|
| Pride & Prejudice | 
 enlarge | Director: Joe Wright (iv)
Actors: Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone, Carey Mulligan
Studio: Universal Studios
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $6.35
You Save: $8.63 (58%)
New (52) Used (34) from $5.46
Avg. Customer Rating:  941 reviews
Sales Rank: 189
Format: Ac-3, Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 129
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 61028072
UPC: 025192807220
EAN: 0025192807220
ASIN: B000E1ZBGS
Theatrical Release Date: November 23, 2005
Release Date: February 28, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: BRAND NEW sealed shipped daily. International Shipping via Air Mail.
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Literary adaptations just don't get any better than director Joe Wright's 2005 version of Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice. The key word here is adaptation, because Wright and gifted screenwriter Deborah Moggach have taken liberties with Austen's classic novel that purists may find objectionable, but in this exquisite film their artistic decisions are entirely justified and exceptionally well executed. It's a more rural England that we see here, circa 1790 (as opposed to Austen's early 19th century), in which Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightley) is one of several sisters primed for marriage, with an anxious mother (Brenda Blethyn) only too desperate to see her daughters paired off with the finest, richest husbands available. Elizabeth is strong-willed and opinionated, but her head (not to mention her pride and prejudice) lead her heart astray when she meets the wealthy Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), whose own sense of decency and discretion (not to mention his pride and prejudice) prevent him from expressing his mutual affection. They're clearly meant for each other, and as Knightley's performance lights up the screen (still young enough to be girlishly impertinent, yet wise beyond her 20 years), Austen's timeless romance yields yet another timeless adaptation, easily on par with the beloved BBC miniseries that has been embraced by millions since originally broadcast in 1995. Individual tastes will vary as to which version should be considered "definitive," but with a stellar supporting cast including Judi Dench and Donald Sutherland, this impeccable production achieves its own kind of perfection. --Jeff Shannon
Description
One of the greatest love stories of all time, Pride & Prejudice, comes to the screen in a glorious new adaptation starring Keira Knightley. When Elizabeth Bennett (Knightley) meets the handsome Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen), she believes he is the last man on earth she could ever marry. But as their lives become intertwined in an unexpected adventure, she finds herself captivated by the very person she swore to loathe for all eternity. Based on the beloved masterpiece by Jane Austen, it is the classic tale of love and misunderstanding that sparkles with romance, wit and emotional force. Critics are calling it "Exhilarating. A joy from start to finish" (Carina Chocano, Los Angeles Times).
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 936 more reviews...
 I'm a Firth/BBC fan, and I still loved it! January 12, 2006
476 out of 550 found this review helpful
Okay, I am a rabid Frith and BBC fan of the miniseries, but I was very impressed with this adaption and found it refershing in it's grounded, youthful take on the story.
For starters, there is a very grounded nature to the presentation of the story. Some Austenites got their knickers into a twist because they thought it made the family and their circumstances too drab looking. But I loved it! The Meryton Assembly basically sets the stage for this grounded approach-the dancing looks a little heavy footed, the girls look sweaty, and you can't help but think that someone needs to open a window cause it looks awfully sweaty! But at the same time,it made the story come alive, like you were a fly on the wall, peeking in on Lizzy and Darcy and the rest of the gang.
Lastly, I loved the youthful take on the story. I LOVE Firth and Ehle as the '95 leads. They had this chemistry and sensual tension that was electric! But their take was definitely from a mature standpoint-like the way I'd act now as a 33 year old woman. Whereas Macfadyen and Knightley? Theirs is a more youthful, innocent, first love take that I just took to. Great chemistry, Lizzy's a little less cocksure, Darcy's a bit more unbalanced by this attraction, and it felt right in terms of age and stage of development with the actual characters in the book.
Great adaption, brisk storytelling, and a wonderfully irreverent tone by a fun director who knew it was a good idea to knock the pedestal off from under our Lizzy and Darcy, and let them be seen in a more grounded light. And ps-I thought Macfadyen, even though he doesn't have that big of a part, was a great Darcy!
