Pride & Prejudice (2005) - Drama, Romance

Hohum Score

5

Breathtaking

Sparks fly when spirited Elizabeth Bennet meets single, rich, and proud Mr. Darcy. But Mr. Darcy reluctantly finds himself falling in love with a woman beneath his class. Can each overcome their own pride and prejudice?

IMDB: 7.8
Director: Joe Wright
Stars: Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen
Length: 129 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 140 out of 1000 found boring (14%)

One-line Reviews (520)

It is my favorite movie and if you are a fan of romance, then I highly recommend it!

I think the slowness is partly due to the many arty farty camera shots.

Great movie for me, really enjoyable.

And Kiera as Lizzy was perfect casting, she is stunning.

Dull and dullerer .

Joe Pike's P&P puts many formulaic or less than excellent period pieces in the shade.

The visuals are dazzling and the writing is impressive but at times the pace moves a bit too slow.

The revelation here, what makes this movie ultimately worth watching, is Keira Knightley in the lead role.

The acting is believable and gripping.

Joyful, energetic, earthy, committed - breathtaking .

With five daughters, only a male distant cousin of the family, the boring Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) would inherit from the Bennett's landowning fortune.

She is too pretty and misses in engaging the nuances of the Lizzie we've all come to know and love.

so Instead of having those long, boring field scenes, or making up whatever absurdity they did, they could've just sticked to the book, and it would've been a little bit better!!!

Much as I loved the BBC's mini-series the last decade and didn't think we could possible need another version, adapter Deborah Moggach (with help from Emma Thompson) and director Joe Wright have shot the story through with adrenaline so that everyone is a lot more lively (with a throw down to the 1940 version as being portrayed by too-old folks and this is the first adaptation where all are the right age).

The settings of these scenes are just breathtaking.

Why waste all that time on these pointless scenes?

The dance in the honor of Bingley where Darcy and Elizabeth dance together for the first time started of a bit comedic but ended with an intense anger.

I could watch it again for the story and sub plots within regarding class and status were fascinating.

Great hails of praise are to be sounded for Keira Knightley who with the most subtle of gestures conveys her secret feelings to the knowing audience that is sucked into this masterpiece by excellent screenplay and fine outdoor shots that together with the chirping sound of birds makes it gradually become immersed in this long gone world with its feudal tendencies.

Wickham's chirping is bland, ineffective and not charming.

the romance is well developed and I can imagine that for someone who doesn't know the story, it will be quite entertaining.

The portrayal of Georgian life in the film is wonderful and I will buy the DVD so that I can slow it down and see the details.

Lizzy's snappy response to her family afterwards is not in keeping with the character Keira Knighley has shown this far - more sulky teenager than witty female.

Keira Knightly is a good actress to show Elizabeth's growing confusion and then loss when she realizes how she has misread her feelings.

I expected to want to run out of the theater, but instead, I enjoyed it and stayed through the end.

The girls appear ill-groomed, drab, and wanton.

The only downside is his voice - the "violence of his affection" for Lizzy described in a monotone was ironic.

Simply Stunning .

This movie gives us that atmosphere through the good performance of its whole cast and the various scenes and dialogues where all these contradictions are shown and the sentiments are sometimes revealed sometimes concealed because of strict social and mundane or etiquette rules.

Fans of Austen, save your money and watch the BBC version again (Firth etc).

Simply put, this film is breathtaking.

This one had more than the classic Ehle/Firth 1995 miniseries in less than half the running time, but the result was entertaining.

Her acting was definitely the best in the film, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Waste of time .

This version of "Pride and Prejudice" is utterly boring, and from the first moments of the film, the characters are annoying and charmless.

Having read the book several times and watched the BBC's adaptation I knew the ending- and yet I was still on the edge of my seat!

I enjoyed it thoroughly.

It is one of the best movies of 2005 and very enjoyable film.

The worst movie I have ever seen...

The way the film was "put together" was a slight detractment, but I still enjoyed it and would see it again by all means!

The cinematography is breathtaking, the characters all developed and nuanced, the costumes seemed to be more realistic, and the 18th century attitudes intact.

Basically everything and everyone in the film met or exceeded my expectations, making the overall experience much more entertaining, involving and interesting than I expected going in.

Perhaps Mr. Olin meant to convey Elizabeth's confusion and misapprehensions.

It was a joy to watch and to listen - visually stunning.

Despite the beautiful dialogue of all the play The most exciting piece of written language was what the father Mr Bennet said to Elizabeth in regards to Mr Collins marriage proposal while the arrogant mother was trying to force her to accept the proposal, Father said "Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr.Collins and I will never see you again if you do "Very Enjoyable

However most of the audience will find it enjoyable and entertaining.

It is both beautiful and engaging, a challenging while light-hearted romance … Everything I needed to help erase the memory of the Bollywood Musical remake "Bride & Prejudice" I painfully sat through earlier this year.

It is a beautiful movie filled with beautiful scenes, intense moments, and love.

My husband enjoyed it very much also, ergo not your standard period drama for the girls.

And enjoyable.

The things I liked were: I took my 13-year old daughter along (dragged actually).

Keira Knightley's smile is very engaging.

the cinematography is stunning, the director takes a very modern, realistic approach to the camera movements and the stunning photography of the British landscape elevates the film.

I really disliked the second proposal: both of them looking like they've walked out of a commercial for a chocolate bar or a shampoo.

What a waste of my time.

It took me at least 20 minutes or so to get used to this movie, there was a lot of giggling going on by the girls in the beginning that was a little off putting and it was hard to follow what was going on as I had no exposure to Pride and Prejudice in any form beforehand.

Forgetting entirely what this movie was based on, you must love it, and I think its well worth watching at least once.

The characters have been made flat and utterly boring.

Hollander's Collins comes across as bland, arrogant, and practical to a fault.

An unexpected delight: Keira & Matthew own their parts as Lizzy and Darcy.

By and large I found this a very enjoyable film.

It seemed a bit disjointed and jumpy as well.

Flawed but fascinating .

Director Joe Wright succeeds because he's not afraid to embrace a style that is unpretentious, but also engaging.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that this is a story about two characters who fall in love the hard way, and how they are portrayed is so engaging that I can forgive nearly everything else entirely.

The whole story is excellent, though a lot of things in the book are changed or deleted, but I think if nearly all the things mentioned in the book are told in the movie, it will be boring and not creative.

I admit the lower rating I gave to the film was due to the occasional confusion that took place trying to figure out which of the many characters were being discussed.

