(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffocus_features%2Fpride_and_prejudice%2Fkeira_knightley%2Fpride.jpg&hash=3f64d3cfe0ca048cb111dd170361230176c113f2)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Ffocus_features%2Fpride_and_prejudice%2F_group_photos%2Fkeira_knightley1.jpg&hash=5799a8873578b91c42262b8bcd275345f0ae5e59)
Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1362783&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Release Date: September 23rd, 2005
Starring: Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone, Donald Sutherland, Judi Dench, Brenda Blethyn, Claudie Blakley, Cornelius Booth, Rupert Friend, Tom Hollander, Tamzin Merchant, Kelly Reilly, Carey Mulligan, Penelope Wilton, Talulah Riley, Simon Woods, Peter Wright
Director: Joe Wright
Screenwriter: Deborah Moggach
Based On The Novel By: Jane Austen
Premise: An opinionated young woman and an arrogant, rich snob overcome their initial antipathy and various other social obstacles to fall in love.
AGAIN!?!?
Quote from: MacGuffinJudi Dench
Well, duh.
This is getting really strong reviews surprisingly. With the exception of the Miramax Oscar look from the trailer, it might be pretty decent.
I thought this was really well-done, if a bit long. Wright did a great job establishing the time period. It's a pretty predictable Hollywood story though.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 13, 2005, 04:06:53 PM
It's a pretty predictable Hollywood story though.
I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.
I heard Jane Austen originally wanted to make this on film but couldn't find the financial backing so she went with the written word instead.
Thank god its finally been made the way it was always supposed to be, can't wait to see it.
anyone else having de ja vu...
I really liked this. And the technical aspects of it are amazing - some really stunning steadicam shots, and equally proficient usage of zoom lenses. Mix that with some refined dolly work, and it comes across as if Altman and Kubrick had collaborated on a Jane Austen adaptation.
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 26, 2005, 03:12:41 AM
as if Altman and Kubrick had collaborated on a Jane Austen adaptation.
Best recommendation for the film yet. Now I actually want to see this.
Quote from: Ravi on November 26, 2005, 01:19:47 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 26, 2005, 03:12:41 AM
as if Altman and Kubrick had collaborated on a Jane Austen adaptation.
Best recommendation for the film yet. Now I actually want to see this.
i was going to quote that and say 'the sound of 100 xixaxers actually seeing this now...'
This is one of my favorite films of the year. If I give into making a top ten list for the year, this one will mark very high.
I was reluctant to see this film. One, the adaptation of a famous novel always unnerves me and two, I never thought a Jane Austin adaptation could get much better than Sense and Sensibility. Wrong on both accounts. This film grabs the nuance of a novel as well as any I know of. The first sections are details of decor and lifestyle. When characters begin to take shape into a story, they aren't as pronouced as in Sense and Sensibility. The story is the true character of this film. Notice the focus of Keira Knightely at the beginning. Truely the stand out for screen time, the camera never fully projects her to be the star of the film. The camera work is shifty and mainly following action and when it stops, she is a face amongst many (usually her sisters) in the story. Through out the majority of the film, only in certain scenes is she given extended time to singularily pronouce herself and thats during an act of defiance. As the film positions itself into a love story for her does the editing slow down to try to capture the nuances of what her character represents because she is falling in love. The usual thing that would have been done is that her character would have been singled out and fully understood from the beginning. The filmmaking goes for the nuances of filmming her as a person in the crowd but more importantly in a larger story. The comment of Altman and Kubrick is almost correct with one exception: the filmmaking never takes center stage here. It never is its own character. For those guys it is. For this film it is keeping the film off balance enough for the stereotypes of star performances not to have an effect as the camera truly fluctuates to the momentum of the story. Its really a great piece of work and the music was always well pronouced at the right time. A few moments are too cinematic for the story, but a great film. I can't wait to see it again.