Charming and intelligent November 26, 2005
249 out of 271 found this review helpful
When I heard that there was a new version of "Pride and Prejudice" to be made, I was far from pleased. In fact, I was fairly annoyed: A&E's version with Colin Firth has been a staple of my DVD collection for an incredibly long time, and I couldn't imagine anyone tampering with perfection. Why mess with genius?
Happily, I was wrong in my estimation of the movie. Perhaps it's only appropriate, given the subject matter: the whole story of "Pride and Prejudice" is wrapped up in wrong estimations of character, miscommunications, and partial understandings. The Focus Features version of "Pride and Prejudice" is more of a classic Romance, set earlier in period and filmed against more stunning backdrops than the A&E version: there were no grand cliffs or windswept heaths in that one, but they work here.
The performances are universally excellent: I was appropriately annoyed by Brenda Blethyn's ludicrously inappropriate Mrs. Bennet, and Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh is one of the most delicious strokes of casting genius...ever. Donald Sutherland as the bemused patriarch Mr. Bennet holds his own in a largely British cast, and was suitably affectionately distracted in his fatherly role. Simon Woods is amiable and open-faced as Mr. Bingley, and properly deserves Rosamund Pike's delicate Jane.
The movie belongs, however, to Matthew McFadyen and Keira Knightley, as it rightly should. The book, however involved its subplots, focused mainly on their sparring, and the film wisely excises a lot of the extraneous matter, tightening its focus and condensing some scenes. Matthew McFadyen is, possibly, an even better Mr. Darcy than Colin Firth (though that pains me to say): his Darcy is sensitive, prone to moodiness and shows of the Stiff Upper Lip, but his eyes don't always manage to keep up the mask, and it is this that makes him amazing. When his eyes do light up, it is stunning, because we have learned not to expect it. He positively smolders with passion, even soaking wet with pleading in his eyes. Or perhaps especially soaking wet. In any case, he smolders. Bosoms will heave, corsets or not, when he's onscreen.
Watching Keira Knightley as Lizzie Bennet I was irresistibly reminded of another fiercely intelligent, wide-eyed brunette bookworm: Winona Ryder's Jo March, in 1994's exquisite "Little Women." Knightley conveys the same compelling blend of delicacy and strength as Ryder managed, no easy feat in this world of one-note romance, and one I wasn't sure she could manage, as I've never been a fan. Knightley does a good job, however: her Lizzie is a "fearsome creature," to quote herself, both fiercely loyal and heartily passionate for life, yet always with just a trace of vulnerability; one wonders, at times, if her passionate demeanour isn't as much a disguise as Darcy's cool mask. Perhaps that is what makes their inevitable but much-delayed romance so alluring: here are two people who absolutely should be in love with each other, but manage to think themselves out of it for a very long time.
The world of the film is more realistically rural than other adaptations: the ladies' hems are dirty, their dresses are frequently wrinkled, and pigs traipse through the Bennet house as often as visitors do. There are some lovely little touches to the filmmaking as well, such as one scene featuring a distracted Mr. Darcy being circled, predator-like, by Lizzie and the coolly condescending Caroline Bingley; one absolutely feels sorry for the man. I particularly liked the dancing scenes: there is always something going on with someone familiar in the corner of the frame, lending the scenes a pleasant intimacy that suits the material nicely.
Ultimately, I love this story so much because its romantic heroes deserve one another, even though they do not always realize it. Theirs is a relationship built not only on passion - although in this version, even more so than the seminal A&E version, it is decidedly present, particularly in a post-wedding scene at Pemberley featuring (sigh!) a barefoot Mr. Darcy - but on mutual interests and a hearty respect for one another. When Lizzie and Darcy finally marry (as we know they must, long before they do) it is, to steal from Shakespeare (and another Jane Austen movie) a "marriage of true minds." And after all, what could be more romantic than a smart, handsome man in a cravat and a long, windblown coat?
Enjoy for what it is--not Firth but wonderful! January 13, 2006
232 out of 287 found this review helpful
OK, I'll admit it: I've gone to the theater to see this 6 or 7 times already--I've lost count; I'm thrilled that the DVD is coming out sooner rather than later.
