[Overstreet]

Wow. That is beautiful.

[Jeff]

I saw another commercial for this film the other day, and it cemented my decision not to see it in theaters. When the TV spots boast that "Critics are calling it SEXY!", all I can think of is Jane Austen twisting in her grave.

Plus it commits the sin of combining contemporary pop music with period drama (see our thread on Tristan and Isolde for more on how much this usually sucks). Why would they play Howie Day's "Collide" over this preview? How does a breathy emo-boy tie in to a tea-party satire? Seems fishy to me.

So I guess I'll hold out until someone lends me the DVD.

[Overstreet]

Jeff, don't let marketers ruin your chance to enjoy a good film! If you don't see this on the big screen, you'll miss some exhilarating cinematography that will lose some of its lustre on a smaller screen.

Heck, the DVD cover for Three Colors: Blue says "SEXY!" I'm glad that doesn't keep me from watching it.

And there is no contemporary music in the film.

As for comparing it to Tristan and Isolde... well, I'm open to being proven wrong, and if someone here says it's awesome I'll see it... but the preview turned me off to it because it looks pretty bad in every way.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Yeah, Jeff (not you, the other Jeff), please don't judge a film by its trailers -- and especially don't judge a film by the trailer's music! (FWIW, I have seen no trailers for this film, but then, I don't watch TV; so I cannot comment on how the film compares to the trailers or vice versa.)

[Overstreet]

I must hereby repent for my own "judging" Tristan and Isolde by its trailer. But, as I said before, I don't see ANYTHING in that trailer that makes me want to see the film. In spite of the pop music and cheezy packaging of Pride and Prejudice, I did want to see what they did with Austen's story, and I did want to see Knightley, Dench, and company. And I'm really glad I did. The film may end up in my top ten for this year.

[CrimsonLine]

Irony? The Elfin Ethicist condemns Veith for having too much historical nostalgia, then offers this gem:

P. S. Why another P&P film? Perfection was attained 10 years ago. You don't mess with perfection, people.

I agree with his assessment of the mini. I just think it's ironic to make that comment in that article.

This post has been edited by CrimsonLine: 29 November 2005 - 10:14 PM

[SZPT]

Here's the link that Denes' irony comment was referring to:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/

[David Smedberg]

Darn, I was gonna point that out.

[Jeff]

Jeff, don't let marketers ruin your chance to enjoy a good film! If you don't see this on the big screen, you'll miss some exhilarating cinematography that will lose some of its lustre on a smaller screen.

Yeah, Jeff (not you, the other Jeff), please don't judge a film by its trailers -- and especially don't judge a film by the trailer's music! (FWIW, I have seen no trailers for this film, but then, I don't watch TV; so I cannot comment on how the film compares to the trailers or vice versa.)

Wow, you guys seem pretty enthusiastic here. Was it really that good? If you're serious about it being top-ten material, and if the cinematography is really that good, then maybe it's a bit more worthwhile than I first thought. Since my last post, Jeffrey, I read your review and it was surprisingly positive (did you write a review, Peter?).

Anyways, I was under the impression that this was a revisionist take on the story. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a glaringly revisionist take on classic literature. But if it is faithful to Austen, I might considering bumping it up on my priority list. Still, it's eight bucks. If I go, and I don't like it, I might never trust you guys again.

[Clint M]

Jeff, don't let marketers ruin your chance to enjoy a good film! If you don't see this on the big screen, you'll miss some exhilarating cinematography that will lose some of its lustre on a smaller screen.

Yeah, Jeff (not you, the other Jeff), please don't judge a film by its trailers -- and especially don't judge a film by the trailer's music! (FWIW, I have seen no trailers for this film, but then, I don't watch TV; so I cannot comment on how the film compares to the trailers or vice versa.)

Wow, you guys seem pretty enthusiastic here. Was it really that good? If you're serious about it being top-ten material, and if the cinematography is really that good, then maybe it's a bit more worthwhile than I first thought. Since my last post, Jeffrey, I read your review and it was surprisingly positive (did you write a review, Peter?).

Anyways, I was under the impression that this was a revisionist take on the story. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a glaringly revisionist take on classic literature. But if it is faithful to Austen, I might considering bumping it up on my priority list. Still, it's eight bucks. If I go, and I don't like it, I might never trust you guys again.

I'm not sure how much has changed - there's some compression of events, certainly - but all of the basic story elements are still there. Some scenes are practically lifted line-by-line from the book.