I felt 2005 got this right, while managing to cast a stunning beauty like Keira in the role of Elizabeth, muting her attractiveness just enough so that Rosamund Pike could truly shine.

Watching language be used as a weapon can be very entertaining, and the fighting in this film is often quite fierce.

Though no film can fully capture the esteemed Austen novel in it's entirety, this was a lovely and enjoyable adaptation.

The photography is absolutely beautiful,the scenes of the English countryside breathtaking.

boring.

I just hope that anyone who has seen this production will be interested in reading the book and/or watching the A&E version to be completely caught up with the true story and the fascinating dialogue that Jane Austen is famous for.

Visually, Pride & Prejudice was stunning.

The heightened emotion in scenes such as the first proposal and Lady Catherine's unexpected visit at Longbourn was done well by changing something about the traditional story (ie the proposal happens outside in a rainstorm & Lady Catherine barges into Longbourn in the middle of the night).

Rather than a series of stage appearances, we get a passionate and highly entertaining labor of love, where the writer/director wisely decide to take their time and spend their precious minutes conveying emotion and energy rather than forcing in one more line or one more character which could leave little impact.

Trust me on this and don't waste your time with this movie.

I was so bored I literally checked the DVD player every 5 minutes to see how much time was left until it was over.

Yet, despite all these weaknesses, "Pride and Prejudice" makes for a reasonably entertaining film, thanks, primarily, to the strength of the original source material and the liveliness of Wright's direction (the ball scenes are exceptionally well done).

I am, indeed, grateful for the many wonderful reviews that I read, that taught me to understand why, ultimately, this "Pride and Prejudice" was so compelling to me.

Also, the whole movie seemed rather slow to me.

I like period pieces as much as the next guy, and even though this is one of the most influential books by a female author of all time yadda yadda, this movie is rather bland.

He's subtle, he's clever and a great observer, and Matthew Macfadyen may have a strong figure and presence, but his performance is cold and empty, and not just contained and oppressed as Mr. Darcy really is.

But I found myself comparing every scene to the stunning performances of Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, and frankly, it did not compare.

Personally I think this could be confusing and there should at least have been a narrator or something to state what was going on in these events because the scenes changed very fast multiple times through the movie.

The acting was brilliant from nearly all concerned (particularly Keira Knightley and Donald Sutherland) and the film keeps a good pace (slow, dragging stories are usually my concern in this type of film).

Sure, I guess it looked nice, but it was very uninteresting and choppy compared to the previous versions of Pride & Prejudice.

Overall, if you are unfamiliar with the book or the BBC adaptations (either 1980 or 1995) this version will be very enjoyable.

Because this film is not "politically correct" it didn't receive all of the attention that Brokeback Mountain did, when in fact this film was outright EVERYTHING the boring Brokeback Mountain claimed to be.

True enough, Darcy is meant to be withdrawn and "strong and silent," as it were, but I think that for the majority of the film - even in the kiss scene - he simply looked bored.

Its plot is, after all, quite predictable.

Rosamund Pike looks lovely and Keira character also considering the fact that she is 20 something is intriguing and absorbing and is the protagonist of the story.

The cinematography, though unnecessary and melodramatic, is stunning.

Adapting the story as a teenage romance cliché makes absolutely no sense to me.

This is a beautiful adaptation of Jane Austin's masterpiece novel and I would highly recommend it.

Sweet, romantic, entertaining.

In some small but enchanting ways, it's a fresh take on a classic story and a genre known for being predictable.

I was captivated by the breathtaking landscapes and the convoluted relationships, and not in that order.

This movie was just that; boring and hard to follow.

He did bring a sweet, alluring shyness to the often stiffly stern character of Darcy, but there were still some moments when his delivery was cardboard and his voice monotone.

Overall the movie was a good representation of Jane Austen's work and was very enjoyable.

In comparison, the 2005 Mr. Colins is unfortunately very dull and empty, and cannot be understood or connected to any real character in life.

Starting off with the pride of Darcy and the prejudice of Elizabeth, the transition of abomination to ardent love is reflected so elegantly, with the shots from the rain scene, to the breathtaking sunrise, that it is impossible to resist the romance.

First of all, what a dull novel!

The imagery of the film is quite breathtaking itself.

" The English countryside is breath taking, and the shots are stunning.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and it is very likely to get into my DVD-collection.

Any version of Pride and Prejudice gets a nod from me because the book is so dear to me but this is NOT Pride and Prejudice as Jane Austen wrote it; it's a good short story version of the book but the characters are not developed at all which is the cornerstone of Jane Austens' writing, it is hard to follow given the length of the movie and the characters do not say what is written in the book.

Beautiful scene follows beautiful scene - the rumbustious public ball, Lizzie realising that Darcy has helped her onto a carriage, the sophisticated private ball with Darcy and Lizzie's dance, the single camera shot taking in so many guests and happenings, Collins' proposal to the unsuspecting heroine, Lizzie on a swing watching the seasons pass, Darcy's proposal (beautifully catching the conflicting emotions), Lizzie receiving Darcy's letter, the sunlight playing on Lizzie's face as she journey's north, Lizzie atop a rocky outcrop, Lizzie seeing Pemberley for the first time, Lizzie walking among the statues, then peering around a door frame to see Darcy and his sister, Lizzie explaining a letter she's just received, the Bennet family panicking when Bingley and Darcy pay an unexpected visit, Lizzie admitting a little of her feelings to Jane, Bingley's proposal, and Darcy and Lizzie finding each other as the sun rises.

The filming is spectacular with breathtaking views of the English countryside as well as the grit of the "poorer" folks homes and barns/livestock.

' But, Austen is Austen and no matter what its faults, this new version is quite entertaining due to the genius of Austen's story itself.

is far superior to this, rendering the 2005 movie version, nearly unwatchable.

I have to admit that I have now seen the movie twice and I enjoyed it even more the second time.

We found ourselves totally immersed in this beautiful film,the many fine acting performances, excellent use humour and, of course,the intense love themes.

Keira Knightly's waspish Elizabeth snipes, pouts, and trills her way through their conversations, while Matthew MacFadeyn's Darcy looks bored and faintly embarrassed (though given the cringe-inducing drivel that he is forced to utter during the second proposal, I cannot say that I blame him).

One of my favorite films to date, Pride and Prejudice is a film that is stunning on several levels: the performances are excellent, the soundtrack is amazing, and the cinematography is beyond comparison.