No, this is not the much-loved 1995 multi-hour A&E version. And no, MacFaydan is not Firth, and Knightly is not Ehle. And some liberties were taken with the original storyline (sometimes a bit disconcerting like Lady Catherine's night time visit?? and Bingley entering Jane's sickroom, even before knocking?? "simply not done" in those days!).
But I very much agree with the positive reviewers below --this version is MOST enjoyable on its own. The scenery, photography, and music are gorgeous (you must buy the CD!). Darcy and Elizabeth are still wonderfully Darcy and Elizabeth. It was a little disconcerting at first to see so much mud, livestock, and plain gowns--but you get past that fairly quickly. And it seems maybe a bit more realistic for country gentry.
BTW--if you're a P&P addict like me, don't miss Pamela Aiden's Darcy trilogy--it tells the entire story from Darcy's viewpoint and fills in a lot of what I think is missing. Also, if you have wondered what might have happened after the wedding and like a "spicier" novel, read Linda Berdoll's "Mr. Darcy Takes a Wife" (Austen meets Bronte and Sandra Brown).
Oft told tale made soulful, young November 23, 2005
171 out of 194 found this review helpful
I saw an advanced screening of this film in Boston and was very pleased, it is intelligent in its handle of the material and its fluency in cinematic crafting. Goodbye to dusty, "precious" interpretations of Jane Austen. This cheeky, poetic, even dark new film makes the story youthful with down-to-earth vibrancy and worship of emotion. Here are young people making the mistakes and dreaming the dreams of the young (when it was written it wasn't antiquity, it was life). Lizzie is not a smirking omniscient but a quick witted independent; hotheaded and fiercely loyal to her sister. She is wary of an unfair world and uses her wits to survive. Darcy is not an impenetrable stoic but a shy sensitive soul with high unwieldy social pretensions fending off the outside world. And they are both lonely and have big yearning hearts, so the filmmakers made one great decision -- they let them fall in love the first moment they lock eyes. In a shot we see hearts behind fortified personalities and an instant chemistry that takes a movie's worth of battling with each other and themselves to right itself. It's an earthy move that sets the tone for a film about the people and world behind the antiquated manners, a world not so different from ours.
Now set in 1797, when Austen wrote the first draft of the book, the filmmakers committed to main plot points and themes, and astutely represent the Romantic Age and Austen's characters. The love between Jane and Lizzie is supreme and fuels a desire in Lizzie to tear at Darcy when he separates Jane from Mr. Bingley. She's hurt, she reciprocates the pain, and it is bitter. Pride and prejudices are drawn clearly: Lizzie searches hard to find fault with Darcy, and Darcy cannot bring himself to let down his guard. Both have their reasons justified, but they foil their own chances at love constantly until they see how wrong they are and are too heartsick to keep going. Class conflict is suddenly personally injurious and vicious. When Charlotte Lucas marries for security, it's a grave matter and she must bitingly sober up a disdainful Lizzie on the realities of their world. The Bennets are too eccentric and improper for their own good. Lady Catherine (Dame Judi Dench, who is downright fearsome) is not just a cold figure for Lizzie to spar with, but someone capable of deeply hurting others. The filmmakers are savvy in their understanding of history. Setting it back 20 years is a remarkable move, because we accept more diversions and variation with the 18th century than the 19th and it presents Austen as a Romantic, which automatically requires the story to be interpreted from a different, very legitimate, perspective. The ideals of the Romantic Age are ingeniously, subtly played here: human equality, gritty realism married with beauty for the sake of beauty, but a beauty which is never elitist or decadent, always grounded, simple, and universal: nature, the human being, emotion.
The ensemble and mis-en-scene are electric. The camera spryly edges in and out of rooms and conversations instead of sitting arthritically in a corner. The dance scenes are less about ballet, now rollicking and spirited as characters send signals, flirt, deflect and analyze one another. In true Romantic form (worthy of filling Wordsworth with pride) the aesthetic unabashedly revels in beauty, but always the simple joys of our world: sunrises, dewy landscapes in wide shots, colors everywhere. It has a lovely score, period inspired and without any pomp and circumastance. Simple blocking is caffeinated and given substance, something is always going on in the background. Lively, layered interactions between characters make rich scenes, neither wasting space nor time. Consider a scene with Mr. Collins, played by the magnificent Tom Hollander (a standout here, so delightfully weird. When he jaggedly squirms his way up to someone you want to shriek). He wants to speak to Lizzie, alone, and a bolt of fear strikes through her as she pleads in vain not to be abandoned. The sisters are merciless, Mrs. Bennet delighted, Mr. Bennet at a loss, and Collins prepares. It's all silent and it's hysterical.
