Pride & Prejudice 2005 is a disgrace to Jane Austen! discussion

first of all...

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:48PM) (new)

Victoria I really liked the music. I have been wanting to get the sound track. yeh... thats all the good I can think of right off the bat. :(

message 2: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:48PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments The soundtrack was the only best part of the movie, in my And the only other thing I pretty much liked was Mary Bennet. I definitely liked her better than the '95 movie version of Mary Bennet. Re-reading the book, and really paying attention to Mary, it doesn't really describe her in the way they show her in the '95 movie....I thought Mary was the cutest of all the girls in the new P&P. lol. But, yeah, I liked her better....but that was basically all I liked in that movie.

message 3: by Melody (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:49PM) (new)

Melody (mellie) | 8 comments Ohh... I'll have to agree with Sam and Tori... the music was about the only thing I liked about it.

I don't remember Mary much, though.

Myself, I thought Jane was actually worse than in the '95 version! Somehow she was too girlish, for being the eldest.

message 4: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:49PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments Well, I don't mean Mary was more accurate in the new one...but the book doesn't describe Mary as obnoxious and quite ugly in the book, like she is in the '95 version. She IS plain, and rather dull, a wallflower, but not obnoxious. :D

message 5: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:49PM) (new)

Victoria I agree with Becky the cinematography was Breathtaking ! My older sister really likes this version , and *tries* to watch it fairly often. The cinematography and the music are the only things that get me through it !
I have recently started making reproduction clothing , and it irritates me to no end to see there costumes be sooo inaccurate.

I liked mary bennet more in the '05 version , BUT I do not think it was accurit.
In the book I think she is a lot more like the '95 version.

I DID like Jane much better in the '05.
I like her way of speaking better.
Or it might just be that I really like Rosamund Pike the woman who plays Jane :)

message 6: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:49PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments I really like Rosamund Pike as an actress, but I have to agree with Mellie...I thought she played Jane worse than the one in the '95 version...I don't know, to me it seems that the one in the '95 version was more accurate than the '05 one.

True, Mary Bennet may be more accurate in the '95 version, but I liked her better in the '05 version. :D

message 7: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:53PM) (new)

Victoria What did everyone think of Lady Cathrine ?
Ohhh yea and what about Mr. Collins ? ( Yuck , just thinking about him makes my skin crawl ! )

message 8: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Victoria Think positive ... right! Okay well on the positive note , I did like the new Mr. Collins although the old one was really good as well.
They are both accurate to the book so I like them both for different reasons.
I really like the actor who plays the new Mr. Collins.
I've seen him in pirates and in Wives and Daughters , and enjoyed him in both .
He is one of those people who can play a really good bad guy , you know what I mean ? All though I admit that I did not like him untill I had seen him in Wives and Daughters , there at least he could be some what normal ! ( Okay getting off topic Sorry ! )

Now Lady Deburg was definatly better in the old one. I agree that it would be VERY hard to top her :)

message 9: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Victoria I just thought about something !The new Mr. Bennet , What did you think about him ???
I thought he was a unique addition to the movie.

message 10: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments Ugh! I hated the new Mr. Bennet...he was just not Mr. Bennet in my opinion. And I didn't like the new Mr. Collins or Lady DeBurg either. lol. :)

message 11: by Melody (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Melody (mellie) | 8 comments I agree.:D I'll post my views in the new thread!:)

message 12: by Megan (new)

Megan K (mrsjoshuak) | 1 comments Ok let me just say, I REALLY enjoyed P&P because they had to shorten it because of time. So for what they did for the time they had was really good! Now don't take my comment wrong I think every sorid detail should be in the movie! BUT I will always give them credit for the good job they did. :)


message 13: by Anna (last edited Feb 29, 2008 09:15AM) (new)

Anna (annajehan) | 2 comments I'm much in agreement here with you folks. One thing I haven't heard mentioned was the cinematography, scenery, and costumes. I thought the choice of shots, their length, their scope was all very well done and easy on the eyes. You were never searching for something in the shot, because the shot focused your attention on what you were supposed to be seeing, and I never wished they would pan out a bit so I could see more.

As for scenery, I loved their choices for Rosings Park, especially as it compares to Longbourn and Pemberly. It really gives you a sense of why Darcy and Lady Catherine are so stuck up. I think the difference is exaggerated for our benefit, but I think it makes for a clearer picture for modern audiences just how wealthy these people were, and how modest the Bennet family and Meryton was.

The costumes also underscore this point. Again, I think they're innacurate and it would be misleading to think that this is something Jane Austen would have seen. However, it gives you an idea of how expensive and fashionable the clothing of the Bingley sisters are, and how modest the Bennet country girls are. While modern minds might not grasp the differences had they chosen more accurate costumes for the time period and the social status of the characters, their use of more drastic contrasts helped a modern audience understand the "pride" and the "prejudice" part a bit more.

message 14: by Amy (new)

Amy (amy_lofgreen) Jane is my favorite part of this new version. She is quite silly, but having grown up in a family with four sisters it rang true to me. It was amazing how we would revert to our childish relationships when we were all home. Their closeness was sweet and finally Jane was actually pretty enough to actually be Jane.
I realize I sound shallow here, but all the great acting in the world never could convince me that the '95 Jane was prettier than Elizabeth. It has always been my ONLY complaint with the '95 P&P.

message 15: by Amy (new)

Amy (amy_lofgreen) Anna,
What great insight you have! I would have to agree you are right on target. I too forgot to think of the modern audience.

Thanks for the paradigm shift.

message 16: by Kate (new)

Kate (kathrynlouwca) Just on as a note about Jane not being prettier. Sure, she wasn't prettier then Lizzie, but her looks were the mode of the day which made her prettier by their standards. In that time period, blonde hair, long necks, and blue eyes is what made a pretty girl pretty.

message 17: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (Sarahhelen) | 3 comments I'm joining this discussion a year and a half late, but having read all the comments, I'm surprised to find no mention of Brenda Blethyn's performance as Mrs Bennet. I think she was excellent in that role, and was far more credible than the OTT performance of Alison Steadman in the '95 version. If I could change anything about that production, it would have been to remove Steadman from it - she was just too ghastly for words.
I was also going to defend the old Jane, but Kathryn above has said what was in my mind. Her bovine serenity and elegance may grate on the modern sensibilities of the audience, but are perhaps more in tune with the standard of beauty admired in the early 19C. (And it was all her own hair!)

message 18: by M (last edited Jul 16, 2010 04:33PM) (new)

M (Umichgirl) | 2 comments I like Brenda Blethyn. Her portrayal of Mrs. Bennet certainly made me cringe less, but I'm not sure that is a plus. I think that her character is supposed to make you mortified and discomfited. I admit, I often fast forward through parts of her zealous performance, but that is because it is too painful to watch; in the sense that I can totally feel what Lizzy must have endured. The shame of having a mother exposing herself that way! I think that we are supposed to feel mortified...

message 19: by Darcylover93 (new)

Darcylover93 | 2 comments where do i begin......this movie brought out the messages that Jane Austin was talking about. Her views of marriage and social status. Each actor portrayed the characters as they were portrayed in the book and brought something new to the character.

message 20: by Tara (new)

Tara Jadidi What rather surprises me is that no one seems to have noticed the fact that in the movie, Mr. Darcy calls Mr. Bingley's sister by her name! It was quit horrifying!
Caroline Bingley: Will you not join us, Mr. Darcy?
Mr. Darcy: You can only have two motives, Caroline and I would interfere with either.

back to top