Mainly, I guess it's the price to pay for adapting a novel in its whole form, or the fact that Winona Ryder and Reese Witherspoon had a noticeable cast behind them, that made the movie more entertaining.

This is a very entertaining movie, with engaging performances from all its leads.

The only thing that blew me away was boiling indignation and towards the end, sheer boredom.

Watching these sisters interact during the film reminded of this cliché of teenage girls gossiping, wondering if the school heartthrob said this or that, or how they can approach him without looking too pushy or needy.

Pride & Prejudice, a film based off of Jane Austen's most prominent novel, alludes to the most compelling desire of humanity.

However, the series as a whole was enjoyable.

Her acting was blunt, boring, and dead.

In a sense, the film was created as an action picture, not with the intention of wowing audiences with flashy effects, but engaging them with the same type of intensity.

The storyline as presented here is compelling, though.

So I went a second time, put Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle out of my mind, and sat back and thoroughly enjoyed it.

It's thoroughly enjoyable and well-casted, with inspired performances and logical film editing.

All I could think was that the £20M budget meant they couldn't afford to hang around for a spot of sunshine - particularly criminal during the brief scenes shot at Chatsworth, which barely hinted at what a stunning location this is.

It was enjoyable, and Kiera Knightley gives a wonderful performance.

No matter what is happening in the scene, the audience's eye always has something entertaining to view.

) and the historical inaccuracies in houses, clothing, and social conventions, this movie was unwatchable.

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I prefer the old BBC miniseries (with its limited production values) even to the very lavish, handsome and enjoyable A&E miniseries.

Breathtaking film .

This film is both visually pleasing and entertaining.

Breathtaking .

Everybody behave naturally," which is said by Mrs Bennet at an unexpected visit of Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy.

Mr. Darcy came across as a one-dimensional uncertainty with a monotone voice.

You will be completely immersed in its beauty as well as the sharp and crisp language.

However, he read them in a monotone, without any expression or emotion at all.

The hand held camera work is engaging in the festive ballroom scenes and engages the viewer.

With each viewing, the characters and the engaging wit and charm of Austen's story, come to life in a new way.

Unromantic, unfunny and completely uninteresting - if you want the pleasure of this story, curl up and read the book again.

Despite how much I disliked the messy and contrived Atonement, I've always been a little intrigued in giving Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice a chance.

)Darcy is boring; Collins is boring; Bingley looks like a woman; Mrs. Bennett is not funny as she is in the BBC version, she is merely irritating.

The cinematography is breathtaking, showing the English countryside in such an artistic way - you would think it was a painting.

It is understandable that this version had to be shorter which gave limited time to show each scene, but this made it confusing many times.

They're also seen training for and engaging in combat with the legions of the walking dead.

This might actually be enjoyable to some.

Cinematography was also stunning.

Intelligent, engaging, honest.

This movie takes you right back to high school, mandatory reading, but is much more enjoyable (it was much more difficult to appreciate this story then).

For instance, during the scene in which Darcy and Elizabeth dance together at the second ball, the scene suddenly changed from the two dancing together in a crowd of people to the two dancing together in an empty ballroom, showing how they are focused only on each other despite the multitude of people around them.

Would it be the riveting soundtrack, that keeps one interested throughout the whole film?

I was REALLY bored to death watching it.

And Donald Sutherland and Brenda Bleythen make you wish there'd be a sequel: "Mr and Mrs Bennet," about the empty nest they occupy after the girls leave home.

There were some truly stunning shots in there--I remember one specifically where the servants were closing Netherfield as Bingley was leaving.

The final result is truly enjoyable, funny, thoughtful and extraordinarily able to attract a modern audience, both of women and men: I was able to persuade my father, who is an old-fashioned man fond of western and action movies and really allergic to costume-movies, to see and even appreciate it.

Nothing against her, she is a predictable presence, though a welcome enough one.

Pride & Prejudice = Masterful & Stunning .

enjoyable to watch and criticize.

Much to my surprise 'Pride and Prejudice' is really rather enjoyable.

The movie is reasonably enjoyable and often attractive to look at.

Boredom, anger, and a very toothy girn.

The fact that this movie was celebrated is absolutely appalling, I understand it was probably made for women, but still I cannot help but wonder why something so boring has been made and re-made so many times, you'd think once, even twice would be enough.

Knightley was most indeed "bewitching" as Elizabeth Bennett, and the supporting cast were equally engaging.

The National Trust locations, including Burghley House and Chatsworth in Derbyshire had me totally immersed and enthralled.

The pond scene and they way Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy make love just by their eyes after she performs at Pemberly is well worth watching the 1996 version.

The scenes and colors are breathtaking.

waste of my time .

Without it, the too-perfect heroine became quite irritating, and the film utterly boring.

If you can sit through the first mindlessly boring half hour of dancing crowd scene (and stomach a few others; this director really gets his moneysworth from the extras) then you may find a spark of interest in P&P.

And even then it was lacking and far too drawn out.

) really irritating and confusing.

Stunning .

However why the Fabio like slow mo of Darcy with the swelling music?

It merely becomes pointless voyeurism.

Even though the film wasn't prefect in its telling of the Pride and Prejudice story, it did pretty well, and I would highly recommend it.

It did not remain as faithful to the book as many would have liked, but that is precisely why it is worth watching.

confusing.

On the plus side, this movie has some stunning cinematography, wonderful music and the incomparable Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet.

Even her habitations are confusing.

If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.

Jane Austen's Darcy was undoubtedly stern and proud, but the dull manner in which Matthew McFayden expresses -or fails to express- himself is very tiresome, indeed.

There are fascinating landscapes.

And the dull dark dresses she wore were also not very becoming.

A concise script keeps the story moving in a compelling way.

Very entertaining.

However, once you have adjusted to the changes and settle down to watch it, it is very enjoyable.

The setting is wonderful; Longbourne is beautiful in it's 17th century glory, the set for the Meryton assembly amazing and Chatsworth as Pemberley breathtaking.

It's a contrived mess that attempts to show their intimacy and love.

The direction of Joe Wright is simply stunning, and the long sequence of the ball is one of the most perfect I have ever seen in a movie.

The English countryside can be breathtaking and brilliant.

Darcy left me bored, Bingley was a dolt, Mr Bennet a mumbling fool, Mrs Bennet far brighter and nicer than she should be.

too slow and too many gaps .

They managed to keep in all of the action bits and loose the bores, without damaging the main plot.

