Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

SimonJack This early BBC mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" is the first production to flesh out most of the significant characters of Jane Austen's novel. Of course, it needed the nearly 4 ½ hours to do that. The production values are very good. The scenery and filming are excellent. The cast is very capable, but only a couple of the performances seem exceptional. Those would be Sabina Franklyn as Jane Bennett and Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Irene Richard also was quite good as Charlotte Lucas. David Rintoul made a striking figure for Fitzwilliam Darcy. But, in his transformation at the end, his character still seemed to be dour. There was no apparent warming and enthusiasm with his love for Elizabeth. Elizabeth Garvie is good as Elizabeth, but I think her character was too uncertain at times. She sometimes seemed wishy-washy. Whether this was from her interpretation of the role, or the director's lead, it seemed to weaken the character. I don't think that's the image of Elizabeth that Austen had in mind. Overall, I just didn't sense much life or enthusiasm in the characters. Before this 1980 mini-series, the BBC had made three other mini-series of P&P — in 1952, 1958 and 1967. But those were all in the 3-hour range, with 30-minute installments. They barely touched on some of the characters. The interest has been there for Jane Austen since at least the last half of the 20th century. So at intervals the BBC would put out a new production. Yet, none seemed to improve on the story. By that I mean, succeeding versions didn't add much more from the story than the earlier ones. And no exceptional stars or role insights emerged. So, the preferred version for many movie buffs over four decades was likely the 1940 film with its cast of big name stars – Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edmund Gwenn, and Edna May Oliver. But, with the 1980 mini-series, we had the first flushing out of characters that were ignored or barely mentioned in the movies and shorter series. While it's not a particularly exciting rendition, the 1980 mini-series production is a good wholesome treatment of Austen's great novel of pride and prejudice. And, it would retain the foremost position of P&P films until 1995 and the last great mini-series on the story. A word to the wise – for those who may want to acquire or watch all the various versions of Pride and Prejudice. Watch this 1980 mini-series version before you watch the 1995 version. The difference will become pleasantly clear when watching the second series. To do it in reverse invites awareness of the differences that will be not so pleasant and may even lead to uneasiness or lack of interest when watching this series last.

badajoz-1 This is TV for the late seventies - faithful to source, stagey, studio-bound, with the odd bit of outdoor filming, so don't go looking for flashy film technique and 'modern' soap-like characterisation with a driving narrative. This is supposed to be Jane Austen on screen, not another ever so modern, emotionally over the top, easily delineated character put into period for modern audiences with the attention span of twenty five minutes.So the pace is leisurely, life revolves around sowing, being gentile, with the odd highlight of dinner with neighbours or a small ball with four and twenty families! This adaptation presents this lifestyle excellently, which means that characters do not rev up for the audience. The acting is a little patchy - for instance, Elizabeth Garvie (of whom we saw too little afterwards) starts hesitantly but improves remarkably, while David Rintoul is left too stiff and starchy throughout (Fay Weldon's feminist revenge?). But the support is good, and not overplayed, except in the case of Natalie Ogle (Lydia). certainly Wickham and Mr Bennet are seen for what they are - the former a lying cheat but smooth, while the latter is totally disdainful of his simpleton wife.Let's face it - those critics of this version do not seem to criticise Ms Austen for ignoring the life and death struggle of Britain facing Napoleonic France, but say that the characters are too passive to be interested in. The words of Ms Austen are there, and she was not writing Barbara Cartland!

Qanqor 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.

TMMVDS It's totally unbelievable how someone could watch this in its entirety (which is a task worth of a medal) and honestly say it's the best adaptation there is. It wouldn't be the best even if it was the only one! So, maybe it is truest to the book, but who cares if the entertainment value is zero? I'm not one those Austen fanatics who knows the book in question by heart. But I have read it, and it is certainly important that the adaptation is true to that book, that's why I wouldn't even try to watch the latest movie version of it. But who can argue that the 1995 version wasn't also a faithful adaptation? If there was some slight alterations, so is here! So maybe there was some scenes omitted, but do you need to hear every word they say in the book to enjoy the show? No, you don't. When you see things in front of you, you certainly want to see something more than endless talking sessions. It's not enough that these people talk and talk, it all sounds like one long weather forecast. If these conversations can you keep you entertained, good for you! But if one wants to hear and see people who has a character and feelings, go look elsewhere.The 1995 version of P&P had everything which makes a costume drama work, and it's my favourite series of all time. This version has instead all of the elements which can totally ruin that same genre. Let's pretend that this would be nothing but TV-series and had nothing to do with Jane Austen; what merits it would have? Insignificant acting, lifeless characters, tedious dialogue. One couldn't care less if that stiff bloke get the girl he claims to love - though it's hard to believe. Watching him proposing Elizabeth is almost embarrassing in its rigidness.