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


Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:54PM) (new)

Victoria This new Mr.Darcy was NOTHING like the book !
In this movie they made him seem just shy ,not a proud and like he came around to being a better person .
In the book I think It is more lizzie coming around to see his good charactor and qualitys.

I did not like the new actor , he always looked sad, or sleepy. :)

message 2: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:55PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments Well, I thought he was okay...I mean, the way they portrayed him mostly socially shy rather than know, that's why he comes across as proud as he appears. I mean, that's what the other movie's reason was. When Lizzie's playing the piano and they're talking he admits that he does not have the skills to converse like other people, and she replies that she doesn't play the piano well, but that's her fault for not practicing. So the new P&P did show more of him being shy whilst the other movie showed him as mostly proud it seemed.

I really liked the new P&P Mr. Darcy's relationship with his sister. It seemed more...emotional? What's the word I'm looking for. I mean, it's not accurate according to the book, but it was cute. Like the part where Georgiana jumps up from the piano and hugs him. (Though I really did NOT like Georgiana, I thought it was cute...)
But all in all I still liked the '95 Darcy better. He was definitely more handsome, in my opinion. :D

message 3: by Moriah (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:55PM) (new)

Moriah | 2 comments I could not STAND this version! The new Darcy was awful!

message 4: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:02PM) (new)

Victoria Quote --I absolutely hated the new Darcy. Not only was he ugly (he could at least have brushed his hair more often, and his nose was horrible),

Hahahahah ROFL ! He did have a funny nose , I was going to be charitable and not mention it but.... :)

I did like the relationship it showed between him and his sister .

I think what we need to remember when we compair the actors is not what we liked beter but what is more acurite to the the way Jane austen wrote them.

message 5: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:15PM) (new)

Victoria Okay lets talk about a new
character : Elizabeth Bennet.

message 6: by Sam (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:15PM) (new)

Sam | 19 comments Oooohhh! Are you sure you want to start on her? lol.
I didn't care for her at all. She seemed actually flirtatious, and her hair!!! The windblown hair was bad enough, but wearing it down when going into town?!! That's just really pushing it! A girl, living back then, if she were that age would be mortified to wear her hair down. Even Elizabeth Bennet wouldn't act that improperly! And her clothes were inaccurate. They seemed rather flimsy to me. Cheap. She was more the correct age than Jennifer Ehle was...but she was not the Elizabeth of the book, like Jennifer Ehle was.

message 7: by Victoria (last edited Aug 25, 2016 02:18PM) (new)

Victoria Yes she was definatly not the elizabeth of the book. The intire movie I kept waiting for her to finaly *style* her hair and it never happend !
The only sene where her hair was exscepable was the ball scene.

About her clothes , this was one of the things that drove me crazy ! I heard that the director
did not like the regency style of clothing and said that "it made women look out of porportion and ridiculous " So , now we know why the costumes are the way they are ! :) I wonder that if he did not like this period of history WHY he would want to make the movie at all ?!?

No matter how many times they make this movie I don't think that they will ever find a better actress then Jennifer Ehle. To me she is perfect to what Jane Austen wrote !

message 8: by Sam (new)

Sam | 19 comments I think if someone is going to make a movie based on a book, they should stick to the book and keep their own additions to themself...they want to do it their own way, then they should go do a different movie. :) lol.

message 9: by Moriah (new)

Moriah | 2 comments lol! Yes, exactly Sam!

message 10: by Elizabeth (new)

Elizabeth | 1 comments I couldn't resist joining this group. Kiera Knightley drives me nuts--with all her lip biting and pouting, there's barely any time for actual performance. I don't understand why she gets cast over and over in these juicy roles and then proceeds to destroy them so that I now have a jumpy, twitching, emaciated vision of Elizabeth Bennet in my head.

Anyway, I think that Ehle was perfect as Elizabeth. She had class, character and modesty. And Firth is beyond criticism.

message 11: by Sam (new)

Sam | 19 comments I agree, Becky, Lizzie was much too frivolous! I hated how giddy she was at times! All five of the girls listening at key holes? I mean, maybe you could expect that from Lydia and Kitty, but most certainly NOT Lizzie or Jane! And Mary wouldn't care! The true Lizzie and Jane of the book would have scolded the younger girls for behaving like that!!
And, yes, what WAS with Mr. Darcy walking around not completely dressed! Quite scandalous! And what about Lizzie? She was still in her night clothes when she went to meet Mr. the way, how did they know they'd see each other out there? Telepathy? *snort*

Hello and welcome, Elizabeth. :D

message 12: by Victoria (new)

Victoria Yes Becky , I too was "Thoroughly Scandalized" by darcy appering not fully dressed ! That is one of the beautys of Jane Austens storys that her characters are modest and proper!

Elizabeth , I second your opinions of both Keria Knightly and Jeniffer Ehle.

I think the thing that botheres me most about this film was like Darcy says "the lack of proprity ". The fact that the girls hardly ever were graceful ,elegant , modest in spirit and so on. :(

message 13: by Darcylover93 (new)

jane Austin's pride and prejudice was depicted throughout the movie, catching the essence of jane austin's meaning. The movie relives the timeless and suspending scenes bring the characters to life. It brings through the themes of Marriage, Class and Reputation. We see the Regency era through the eyes and life of Elizabeth Bennet. Keira Knightly plays Elizabeth Bennet with a PASSION and the audience is able to feel the message she brings across. so this is why the movie is good and keira plays elizabeth really well.

message 14: by Sandra (new)

Sandra (beatrixkiddo) WOW! It seems we have a not-AustEn-fan in this group... LOL!!!

Marriage, class and reputation... I don't think any of the Austen novels are that frivolous and shallow...there's much, much more inside, and that is why I do read and like them, unlike any other romance-based novels. I won't re-tell all my thoughts here again; I simply disagree (strongly)with that vain concept of one of the greatest novels ever written.

message 15: by Hannah (new)

Hannah Elizabeth is SO MUCH BETTER PROTRAYED by Jennifer Ehle then Kiera Knightley.

I LOVE elizabeth! She rocks!!!!! Way fun.

message 16: by Robin (new)

Robin (goodreadscomtriviagoddessl) Jennifer is better than Keira, but Keira plays a good Dutchess of Devonshire.

message 17: by Gabrielle (new)

Gabrielle Haha yes Keira wasn't a good Elizabeth at all! The new one was the 1st I'd ever seen, I hadn't even read the book and I was so confused. But once i watched the 1995 one and read the book I understood it the story but the new movie still confuses me.

message 18: by Juli (new)

Juli | 3 comments Jennifer> Keira
Colin >>>>>>>> the other dude who's name I can't be bothered to remember

back to top