As for the acting of Keira Knightely, I know no one else would have been right for the role. Judi Dench can slip into these characters like a glove. She is a natural for this role as is Keira Knightely. It does not speak for extension of one's self the way a Robert Duvall seems to do for every character, but a delight to watch because she is perfect for the role.
one of the best, dare i say, "chick flicks" i've seen.. probably ever.
amazingly crafted, great story, great performances.
go out and watch it.
Title: Pride & Prejudice
Released: 28th February 2006
SRP: $29.98
Further Details:
Universal Home Video has released early details on Pride & Prejudice which stars Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench. The disc will be available to own from the 28th February, and should set you back around $29.98. The film itself will be presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen, along with English, French and Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround tracks. I'm afraid that Universal has yet to reveal the extra material for this one, but we'll bring you further details very shortly.
I'll add my thumbs up to the pile. Agreed about the technical aspects, they were marvelous, and yet never called so much attention to itself that it ever took me out of the story.
The movie felt very immediate, very revelant somehow. That's why I wouldn't categorize it as Masterpiece Theatre. This was grittier, like I was thrown into this world. Almost like using Saving Private Ryan techniques for Jane Austen (not to an inappropriate degree, of course). It's not a soft movie.
Another point... I kinda want to say that this was more an adaptation for men. Before I saw this, I was told by several women that parts of it, especially the last scene, delved into extremely cheesy territory. I was happy to find that I didn't think the ending was cheesy at all. My reasoning is that the last lines in the movie are not so much what women want to hear as it is what men want to say. That was Darcy's moment. Donald Sutherland has a few standout moments as well, each of which are moments that would be important to a man. This, and what I said before about it not being soft, is why I don't really find this to be a chick flick--my hypothesis is that men would enjoy it more than women, on the whole. Or at least, the only negative comments I've gotten were from women.
Another even greater point... Kelly Reilly, the red-headed English actress who plays Catherine Bingley. MY GOD MAN! I found her to be quite attractive, myself, despite the rotten character she played. ... or maybe because of...
The producers must've had a tough time convincing anyone to be involved with this movie, but I'd say it paid off quite nicely. I hope the word of mouth continues to grow. The film deserves it.
A-
I hope it's not improper for me to jump in with my review of the film.
Pride and Prejudice (2005)
I promised myself that before I saw any film adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, I would first read the book. With the release of 2005's very modern telling of the classic tale, I hastened my endeavor and devoured the book inside of a week. Now I'm faced with an incurable dilemma: attempting to evaluate the film on its own merit rather than on the basis of its comparison to the delightful novel on which it is based.
Frankly, it's impossible. You don't read a novel that good and dismiss it when the tagline touts the film as "the greatest love story of all time." They're banking on name recognition at the very least; at best, they're blatantly appealing to the enormous base of avid Austen fans.
Working in the film's favor is the fact that I am not an Austen scholar (though I'm eagerly working my way through her oeuvre). Thus, my book-to-film comparisons are not as finely tuned as they probably should be. Which does not necessarily work in the film's favor, since, as an adaptation, it's rather shallow. If it weren't for the British accents and period costumes, I'd say this was an American romantic comedy.
Simple premise: the five Bennett sisters are of marrying age in the early 1800s, and, being women in the early 1800s, their only prospects for financial security lie with finding good husbands. When a rich gentleman moves into a nearby manor, and enchants Jane (Rosamund Pike), the reserved, eldest Bennett daughter, all that stands in her way of happiness is the poor position of her family and perhaps their manners.
She's in love with Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods), and he's in love with her. Everyone knows it except them. Well, also except for Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen), a rude, exorbitantly rich landowner who has made the mistake of insulting Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley), the only girl in the country, apparently, willing to look Darcy in the eye and show him the sharp side of her tongue. Conventionally, you know that these two, who start on the worst of terms, fall in love with each other and surmount various obstacles—both internal and external—before acknowledging their true feelings. Classic opposites-attract/meet-cute setup. Except it predates Nora Ephron by approximately 200 years. So why is it that this thoroughly English 19th-century romantic comedy feels whittled-down and warmed-over for the undiscerning palette of your average American audience?
