Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

referencegirl Both big concepts - an update to Jane Austen's original story and Mormon culture - are so watered down that the movie won't offend anyone but is rarely interesting. The Pink Bible and attempt to update feminism were nice touches but neither quite landed. The whole movie feels awkward and a bit disingenuous. Two positives: Orlando Seale as Mr. Darcy is almost as hot as Colin Firth and there are some genuinely talented actors doing solid work.

rickchris-141-832806 Oh, please. If someone is going to use the name of one of the truly great English-language novels ever written as the title of his/her/its movie, it had better be (1) pretty darned good and (2) decently faithful to the intent of the novel. Otherwise, call it something else. In this case, using "Pride and Prejudice" is a gross insult to the intelligence of even modestly intelligent movie-goers and to the creative genius of Jane Austen.Compare this to an outstanding, perhaps the greatest, visual rendering of the novel: The 1995 Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth BBC television series made into a seamless 300-minute movie. It is superb in every way, a nearly flawless production with fewer identified errors of various sorts in it than are normally reported in a movie of more typical length. Then there is this sad spectacle. It would not be so offensive had it been named something like "Twits and Tittering" or "Plodding Petulance"--anything but Austen's own title. This is something like making a mediocre-or-worse movie about break-dancing and calling it The Holy Bible.One cannot say too little about this movie: It is embarrassingly poor. That is quite little enough to say.

HugglesTheTrees I first got to see this movie when it appeared on television, I personally found it a cute little flick. I know most people would feel that this movie is a bad screen adaption...but it is not meant to follow the book directly. If it had been meant to be it would would have been taken in a way more serious direction and it would have been like every other movie that used Jane Austen's book as it's premises.Yet, like every movie it has it's short comings, I for one, think that it lacked in substance at certain points and didn't always flow right and the acting, at times could come off as sub-par at a few points. But all in all I found it a good movie over-all.I rated this book a 9/10 due to its creativity and sheer adorableness.

seneca70 i am crazy about modern day takes on classic stories--clueless is one of my favorite movies because it so perfectly retells Emma. so, of course, when i saw this movie was coming on TV...i was eager to give it a try (though skeptical, considering i'd never heard of it)...to be honest, i wish i had that hour and a half back.it's a ridiculously saccharine, terribly written, horribly acted movie--certainly, filled with clever tricks (like the Austen quotes that bookend all the scenes), but, at its core, a boring, unsexy, uninteresting version of a remarkably sensual novel. Darcy is more dopey than brooding, and Lizzie is cute--but too flat to play such a rich, nuanced character.i didn't know it was a "Mormon" movie until i just looked it up--but i'm not surprised. that explains the constant references to church and the reason why everyone was interested in marriage--rather than dating.if you're Mormon and a Jane Austen lover--i imagine you'd enjoy this...but if you're not a Mormon--rent Bridget Jones--it's a better bang for your buck.