Elsewhere, Deborah Mogach's screenplay manages to preserve and convey as much of the book's greatness, in the time allotted, as is possible; Joe Knightley's direction is faultless; the cinematography breathtaking - a tribute to the beauty and charm of England's countryside and architecture.

The script was rushed, very unbelievable and i was bored out of my brain Rosamund Pike was the surprising strong point in this movie portraying Jane as the reserved person i visioned she was in Jane Austen's novel.

Too very dull for Jane Austin...

Ho-hum, here we go again and the hoards of purists who can't enjoy a decent film or appreciate decent acting because of a lack of adherence to the original book and due to historical inaccuracies.

The confusion comes from the lack of understanding a new viewer might have IF they've never seen any of the previous TV/movie versions or IF they've never read the novel.

They were as bland as it gets.

Tom Hollander's Parson Collins is a dull and odious popinjay; Claudie Blakley's Charlotte is sweet; Dame Judi Dench's Lady Catherine gives the marvelous Barbara Leigh-Hunt's portrayal a run for its money.

The film was over-all quite enjoyable with decent acting by young Kiera Knightly and equally decent casting for the most part.

the actors did an amazing job, the music was a perfect fit, and the background was perfect, it gave no life to the book, and in my opinion made it more enjoyable for people who didn't enjoy the book.

Fails to Capture the Intriguing Collision of Class .

Seriously, half the movie he's plain dull, and the other half he looks like a stray puppy.

That Mr. Darcy is stunning and unbelievable.

Still, several of the incidents are crowded to the point of possibly confusing viewers.

Visually, it is breathtaking.

Darcy is a plank, Matthew MacFadyen's attempts at stoic pride and haughty superiority simply result in his coming across as blank, boring and severely constipated.

The settings always amaze me and the director has done a sublime job at really engrossing you into the scenes.

They both did a good job of absorbing themselves into the script.

This great rendering of a classical story is an enjoyable treat.

I'm sorry to have wasted 127 minutes of my life on this, the worst movie I have ever seen.

It is pointless trying to make comparisons between this and the earlier TV version.

It is the most wretched, boring, miserable movie I have seen all year.

The scenery and photography are alone worth the while, but I found the film rather brim-filled with symbolism which at times was a tad too obvious and felt contrived.

Other comments I can make is that Mr. Collins in the 2005 version has a poor character and seems too boring, while in the 1995 version he is creepy, gross, and funny.

I have read the book, and found it very confusing, luckily by the time I finished the movie had come out.

Enjoyed it's new perspective .

Worst movie EVER .

Outstanding story and screenplay, brilliant direction and cinematic technique, matchless acting and casting, stunning settings and costumes, plus a music score as good as any I've come across.

Enjoyed it immensely .

I thought that it would be long and boring, but when I finally did watch it (becuase I wanted something to fall asleep too) I found myself thoroughly engaged.

It really is stunning in every way.

Maybe it's the stunning British vistas that appear on screen, completely saturated in subtle tones of yellow, green, and blue.

I watched this with my 6-year-old daughter and we had a great time, laughed a lot, mostly at the same things and found it very entertaining.

It's a beautiful shot film with sweeps that are breathtaking as well as cinematically brilliant.

Don't waste your time .

As for the rest of the cast, they come in two flavors: shallow and boring, or giggly and squirming like cheerleaders in the back of the bus.

The house was a shambles, dark and dreary.

McFadyen's Darcy is equally uninteresting.

As a great fan of the novel I feared that I may be too strict on the film, but it truly is a very enjoyable experience.

It's an entertaining love story.

I highly recommend it (catch it on the big screen if you can).

(Giggling Elizabeth, dull-witted Bingley or Darcy for that matter, etc. although there were a few exceptions.

This film is so boring!

His wide-eyed, warm-hearted charm is very funny and enjoyable to watch.

A ton of great performances, and engaging story.

The lighting and colors are so vibrant and stunning, making one wish they could live in such a time period.

Enjoyable .

I don't even want to begin to analyze what's-his-name's performance - you know, the faded, weak and boring human being who accidentally stumbled upon the great role of the mighty Mr. Darcy ...

And she's often confusing.

The other impressive feature of this film is the background scenes, they were breathtaking.

The costume, set, music, chemistry between the characters, the characters themselves, and the story all contributed to a visually stunning and moving adaptation of the novel.

OK, but a waste of time remaking when compared to the BBC version .

Furthermore, the cinematography is special, with beautiful planes of light and color that emulate early Romantic paintings, and unexpected time-lapse sequences with music, such as the one with Lizzie in the swing through the seasons or observing herself in the mirror after Darcy's first proposal.

When I left the theater, with some remnants of happy tears in my eyes, I realized I felt more during this movie than the mini-series.

It was turned into a horrid, predictable chick flick by the director and screenwriter.

The effect, however, is detrimental; characters become watered-down and bland shadows of what they once were, complicated and nuanced plots lose their flavor and unique form and the world created by Austin turns from a unique dimension to a transient plane that exists simply to take the viewer from the beginning to the end.

The film is well worth watching for Knightley's performance; I thought she made a very good Lizzie.

It's beautifully filmed (from gnarled old trees to stunning sunsets against old English mansions) and the cast performs well.

The stunning scenery took up screen time which would have been much better spent on more dialogue- (which is not a distortion of Austen!

But I found the mother to be incredibly annoying and unwatchable.

The 1940 P & P, even with all its faults (costumes not in the right period, etc.) was vastly superior and is STILL worth watching if only for the beautifully acted confrontation scene between Elizabeth Bennett and Lady Catherine, towards the end of the film.

There is no pride in the character playing Mr. Darcy, and he seems completely dull.

it is romantic and entertaining.

However, when I don't think about the fact that this movie is based off a Jane Austen novel (as opposed to a Harlequin romance), this film is cute and enjoyable.

Macfadyen is a bit bland.

Wouldn't rush out and buy it on DVD, but entertaining for the 2 hr long movie.

To start with, I am a Janeite: I have read Pride and Prejudice at least a half-dozen times, and enjoyed it every time.

At the end the swooping artsy-shwartsy camera angles just seem pretentious and made me rather nauseous.

I still don't see why Mr. Darcy would have fallen for this sarcastic version of Elizabeth (plus her family must be very poor considering she clearly doesn't eat enough), and I think Elizabeth wouldn't have fallen for someone as exciting as stale bread.

It strips the story of all meaning leaving only the blandest and most uninspiring of insipid, middle of the road romances.