Suggesting variation to revered characters is a frightful task, but here it's a revelation. The entire cast is brilliant, but the two leads are transcendent in their roles. Keira Knightley is charismatic, random, wonderfully young, intuitive to the bone -- she inhabits Lizzie. Matt MacFadyen is deep, remarkably subtle, but mostly he is soulful. I've long held him as a sympathetic actor, but he shines in this. The two instill an unexpected exuberance of feeling in their performances. Neither ever acknowledge the camera exists and make the most of every second they have on screen to project their characters. When you throw them together you get a love story full of emotional subtext, double meaning, and gloriously heavy moments.
Because so much dialogue was cut, simple lines have impact and much of the exposition is visual. Epic little moments linger and rain, revealing souls. The thoughts and intentions behind the actors' eyes and words are visible at all times. This movie understands the power of a shot or glance. Lizzie comes to understand Darcy in how he embraces his sister or smiles (a momentous occasion, indeed). When she talks about love it's stirring because it's finally spilled into the open after we've seen it near the edge many times with half said sentiments and stifled tears. Usually "I love you" comes with extra explanatory prose, but here sincerity kills cliche: parties are fun, a misty field is breathtaking, the dawning of love a revelation, the heartbreak is throbbing.
It's a brilliant film. There is something breathless and luminous about it, from its youth and the break from propriety, to the beauty and spontaneity of life and romance, pain and joy, which provide the color.
 Worse than I expected March 29, 2006
71 out of 102 found this review helpful
Admittedly, I did not have high hopes for this moving knowing that it would be hard to do in 2 hours what A&E did in 5+ hours. But, I had thought it would have been better--Emma and Sense and Sensibility were much better shortened Hollywood versions of Austen's books than this was.
So what did I find wrong with this adaptation?
1. The Bennets looked sloppy and poor. I immediately thought back to two lines from the book that made me think that this was not how the Bennet's should have appeared: Jane tells Lizzy "We're not very poor." and Lizzy telling Lady Catherine "He is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter, so far we are equal." I felt that the Bennet's looked just a little better than the orphans in Oliver Twist.
2. Mr. Bennett was portrayed as a grumpy old man. One thing I loved about Pride and Predjudice was Austen's humor and Mr. Bennett had in my opinion some of her best lines. These were totally lacking in this movie and didn't need to be--why change his character completely? True, he did redeem himself a little in the end and I loved the line about sending in any beau's that may call for Kitty and Mary."
3. At the movie's beginning, Lizzy seemed to have a chip on her shoulder and hated Darcy from the moment he walked in the door. I couldn't account for that. She felt at liberty to make biting comments to him before she ever overheard his critical comment of her. She really irritated me from the beginning and it was hard to get past that to enjoy the rest of the movie.
4. Mr. Bingley appeared as a bumbling imbesole instead of a humble and likeable gentleman and I agree with one writer that the actress who played Jane would have made a better Elizabeth. Jane seemed to have more wits about her than Lizzy. Kitty and Lydia and sometimes Lizzy seemed to giggle for no reason. I found them irritating as well. Georgiana Darcy's character was also altered. The book describes her as being very shy as to appear a snob but that is not so. This Georgiana was not a bit shy.
Overall, I felt that the end of the film was better than the beginning, but I still would never buy or recommend this movie. I wondered if I would have liked it better having known nothing of the book. I would have preferred much more of the story cut out to develop the overall love story between Elizabeth and Darcy and give certain characters more presence.
I know that my reviews will probably be unpopular, since others who have rated this movie poorly have recieved ratings to reflect that, but to be honest, I find it hard to find many things I liked about this version.
I'll stick to the A&E version.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