(I still have yet to finish the book - about 150 pages to go)

[Jeff Kolb]

I saw this with Ruth the other night. We'd both had pretty bad days and she knows that I can be pretty critical of what I think of as "artless chick flicks". But she really wanted to see it and I wanted a chance to not play the critic and just enjoy, and so we went.

We loved it. Specifically, I loved it. Somehow, the critic in me was suspended and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I didn't notice even one of the flaws that people now point out (and that I now see). I'm all for discerment and care in movie-watching, but this was FUN! I need to do this more often.

I recommend the film, especially if you're not concerned about how true to Austin it stays, or how silly some of the scenes might be in retrospect, or any of these other things which can be so distracting from the fun.

[CrimsonLine]

Yeah, I would not use the word "revisionist" about this P&P at all. It's very different from other versions, but mostly in acting choices, staging, and costume/set design, not in "modernity."

Incidentally, given the "nude sculpture" thread, it really bugged my wife that Elizabeth had that staring fest with the private bits of Darcy's sculpture gallery.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Jeff wrote:
: . . . did you write a review, Peter?

As such, no. Though I added a few personal comments on the film at the bottom of this blog post.

[MattPage]

FWIW, my review (which looks a bit at other version of P&P and how this version compares to the novel), and Jeffrey O's review (written in his usual brilliant style making my review look awkward and clunky) are both now up at Looking Closer


Matt

PS - We could use more Jeff's on this thread

This post has been edited by MattPage: 01 December 2005 - 04:13 AM

[CrimsonLine]

My wife and I both liked that this is the first film version in which Elizabeth really does play the pianoforte "very ill."

[Clint M]

My wife and I both liked that this is the first film version in which Elizabeth really does play the pianoforte "very ill."

At least you didn't have the little old lady sitting behind you going "what's a pianoforte?" rather loudly.

[CrimsonLine]

[Christian]

I posted something similar over in the ”Walk the Line” thread, but in this case of “Pride and Prejudice,” I’m genuinely startled.

I was reading one of the industry blogs—either Wells or Poland—and his sense of Oscar-nom favorites. I noticed that Judi Dench wasn’t on the list for Best Supporting Actress.

Yes, she’s getting a lot of attention for her lead performance in “Mrs. Henderson Presents,” which I haven’t seen, but the lack of comment about her role in “P&P” is scandalous.

This woman won a Best Supporting Actress statuette for a very small role in “Shakespeare in Love,” so it can’t be argued that her small role in “P&P” is TOO small. Dench already set a standard, and she exceeds it in this film.

She’s just marvelous here, isn’t she? It’s a good movie, well acted, but it’s astonishing how the ENERGY, or maybe a better word is TENSION, of the movie picks up when Dench is on the screen. And she leaves the other fine actors in the dust. She simply dominates every scene she’s in.

How can this performance not be garnering some Oscar heat?

[MattPage]

No I disagree. I thought she was simply re-hashing her role in Shakespeare in Love / Importance of being earnest as a wealthy grumpy old woman. Perhaps If I hadn't seen her play those roles, and numerous others that are very similar I might agree, but her she is just playing her own screen cliche, and I don't think you can separate it from that other work. Particularly when an oscar is at stake.

And I think you can argue that she only won it for SiL because she was so gracious in defeat the year before as "Mrs Brown"

Matt

[BethR]

Saw it this afternoon with two English majors, and an 18th c. specialist, who liked it pretty well. Her main objection was that Lizzy didn't wear gloves at the ball--shocking social solecism!--and a few other fashion faux pas that only she would have noticed.

Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy took a bit longer to warm up to than Colin Firth's, but ultimately, I found him more convincing as a man who claims to be shy, rather than proud. Donald Sutherland exceeded my expectations as Mr. Bennett. Jena Malone was out of her depth as Lydia, however.

Most everything else has been said capably here or in people's reviews, except that if the last 8 minute-scene added for the American version includes

Spoiler

the post-wedding scene in which Elizabeth and Darcy sit on a block of stone in the mist, evidently to reiterate the Pemberly statuary, and decide that he will call her "Mrs. Darcy" when he's totally happy

, it's a complete waste of time. UK viewers, you got the better deal; stop clamoring. I hope the DVD will allow one to choose which ending one prefers.

This post has been edited by BethR: 11 December 2005 - 09:04 PM