AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

rebekahrox This is an excellent version of Pride and Prejudice second only to the lauded and beloved 1995 production. Elizabeth Garvie's "fine eyes" and bright performance is a standout. She is lovely and likable. I would put it on par with Jennifer Ehle's interpretation. Unfortunately David Rintoul's performance is a real hindrance. He is as stiff and expressionless as a board. He moves through the film as a Zombie. This would have been fine for most of the production, but he almost never unbends to show us his true colors at the end. He only smiles when he is inviting Mr. Gardiner to go fishing, and even then he looks like his face would crack from the effort. Darcy must be shown to have evolved into someone Elizabeth could love and like. Colin Firth revealed Darcy to be shy as well as proud and it was a charming portrayal. For much of his portrayal, I was looking forward to the change when Darcy finally melts. I was very disappointed. What a lost opportunity! It was very vexing! All of the other actors stand up quite well to the classic, especially Jane, and Mr. Collins. Jane is, in this version, much more of the beauty she is described. Susanna Harker in the 1995 version is attractive and interesting looking but she is not really a beauty, in my opinion. I do prefer the more comedic performance of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet. Julia Salwaha killed as Lydia, and unfortunately this one was not up to snuff by comparison.

TheLittleSongbird Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the 1995 series, but seeing this version yesterday as part of my Jane Austen marathon this version is even better. The whole series is handsomely photographed, complete with sumptuous costumes and scenery and an evocative atmosphere, and the music is simple and of a beautifully hypnotic quality. The writing is thoughtful, witty and moving, as well as being true to Jane Austen's language, while the timeless story goes at a good length and pace and the crucial scenes and everything that made the book so good intact and with strong emotional impact. Elizabeth Garvie is a spirited Elizabeth, Irene Richard a superb Charlotte(much better than her Elinor in Sense and Sensibility) and David Rintoul a handsome and aloof Darcy. Judy Parfitt is also a sheer delight as Lady Catherine. So all in all, simply amazing and while ratings-wise I'd put this and 1995 on the same level as the best versions of the book, but as of now I give this one the edge. 10/10 Bethany Cox

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!

arrietty01 I'm so glad others think as I do that this is an excellent version. I just don't understand why it is never mentioned in any reviews when reviewing new version of P&P. Even in IMDb, there is hardly any extra information. And is it true that this mini series is not available on DVD? I saw it on tape and it was such a good series and so true to book. I can see why the Colin Firth one is so popular; it was more sensual and as someone commented, Firth was more like a smoldering Heathcliff. I think that book influenced the movie because didn't you think the scene with Elizabeth and Darcy coming out of mist was more of Heathcliff and Cathy type scene? I suppose that's the next book that will be made into a movie yet again.I've just read a review of all the popularity of Austen books, movies and look-alikes and think it's quite good that they have become popular but am sad that no one will make movies like the above version because it is too purist. Everything for the new generation has to be 'sexy' and snazzy and cool. Oh well, even if one young person is motivated or interested enough to read a Jane Austen book after seeing one of the movies, then I'll be happy.