This is a terrible movie, the acting is pure ham, the giggling is just unbearable and everybody being called Mr. this and Mr. that it's so boring I wanted to watch the New Jersey Devils play instead, now that's saying something.

It was awfully boring.

The general feeling of the film was dull and miserable as opposed to lively and exciting, the relationship between Kitty and Wickham also hurried and confused.

Stunning...

Pride and Prejudice is a really enjoyable movie on a number of levels, though I suspect it will be most successful as a date movie or a so-called "chick flick.

The photographer seemed not to be able to give his viewer the whole scene, but rather one boring close-up after another forcing his viewer out of the story.

We get comedy, tragic, and some exciting moments throughout the movie.

But Matthew Macfadyen has the intense stares, the beautiful eyes, the crack in his voice at Pemberly, the full body shiver during the first proposal scene and let's not forget the entire of the second proposal that had women (and men) across the world wishing that their lives could be like that, and that they had a Mr Darcy of their very own.

However, Pride and Prejudice is a solid film with an engaging romance and strong characters.

If you are after a nice, bland romance and don't mind getting a willfully warped image of English society, have at it.

Sutherland is a treasure in this boring film - it is very refreshing to watch him and try to guess what part from what piece he is acting this moment and what accent he is now faking :) Other characters are so disposable that their acting doesn't count really.

It strips the characters of all intelligence, humour and insight leaving only dull, spoiled, nonsensical blobs trundling forward without motive or cohesion.

I did lament the loss of more character development for Wickham and Mr. Collins but this is a small price to pay for the breathtaking locations, sets and performances of the principle characters.

Much more engaging then I would've thought .

This stunning performance was shown throughout the entire cast as all were well suited to their roles: the giggling sisters, shy Jane, and proud Lizzie, they all bought the film together and made it such a success.

here in this film, Darcy just comes across as snobbish and Dull Lizzy as impertinent with a sense of over entitlement.

The film felt rushed and elements of the story that are so enjoyable in the book and other adaptations, such as the development of Lizzie's dislike and then the changes in Lizzie and Darcy at Pemberly, as well as the intricacies of social relationships and interactions, were virtually dismissed.

To cover his confusion he continues to insult and banter Elizabeth He cannot help but contrast her honesty with the worshipful adoration to which he is usually subjected and which bores him tremendously.

All in all a very enjoyable adaption and one that should not be missed.

The Mr. Darcy became a man who was so gosh-darn shy and so gosh-darn boring instead of proud and awkward with emotions.

Not as good as the BBC classic, but enjoyable just the same.

Transforming Longbourne into a farm with animals and fowls, etc, and in general the dreary house, bad furniture, rather dirty place: there is no mention whatsoever of anything of the sort in the novel; or all this linen on the lines, there all the time, never taken down even when it rains, it is strange because it does not belong to the novel and does not add anything so important to the plot it had to be added.

Beauty and Boredom .

Well, it IS moderately enjoyable, especially if you compare it to many of the mindless action movies (the bad ones, not the good ones).

While Laurence Olivier's Darcy was intense, and Colin Firth's more virile, Macfayden was downright sexy.

All in all, this is a warm and enjoyable movie full of life.

His acting is so flat that he manages to make the handsome, proud & haughty nobleman seem so dull & uninteresting that you wonder how any woman could possibly fall in love with him.

After the 4th one, I was sighing with boredom.

In general, this is an enjoyable movie and true to the book (which far outshines any movie made of it - which is why it's still read and enjoyed, and will be for the foreseeable future).

Rosamund Pike is a vision but I thought her performance somewhat bland.

There is one in particular that is, as Jane Bennett would say, "breathtaking".

I enjoyed it .

The first half, with the aid of the muddled script, was confusing, unconvincing and occasionally annoying.

However,for those who love movies that are filled with social, emotional conflict and drama, then Pride and Prejudice will keep you on the edge of your seats wanting more.

The photography was beautiful, the close-ups nicely done, the family interactions enjoyable.

Overall a very enjoyable experience.

After the second time, I came away a big fan having thoroughly enjoyed it.

This 2005 movie was wonderful and breathtaking.

I really wanted to like the movie; I even dragged my husband along -in the afternoon.

Breathtaking in More Ways than the Obvious .

Instead the result is the same torturous and relentless self-indulgence that Lady Catherine might display in telling this story.

The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight.

Some of the film's outcome was predictable.

The direction lead to a couple of silly scenes that were pointless and took time away from the plot.

The initial dancing scenes, for example, give the idea the folks are having real fun - which is quite unusual for a dancing scene playing in upper class England of the end of 18th century (usually they are much more boring).

I would recommend this boring hell of a movie to no one

Please don't waste your time.

Some scenes, such as the dancing scenes were drawn out, while other - more important scenes - such as the one where Charlotte Lucas told Elizabeth she was marrying freaky Mr Collins, were truncated to a few lines.

I would highly recommend it.

) The movie was very boring.

It is very well made with talented actors who deliver a breathtaking performance.

Actually, when I watched this a second time I enjoyed it a lot more.

It is disjointed, devoid of some of the main features and speeches, the majority of the cast seemed to have no ides of the story or of what they were supposed to be doing with it, and quite frankly, I considered the film a total disappointment: giving it only 2 marks out of 10 - both of those for the simply superb acting of Miss Keira Knightley.

This is the most enjoyable version of the classic.

I was falling asleep while seeing this snooze fest.

But this feature debut from director Joe Wright, with Deborah Moggach's screenplay of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" is very much appealing and enjoyable in its own right.

But when is all said and done, that cannot hide the film's ho-hum approach to its narrative.

Part of the problem is that the story is too long for a feature length film; it is more suited to a mini-series format.

My expectations were very low and I was ready for another stuffy British romance full of boring scenes and pretentious behavior.

Criticisms aside, this is enjoyable to watch and the script is true enough to the book to convey the characters well.

Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy seems like a brooding, insecure teenage boy with a dull, sheepish, submissive look in his eyes.

A stunning film, even if you only read the book in school.

I know that some people have loved the movie, not more than A&E, but thought that they truly did quite a good job, and I'm glad that they enjoyed it.

I loved the realism and the beauty which has been captured is breathtaking- notably the opening scenes and where Elizabeth was stood on the cliff, with her cape billowing around her.

The dialogue is difficult to understand over the anachronistically over-loud music in the tedious ball scene.

Elizabeth Bennett as a giggling and frankly tedious little girl is a reappraisal that I for one could happily have done without.

There are some stunning historical liberties, and the Hollywood ending on the DVD is a crime.

