Kevin's Watch

I got a chance to (finally!!!) watch this this morning, and I really enjoyed it.

While perhaps not up to the high level as the classic BBC miniseries, I still thought it was well done (especially given the time restraints of a two hour film), and thought Keira Knightly did a good job in the role of Lizzie Bennet.

I really liked the way the film makers emphasized the Bennet family's country roots by having the estate clearly being a working farm.

It was all right. Can't do justice to P&P with a feature-length movie, though. It would take either a trilogy or a mini-series by the BBC starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.

On the bright side, the movie did have a very distinctive style. It was a bit too Romantic for my tastes, though. Austen wrote the book in the 1790s, and it was published during the Napoleonic Wars, so it's hard to pinpoint the exact social mood she had in mind. For example: I picture the dances in P&P as having a rational, Enlightenment tinge: more formal and dignified. The 2005 movie presented them as boisterous, rowdy affairs--a decidedly Romantic view, to be sure. Not that that's a bad thing--just not my cup of tea.

Oh, and Keira Knightley is no Elizabeth Bennett. She looked like a waifish supermodel, rather than a member of the landed gentry during late 18th/early 19th century England. I mean, how did she get to look like that, if the aristocratic daughters of the era did nothing but eat, dance, and try to get married? At least Ehle had some meat on her flesh.

You have a bunch of country folk kicking up their heels and having fun. If they had shown a high ton ball in London, things would have probably been a lot more restrained and dignified.

To do justice to the book, you do need to have several hours available, rather than just two.

But under the time restraints, I think they did a pretty good job.

Good post, Foul. I can say that Mr Wickham was terrible - poor casting.

My favorite casting of any of the Austen adaptations I've seen is in this:

www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00003JRCQ/qi ... ance&n=130

I have to admit, that it is refreshing that the leads are fairly average looking rather than the god/goddess you usually get in most romances. They are very good in their roles.

duchess of malfi wrote:I have to admit, that it is refreshing that the leads are fairly average looking rather than the god/goddess you usually get in most romances. T

Goood point! Why the latest P&P is so hollywood; everyone is too goodl ooking.

I saw this movie a few weeks ago, and since I've never read the book and had not seen any previous adaptations of the story, I didn't know what to expect. I loved this movie, thought it was a great story with great acting and humor. Which of the previous versions should I try to see?

dlbpharmd wrote:I saw this movie a few weeks ago, and since I've never read the book and had not seen any previous adaptations of the story, I didn't know what to expect. I loved this movie, thought it was a great story with great acting and humor. Which of the previous versions should I try to see?

BBC version, definitely. Read the book, too, if you like late 18th/early 19th century stuff. Gives wonderful insight on social life in England then (for the landed classes, anyway).

Gotta say the BBC version is the better one (Colin Firth is the ONLY Mr Darcy!)

But I did think Wickham was cute in the 2005 version...bit Orlando Bloom-ish... ( and I happen to LOVE Orlando Bloom!)