rebekahrox This is an excellent version of Pride and Prejudice second only to the lauded and beloved 1995 production. Elizabeth Garvie's "fine eyes" and bright performance is a standout. She is lovely and likable. I would put it on par with Jennifer Ehle's interpretation. Unfortunately David Rintoul's performance is a real hindrance. He is as stiff and expressionless as a board. He moves through the film as a Zombie. This would have been fine for most of the production, but he almost never unbends to show us his true colors at the end. He only smiles when he is inviting Mr. Gardiner to go fishing, and even then he looks like his face would crack from the effort. Darcy must be shown to have evolved into someone Elizabeth could love and like. Colin Firth revealed Darcy to be shy as well as proud and it was a charming portrayal. For much of his portrayal, I was looking forward to the change when Darcy finally melts. I was very disappointed. What a lost opportunity! It was very vexing! All of the other actors stand up quite well to the classic, especially Jane, and Mr. Collins. Jane is, in this version, much more of the beauty she is described. Susanna Harker in the 1995 version is attractive and interesting looking but she is not really a beauty, in my opinion. I do prefer the more comedic performance of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet. Julia Salwaha killed as Lydia, and unfortunately this one was not up to snuff by comparison.

Red-125 Pride and Prejudice (TV Mini-Series 1980) is a BBC production directed by Cyril Coke. It stars Elizabeth Garvie as Miss Elizabeth Bennet, Sabina Franklyn as Miss Jane Bennet, David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy, and Osmund Bullock as Mr. Bingley. Important supporting cast members are Moray Watson as Mr. Bennet, Priscilla Morgan as Mrs. Bennet, Irene Richard as Charlotte Lucas, who is married to the insufferable Mr. Collins (Malcolm Rennie). Peter Settelen portrays Mr. Wickham, a rogue in a gentleman's clothing, and Judy Parfitt plays the hateful Lady Catherine de Bourgh.Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a superb novel, that has been admired for over 200 years. Transferring it to the screen has been a challenge, because there are so many characters, who are key to the plot, and whom are related to each other in complex ways. The BBC mini-series is 265 minutes long. Even at that length, some characters are introduced briefly and then disappear from view. The 1995 BBC mini-series is 327 minutes long. It will be interesting to see whether the extra hour will allow more character development. Possibly the extra hour will just be used to show off the wonderful BBC production capabilities.If you're familiar with the novel, I think you'll be pleased by the actors and the interpretation of the characters as decided by director Coke. The only character with whom I found a problem was Mr. Bennet. Yes--he's a curmudgeon, but we see him as a rather harsh curmudgeon. I don't think Jane Austen thought of him in that way.If you're not familiar with the novel, you might find it helpful to read the novel, or at least read a synopsis of the novel, so you can keep the characters straight.We saw this movie on the small screen (in a VHS version!) and it worked well enough. Of course, it was made for TV, so it should work on a small screen. Still, if you ever have the opportunity to see it in a theater, I'd take that opportunity. It's a good, solid depiction of a great novel. This BBC Pride and Prejudice is definitely worth seeing.

TMMVDS It's totally unbelievable how someone could watch this in its entirety (which is a task worth of a medal) and honestly say it's the best adaptation there is. It wouldn't be the best even if it was the only one! So, maybe it is truest to the book, but who cares if the entertainment value is zero? I'm not one those Austen fanatics who knows the book in question by heart. But I have read it, and it is certainly important that the adaptation is true to that book, that's why I wouldn't even try to watch the latest movie version of it. But who can argue that the 1995 version wasn't also a faithful adaptation? If there was some slight alterations, so is here! So maybe there was some scenes omitted, but do you need to hear every word they say in the book to enjoy the show? No, you don't. When you see things in front of you, you certainly want to see something more than endless talking sessions. It's not enough that these people talk and talk, it all sounds like one long weather forecast. If these conversations can you keep you entertained, good for you! But if one wants to hear and see people who has a character and feelings, go look elsewhere.The 1995 version of P&P had everything which makes a costume drama work, and it's my favourite series of all time. This version has instead all of the elements which can totally ruin that same genre. Let's pretend that this would be nothing but TV-series and had nothing to do with Jane Austen; what merits it would have? Insignificant acting, lifeless characters, tedious dialogue. One couldn't care less if that stiff bloke get the girl he claims to love - though it's hard to believe. Watching him proposing Elizabeth is almost embarrassing in its rigidness.

sheepie87 Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book since I was eleven years old, and I've seen every other adaptation of it--even taken a class on Romantic Comedy, in which P&P was included. However, I was determined to take this version on its own merits and try not to compare it to the other versions. Those don't matter as much as its trueness to the book in spirit and content.This is what I told myself when I put the DVD in. During the first scene, my hopes were dashed--Mary brings the news of Bingley? They just cut out the great opening banter between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet! Really, it's all downhill from here.The greatest complaint is that the people behind this movie completely sucked the life out of the story. This is a comedy of manners, people, not solely a love story. It's about human character, and here, the characters have no life at all. Look at Mr. Darcy: Aie! He looks like a walking corpse with a burr up his you know what. It seemed as if every line was painful to utter and that he was bored to death. Elizabeth has altogether no wit and shows a strange contradiction regarding her family: She whines and pleads with Jane to get better faster so she can go home! What!?!? Whining, selfish creature! She then comments with a sign of satisfaction how good it is to be home, and coddles her mother too! Agony. Because of these flaws in writing/acting, the ending is improbable, even laughably ridiculous. Sorry, did the casting director think that chap playing Wickham was a hottie? Youch.Did anyone notice how awful all of the grand houses looked? I mean, since Darcy has ten thousand pounds a year (that's a LOT of money) he could at least have the stone on Pemberley cleaned up a bit. It was all stained and icky. *shudder*If I detailed everything that was wrong with this, I'd be here for hours. I know many of you love it dearly, but I'm sorry, I see nothing to love. I see a dried-out husk of an adaptation of the most brilliant book ever.