It may not be my first choice of drama to watch on any given day, but the impressive performances by the whole cast, along with the very consistent pacing make for an enjoyable watch.

Usually "I love you" comes with extra explanatory prose, but here sincerity kills cliché: parties are fun, a misty field is breathtaking, the dawning of love a revelation, the heartbreak is throbbing.

The music is also fabulous, and I encourage anyone to go and see it- Why, at the evening show I saw 6 teenage boys have a thoroughly entertaining experience, and they came on their own to the movie!

A waste of time and space.

A fascinating story, retold as good as it can be.

Of course nothing still beats a reading of the book; there are a few misses, as what happens when books are translated into movies, but the hits are WORTH the watch.

He is prejudiced and stiff and overbearing, and he becomes human and handsome as this saucy, intriguing young woman steals his heart.

This is a rather good adaptation of the classic regency novel, with a beautiful soundtrack, stunning scenery and wonderful costumes.

Well, I did have a review that was over 4,000 characters, but, unfortunately, I am only allowed 1,000, so Ill have to sum up brieflyI cant believe the critic for this site gave this movie 4 stars I'm being perfectly honest when I say that this was worst movie I have ever seen.

Keira Knightley is (as always) a stunning actress.

Don't waste your time on the movie.

It's a very interesting starter for those who have been SOOO BORED with English classic movies, because the plot is as FRESH AND TOUCHING as before as it is today.

He water's down Darcy from a very distinct personality (a very proud, singular and distinct individual; whose presence is commanding and character impossible to ignore) into a bland and forgettable character, unable to function in the real world and unconvincing as a person.

Laboriously long slow approaches a la Walter Hill, grandiose wide angle vistas and cheap story devices made me wish I had rented a better rendition of a Jane Austen novel.

Having said that I enjoyed it immensely; both leads are very well played and the supporting cast is excellent, particularly Tom Hollander, as always.

The story is abrupt and hard to follow if you don't keep recollecting the book's plot.

It is also pretty boring when characters are so modernized as to lose all characteristics.

This movie was absolutely breathtaking.

In the cinema, I became immersed in the story (as opposed to l'ennui of 'Mansfield Park', another Austen adaptation) and for the most part, Wright did an excellent job of translating the book to the big screen.

' Whereas Wright's follow-up effort 'Atonement (2007)' was somewhat tarnished by a second-act that languished in aimlessless, 'Pride & Prejudice (2005)' benefits from its enduring source material, and Jane Austen's tale of unlikely love is consistently engrossing.

This film has fast pace, high octane dance, razor sharp delivery, vivid sketches of secondary characters and breathtaking settings.

This is an entertaining version of Jane Austen's great novel by the same name.

Scenes that in the books and BBC series make me laugh out loud, were serious and boring.

Very enjoyable.

Completely Worth Watching.

The acting was the best, the music - breathtaking, everything about the movie makes you fall into it's world and not want to come out.

" I am utterly and hopelessly romantic, and I found this ridiculous, not even romantic, just lame and horribly cliché.

I love Jane Austen because of Pride and Prejudice, and i love Pride and Prejudice because of this superb adaptation, and i love Elizabeth Bennet because of Keira Knightly's stunning performance.

Then again, if you thought this movie was way too long, do NOT see the other because it is twice as long.

it was a breathtaking heart-pounding cant stop watching movie kind of movie...

Clocking in at 129 minutes, condensing the book in such a drastic manner meant clipping out chapters and causing a bit of confusion.

Jane Austen's novel continues to be a bore when it's transferred to the screen.

What a sad cliché.

The music during the movie was wonderful too, and I really enjoyed it especially the scene where Elizabeth is sitting on the swing spinning.

A good romance is said to have intense conflict and then intense resolution and we have that in the movie but I feel not in the TV series.

The TV mini series was amazing and Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy was breathtaking.

Not Perfect, but Thoroughly Enjoyable.

), and they speak in the most relentless monotone!

Though I do think the BBC version stays truer to the novel, this version is definitely worth watching if you are a fan of Jane Austen's.

By steering clear of romanticizing the story and it's setting, Joe Wright has made Jane Austen's classic all the more compelling.

Charlotte's getting angry with Lizzy was unexpected and out of character.

Even the costume and design is bland.

Boring and hard to follow .

The acting, every single performance, is spot-on, and the chemistry between the 2 leads is truly provocative and compelling.

A similar state displaying the dynamics of its central cast should be attributed to the grand dancing scene between Lizzie and Mr. Darcy – the two are so absorbing that when Wright purposely fades out the the rest of the dancing crowd, you do not notice a change.

This movie may split Austen fans but it is worth watching even for curiosity's sake.

Flat, boring and thus outraging for millions of fans - that 's what your performance was.

I liked it too; it was very enjoyable.

It is engaging.

This is a dreadful and dreary rendition of a splendid and cherished classic.

Brenda Blethyn brings unexpected depth to the exasperating "Mrs.

As with the film adaptation of Emma versus the small screen version, save your money and buy the BBC version on DVD!

Although I prefer the BBC version, I found this version added humor to the story, therefore giving it an added twist and keeping it entertaining.

From the ball, where a few fiddlers and flutists manage to sound like an 80 piece orchestra, to Blethyn's tedious and patented hysterical mother, to Dench's absurd Lady de Bourgh, to the hysteria of the five sisters, to earsplitting cacophony of the five Bennett sisters in full cackle, to Knightly's vacuous face, to .

I also sometimes found it a wee bit confusing (it being "historically accurate" meant much more background noise and thus made it hard to hear some key dialogue), so I'm not sure how well people who have not read the novel follow the story.

Some examples of when the scenes were confusing were for example, when the scene just randomly changes to a running scene in the rain and Darcy is running after her and proposes to her for the first time.

Why on earth did the director waste screen time on long shots of woods and parks that could have been used to add a little more story?

Don't waste your time, go out and rent the version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.

Mr Collins (like some other actors) seems to be at the point of falling asleep for most of his screen time, and the only two characters who have a bit of charisma to them are the two the audience is expected to dislike: Miss Bingley and Mary Bennet.

It's nice to see that enjoyable period movies from classic literature can still be made without tossing in a rock ballad or changing the setting to modern Los Angeles, just to please the kiddies.

Your on the edge of your seat till the very end and you have to see it more than once, it's that good.

something i found completely pointless...

A stunning adaptation .

Overall i enjoyed the film and i walked out of the cinema feeling satisfied instead of feeling that it had betrayed the previous version.

