the time each film was made. That excuses the departure from the settings, clothing, manners, and mores of the early 1800s and the landed gentry of England. Those were the substance of Austen's great book, and she beautifully put them under a huge microscope for all to see in her novel. I am most grateful to the BBC for its 1980 and 1995 mini-series that so faithfully and painstakingly transposed the printed pages onto film. Hollywood often alters, revises, rewrites and sometimes completely changes stories or their outcomes. Sometimes it makes for better movies. Sometimes, great reductions are needed just to get a story on film. So, I understand that. And, we movie buffs can take or leave the results. As some of the IMDb reviews indicate on the 2005 movie, there is an audience out there that likes the modern-day adaptation. I too enjoyed the 2005 film. It is truer to the times and culture than this 1940 film. But it omits or drastically condenses significant parts of Austen's story—of necessity, no doubt, to fit the movie length. For the much better and complete telling of the story, viewers should watch either or both of BBC TV minis-series. I'm in the camp of people who really enjoy the wit and humor of clever dialog, accompanied by wonderful expressions to match, and the poking and jabbing at the foibles and follies of cultures. Those things are the essence and value of this story. Through it, Austin explores and exploits those very time-specific mores of English society. She does it with wonderful irony, satire and spoofing. So, when those things are altered significantly, as they are in this cramped version, we are left with something else. A soap opera of sorts, perhaps? Or maybe even a romantic comedy? But it certainly is not the wit, clever story-telling and wisdom of Jane Austen. This 1940 film has a cast of great actors. But many are too old for the roles they play. The costumes are only the start of the failings of this film – from the opening scene. But the script and direction are its biggest failings. One reviewer (vincentlynch-moonoi from the U.S.), on 3 July 2012, wrote: "I confess – I don't get it." I think that honestly reflects the script. For anyone who doesn't know the story, too many things in the movie are left dangling or have just piecemeal references. The plot is too disconnected at times. I won't go into more detail on the many miscues in this adaptation. Two other reviewers nail these very well – Ivan-166 from Australia, 16 August 2006; and Keith-moyes from the U.S., 21 November 2006. So, while some people today may enjoy this 1940 film as a light comedy- romance of sorts, we don't know if they also would be interested in reading Austen's novel or watching the longer accurate depictions on film. What would be interesting to me would be to see how people rated this film in 1940. How would reviewers have posted comments on IMDb if it were around back then? And what would they have to say?My five stars for this film are for Jane Austen, just for the parts of her great novel that are in this film. And for the cast of wonderful actors of the time who gave it a try with a very poor script and far sub-par direction.

vincentlynch-moonoi I dissent.I confess, this is the first film since "Zabriski Point" back in 1970 that I can say, "I don't get it!" I haven't read Jane Austen. So I don't have that to back up my lack of understanding of this film. Is this supposed to be a comedy? Or a drama? Or is this simply the most insipid group of characters ever to grace the silver screen? My view shocks me when I look at the cast. Greer Garson is my all-time favorite actress. Laurence Olivier had few peers. Edna May Oliver is one of my very favorite character actresses. Maureen O'Sullivan appeared in many first-rate films. Edmund Gwenn is a gem.And yet, I found this film "silly". Or was I supposed to? I'm sorry, but I'm giving this film one of the lowest ratings I've ever given any film. "5".