Not to cast stones, but the vast majority of rom-coms don't aspire to anything higher than to provide a twist in the formula, a few bittersweet moment, and a happy ending. Fantasy fluff all the way. Some are better than others, and some achieve greatness or offer some insights and substance along with the diversion. This new version of Pride and Prejudice falters considerably in the latter department.
Being an Austen adaptation, it cannot help but retain some resonant themes of class struggle and women's position in society... But it does so little with them. Lizzie and Darcy exchange heated glances and verbal barbs while the milieu, rather than being integral to the overall story, serves as a mere backdrop. Secondary characters are delightful, but instead of using them to their fullest potential (as Austen does in her novel), screenwriter Deborah Moggach and Joe Wright (making his feature film directorial debut) sprinkle them liberally throughout the piece as they might appear in any Richard Curtis film. As Mr. Bennett, Donald Sutherland is at his sardonic, benevolent best, a nice change from the usual stinker roles he tends to play these days. Paul Simon lookalike Tom Hollander is equally arresting as the ostentatious sycophant Mr. Collins, who arrives to seek the hand of Miss Bennett (any Miss Bennett) in marriage to please his vile, snobbish patroness, the Lady Catherine de Bourg, who is played by Judi Dench with the same commanding verve she brings to every such character.
In some ways, Knightley and MacFadyen are perfectly cast. She's pretty, and he's dark and brooding, but not without Clive Owenish charm. Both are swept along by the relentless pace of the film (a stylistic no-no that barely gives us a chance to breathe, as if it were slapping a sleek corset on us and lacing the strings), so instead of convincingly growing to know and love each other, these lifelike characters seems shoehorned into a breakneck plot that takes advantage of pretty vistas and witty dialogue lifted verbatim from Austen's masterpiece.
Nagging at that suspicious little corner of my mind is the leery thought that the makers of Pride and Prejudice knew that, with such strong source material, they did not need to do a great job—merely a competent one. It's the kind of mass-marketing mentality that sells tickets to weary audiences in desperate need of true quality's glimmer, if not the gem itself. Pride and Prejudice is polished, and full of sparkling romance and wit, but it goes down almost a little too easy. You've swallowed it before you've had a chance to savor the taste. Such is the privation endured when consuming microwaveable Austen.
i also liked this, though not quite as much as some, it's still a feat considering the source material. i had also just watched Ang Lee's Sense & Sensibility earlier this week and improbably enjoyed that film as well. though like GT i might have even preferred this one. between Domino and this film i appreciate seeing the range keira knightley is capable of. somewhat predictably my girlfriend liked this even better than i did.
L'il Spoiler...
My favorite scene was when Lizzie and Darcy are dancing, and suddenly there is no one in the room but them. I'm such a sap when it comes to romance, and that part was actually a bit thrilling. :oops:
the only part i DIDN'T like was darcy's sister. i read the book, and that's not what she's supposed to look like......but that's just me being picky.
As is often the case with me, I only just got around to seeing this. I honestly thought it was fantastic. Unlike the stageiness of so many Austen adaptations, this actually felt like a real movie. Plus it mostly avoided the period-movie pitfall of the actors all secretly thinking "listen to how adorable we are with our old-timey dialogue!" It was like really naturalistic actors doing Shakespeare; as long as you're conveying the meaning of the dialogue accurately, the actual content of the lines can be almost anything.
All the actors were good, special points to Donald Sutherland and Jena Malone for having way more fun with the material than anyone else. I had only seen Matthew Macfayden before on the odd episode of "MI5", and he really impressed me in this. Almost like a British Peter Sarsgaard, the way he able to convey so much depth without ever really changing his expression or vocal inflection.
Good flick, all the way around. Makes me look forward to Joe Wright's next movie, "Atonement", in which Matthew Macfayden and Keira Knightley pair up again. And it makes me wish I had watched it with a girl, because I totally would have gotten lucky.