Everybody is too nice, except the tiresome Mrs. Bennett -- though Brenda Blethyn is okay, not a caricature as some have said.

If you have never read the book, know little of the story but the basics and have no interest or knowledge of the fashions and etiquette which existed in England during the period in which this story is set-then you could be forgiven for not feeling the outrage which I felt when I watched it and for even feeling that it was a reasonable, if patchy and slow, film.

Though this version was relatively short and left out some amusing details, it was emotionally intense and managed to convey the "spirit" of the book throughout the entire movie.

Most importantly the two leads, after a slow start, develop a palpable chemistry as the film picks up pace.

Keira Knightley was absolutely fascinating, so fresh and genuine; her interpretation of Lizzy is the best I have seen so far ..and I have seen the lot.

The film, like the series, had awe inspiring landscapes and stately home settings.

yet at the same time, wright also resorts to contrived mtv-inspired shots.

It was the biggest waste of 10 bucks, not to mention the two hours of my life that I will never ever get back!

let me add ( : it is a truly refreshing movie and I highly recommend it!

His ironic comments from the book are now uttered in a dull, ogre-like way.

In this movie, however, she shows a range of emotion that is breathtaking, and I fall in love with her.

) And two of Great Britain's grandest actresses, Brenda Blethyn and Judi Dench as Mrs. Bennet and The Lady Catherine De Bourg respectively, are so well-suited for their roles as to render pointless any discussion of their portrayals: they're both perfect, obviously.

Truly delightful and enjoyable .

The costumes and scenery are colossally stunning, as is the editing, the script (most of it is Austen's own words), and anything else that makes a movie this beautiful.

The chemistry between the two actors could not be any better, and I thing thats what makes the movie so intriguing.

Beautiful scenery, emotive music, great architecture and excellent acting made for thoroughly enjoyable entertainment.

Lizzie embodied pride (b/c she could forgive him for wounding her vanity upon their first meeting) while he was prejudice (due to his view of the inferiority of her circumstances) Overall, unlike the BBC version I found myself completely captivated by this film and fully immersed in its story.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Wonderful, absolutely fascinating, authentic for the period, very romantic .

She was both stunning and elegant.

I'd much rather buy a better and more intense love story.

Wickham (Rupert Friend), who has an awkward history with Darcy; meanwhile, she's pursued by a boring reverend, William Collins (Tom Hollander).

The director and script writers did a horrible job trying to convey the unbearable anguish that should have been portrayed and the proof is that the audience was laughing the entire time (laughing because of the over emphasized humor.

The movie got really intense this point.

One daughter Jane looks to marry a handsome and pleasant but rather dull young man named Bingley.

For the three films mentioned earlier when you left the theater you had memories of music, themes, perhaps used to remind of the characters.

It tells the compelling story of Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightly) and four sisters all of whom are out in society.

Though I believe the bar for Mr. Darcy has been set quite high in the past, I have to say that I liked this Mr. Darcy and found McFadyen's performance intense and rather passionate!

The BBC version of Emma with Kate Beckinsale was so much superior to the boring Paltrow cinema version.

The story was choppy and difficult to follow for viewers who had not already seen the other versions and/or read the book.

Darcy was boring, lacking any attractiveness, intensity or charisma.

The movie starts off with Elizabeth Bennet walking and reading in an empty field while a piano piece by Andrew Lapp, titled "Dawn," plays in the background.

The book is breathtaking, and I had no idea that it could be so much better than the movie, even though the movie was wonderful!

I was subsequently receiving little dribs and drabs from a variety of sources that, nay, this movie was quite good and enjoyable, even in the opinion of the reviewer to whom I turn most often for intelligence of this sort, the estimable Mr. Roger Ebert, who, though occasionally wrong in his facts, is seldom wrong in his criticism.

The 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice disappointed me a great deal and is one of the worst movie adaptations of a novel I have seen.

But it is sad that, for us, this one manic gimmick threw a bit of a wet blanket over an otherwise splendid and thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience.

The good news is, Wright & Co. DO surprise us by making an adequately entertaining movie, despite the long odds.

Then it just dragged on and on!

The casting here is more perfect than in any "Pride & Prejudice" adaptation I've seen (I confess I'm not a fan of the popular 1995 British miniseries, which I found so slow, proper and reverent that it seemed a direct inversion of the spirit of the book), and Wright is fearless in his handling of the characters, refusing to bow to their iconic stature.

The mud, the dreary dresses on the Bennett girls, the mumbling, unshaven Mr. Bennett, the general frowziness of it all.

It is visually stunning, has some very touching moments and features a truly bewitching hero.

A lovely, breathtaking, delightful movie.

Throughout this film we are given frames resembling works of art, (not to mention the actual artworks depicted—I absolutely loved the marble statue of the veiled woman, breathtaking), with light and atmosphere filling every available space.

Keira Knightly's waspish Elizabeth snipes, pouts, and trills her way through their conversations, while Matthew MacFadeyn's Darcy looks bored and faintly embarrassed (though given the cringe-inducing drivel that he is forced to utter during the second proposal, I cannot say that I blame him).

Rosamund Pike gives a good performance even if her character is a little dull.

not faithful to Austen, but more enjoyable to the viewer.

Light entertaining romance .

When I watched the part where Mr.Darcey purposed to Elizabeth, it was raining and thundering and the weather was very intense just like their argument was.

I had high hopes and was very disappointed, because it felt disjointed.

But it is more than a beautiful and honest love story—it is film-making at its most breathtaking.

I would have walked out of the movie had my shoe laces not entangled me to the seat.

Breathtaking Beauty .

Joe Wright manages to capture every flawless element of the novel, while making it massively entertaining and creating the best cinematography I've seen in a long while.

The proposal scenes (excepting Mr. Collins') are quite a bit more tenderly drawn out (very un-British) satisfy the yearnings of (post)moderns for absolute access into everything holy.

It's an experience,I fully immersed myself in an will always cherish, I simply can't get enough of it.

That the film should fade out with a shot of him was an unexpected stroke of genius.

The scenery was amazing, and at times breathtaking.

The dance scene should have been the most delightful part in Jane Austen's movies, like what I saw with immeasurable pleasure in the 1997 Emma, however, in this movie, these scenes were always so noisy, crowded and confusing that hardly caused any delight.

The two of them make a predictable story engaging at times thanks to their performances.

I wasted 3 hours of my life watching this movie.

In this film you go through a trance of many emotions that make you want to keep watching, to feel more intense pleasures, of a perfect love-story during one of the most desirable time periods in history.

And while the movie was so very well done overall, we unfortunately left the theater with only one burning question - WHY?

Really really really boring .

The movie tells the story in fast-forward, (though with plenty of pointless artistic shots in lieu of important story information) while leaving out necessary development and giving an incredibly false feeling behind all of the relationships.

Overall, the movie had some faults but still enjoyable.

in an unexpected way, it reminded me of watching a Godard or Altman flick for the first time, wondering what they'd think of next.

There were however, some parts in the movie that seemed a little dull.

However, it seemed to slow down a bit by the end.

Overall, when I left the theater I wasn't so satisfied.

Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy remain their uninteresting selves throughout the entire movie, and Jane and Mr. Bingley remain their brainless selves as well.

But then, I truly believe that woman could give a compelling reading from the phone book.

The acting was enjoyable, the scenery pleasant, and the music breathtaking.

Mr.Bennet was boring and witless.

Pride and Prejudice has a fantastically fast-moving opening at an Upper Middle Class social gathering and dance.

Despite its shortcomings, worth watching for fans of the novel.

Her words was unexpected ,she told me that she had walked too far to turn round .

He looked like he was bored during all his scenes.

But considering that they ruined one of my favorite novels, it was quite unbearable to watch.

The film is very touching romance also its thrilling in a dramatic way also it was brilliant story of not passing opportunities when they are given also Amazing Production Design By Sarah Greenwood(The Governess),Screenplay By Deborah Moggach(Close Relations), Costume Design By Jacqueline Durran(Vera Drake) and Direction By Joe Wright(Hanna) Truly The Best Of Both Both Joe Wright and Keira Knightley 9/10

The cinematography is amazing, really drawing on your emotions and making you feel the intense passion and scenery of the book and the setting.

The visuals are stunning.

exciting .

I saw an execrable stage performance of an "up-to-date" version of P&P in which, when Mrs. Bennet insisted that Lizzy listen to Mr. Collins's proposal, she actually dragged her, kicking and screaming, offstage.

Some of the conversations seemed hurried and for those who haven't read the book, a bit confusing.

There are so many clichéd shots (if I ever have to see someone stare at a candle in the foreground for an entire shot while having a conversation, and then blow it out for the scene change, or a door slamming shut with a dull, resounding crash directly into the camera, I may scream.

A bunch of hormonally-stricken, very bored sisters (there was no TV or internet back then) play a game of "who-gets-whom", while a parade of men strut around, hoping their alpha-maleness and/or cash will impress the lonely/solo/unpicked/free females that surround them and regularly foam on the mouth.

Also, I must admit to having giggled my way through this movie, not because of Jane Austen's incredible wit (though there were a few lines, even new ones, that were genuinely amusing), but because the film is so terribly cliché and melodramatic that it is, sadly, too laughable.

The script was smart and funny, the costumes gorgeous and the cinematography was stunning.

Enjoyable to a Pride & Prejudice novice...

I was mostly appalled with the boring dialogues, lack of politeness in the dialogues and unforgivable use of cussing words!

This current version of P&P, while enjoyable, lacks the satirical and moralistic spirit of Jane Austen's novel.

Considering there are plenty of models, illustrations and such, of what the dress of the early 1800's to be easily found to give ideas for the costumes, I was disappointed at the drab costumes used in the film, especially those of Elizabeth.

Highly eloquent, highly intelligent, this modern telling of an all-time classic is worth the watch.

The whole film just looks fantastic and it has a very engaging hook to it that just please the eyes.

The scene in where Darcy confesses his love and hand in marriage to Elizabeth, it was just too cliché.

In this, however he was serious to the utmost and at times, far too dull to be borne.

worth watching though some characters look like being misinterpreted .

This adaptation takes what made Austen's work intriguing as a social study subject and wrecks it by modernising it that it portrays society that was not like it was back in the 19th century.

Thus, I think that this movie is worth watching.

This film is complete in every way, with a very talented cast, breathtaking landscapes, surprisingly artistic and carefully elaborate camera shots.. and lots, lots of PERFECTION in every way.

The lighting, costume design and art direction alone make this film a standout, but also the cinematography and editing match the material and make this "timeless" film highly entertaining.

I enjoyed how they made Elizabeth's beauty stand out, but not to overshadow her supposedly much more beautiful sister, by using drab colours (browns, dull greens).

Not only that, but we were bored out of our minds during the whole film!

Visually, it was stunning.

Staged or not, Knightley delivers an exciting, mesmerizing performance, which certainly sold me on true emotions.

Extremely entertaining (NO LULLS) Smart script.

Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right.

The 1995 miniseries did an extremely good job of portraying the slow pace of the story, so anything shorter than those 5 hours really doesn't do the story justice in my eyes.

Though we watch the romantic and social activities of all the daughters, the focus lies in the tumultuous courting of Elizabeth Bennet (played beautifully by the stunning Keira Knightly) by the rigid Mr. Darcy (Matthew McFadyen).

His acting is wooden, every word he speaks is empty, and there isn't a hint of the character's defining traits about him.

The dialog between the characters was boring and so artificial.

I guess it is a cute story, it just dragged on a bit for me.

The two instill an unexpected exuberance of feeling in their performances.

You cant get bored watching the movie, it doesn't slow down or get boring at anytime.

The dances were so crowded it was difficult to follow the story at those points.

But in the new film, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy is layered with emotions and character traits that all shadow and highlight his face throughout the film and make for a more exciting and more endearing Mr. Darcy than we have ever seen on screen before.

but the shots of them arguing in the rain, and as they draw close with the sunlight shining between them was breathtaking.

Even one of those "line dances" was so artful and absorbing, I nearly didn't notice in one scene that the ballroom was subliminally emptied to imply Elizabeth and Mr Darcy were so drawn to each other that they didn't feel anyone else's presence.

The story is intense, picturing a period of England history with a strong fight of classes and rules of society and people being categorized in different categories, trying to climb to upper classes through marriage.

Also,it's a great adaptation of cinema's fave Jane Austen novel, but key performances and a modern film- making sensibility make this familiar period piece fresh and enjoyable.

The film is dull.

So, whenever Elizabeth and/or Darcy were not on screen, I was bored to death, because frankly, I couldn't care less about the other characters in the film.

the dislike on both accounts is obvious, watching it grow to love was beautiful and stunning.

The screenplay borders on jabberwocky, honoring only the most banal of Austen's dialog.