Unleashing Mr. Darcy (2016)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

The acting in this movie is really good.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

MR. DARCY MR. DARCY MR. DARCY MR. DARCY MR. DARCY MR. DARCY The main character, Elizabeth Scott is ridiculous, immature, & obnoxious. She pouts when she doesn't get her way & is so hostile to Darcy; her constant digs about his wealth are tiresome and beyond rude. The acting is pretty bad, Ryan Paevey is the only exception.Um, there's a plot--something about dogs...blah, blah, blah-- WATCH IT FOR RYAN PAEVEY.TOTAL SNACK.

I had heard good things about this movie, so I was looking forward to it. But this is the first Hallmark movie that I can remember where there really is nothing redeeming about it.First off, as someone who used to show dogs, their entire depiction of dog shows was just absolutely laughable. There was nothing even remotely realistic about it. There are some dogs in the ring, but then the female lead gets called in separately by number? And then leaves again and then comes back for final review? Yeah, no, that's not how it works. The so-called judge barely touches the dog. And why are there several different types of dogs in the ring at once? And no, they don't hang the ribbons around the necks of the handlers. Oh my gosh. Just no. Completely absurd.Now I've got that off my chest, this is a rare Hallmark movie where there is absolutely zero chemistry between the leads. And the story itself was so poorly crafted that it was impossible to believe these two were falling in love. They barely spent more than 5 minutes together at a time; they never really talked in any kind of depth to get to know each other; he was supposed to be the rude one, but he came across as being fairly polite while she was always rude, so why the heck would he fall in love with such a witch? Even the subplot with the privileged dad who got her fired was absurd. It started out okay with him getting her fired. I can believe the board taking the side of the rich patron over a teacher, but the idea that he would sue her was beyond stupid, and having him show up at the party was nonsensical. The man got what he wanted when he got her fired; the rest of it was just overkill and just lazy writing.I generally love Hallmark movies and can forgive a lot in them because they're usually just fun, but this one was a waste of my time. I was so disappointed in it. Just nothing unfortunately to recommend it. :(

Having not heard of this treatment, I have no preconceptions: it followed something my MiL was watching when I walked in.I think the dogs and the world of dog shows were either the center of this story, or the excuse for it, which are not bad things. King Charles Spaniels were the royal Corgis of their day, and they are just soooo cute. The puppies used were more young dogs--at least 2 months old, as they were just too large and well-coated for newborns.I don't believe the rest of this paragraph has any spoilers. The characters you are supposed to dislike were played excellently--wanted to smack them each upside the head. Pared from this twist on P&P are the obnoxious curate cousin, Mr. Wickham, the three younger sisters, and Mr. Bennet--and they were not missed. Departures from the original: 'Mrs Bennet' owns a bridal shop, 'Lizzy' is a teacher, 'Darcy' judges dog shows, 'Georgiana Darcy' lives with her brother, 'Lady Catherine de Bourgh' seems to live there as well. 'Lady Anne de Bourgh' is not retiring at all, as views Darcy as her unofficial fiancé. 'Aunt Gardiner' invites 'Lizzy' to show her dog as well, instead of taking her travelling, and there is no Mr. Gardiner.Some have said that there was little comedy here, but I disagree. The story IS after all a comedy of manners, and this delivered that. Lots of "wish I hadn't said that" to go around. You were given backstory for why Elizabeth tends to be prejudiced and Darcy to be reserved and stand-offish. There is definitely spark between them, and they both have their share of apologies to deliver.I agree with another reviewer that having a 'Mr. Bingley' be a mere placeholder was wrong. The only "problem" I had while watching is wondering why Ryan Paevey (Darcy--all Darcys should be eye candy!)) resembled a younger Karl Urban (the current Star Trek movies' Dr. McCoy). A still photo tells you nothing, because it is while speaking and while moving that they resemble each other. I thought the twists were well balanced in making a satisfying, if not excellent, rendition. I don't expect remakes of stories in modern settings to adhere more than about 75% to the original: I want a good story with good character development and interactions. Somewhere on the main page for this entry it claims that this is a remake, or the like, of Bride and Prejudice. Not so at all.

This was an entertaining film. We especially liked Ryan Paevey (currently starring in North American Serial "General Hospital") for his role as Donovan Darcy. We can understand why the the character of Elizabeth Scott is not very "friendly" with people of great wealth as she has been fired by those that control the private school she taught at (Weston High School)..But it is obvious she has interest in Donovan Darcy, but not his mannerisms..and his great wealth.We especially gave this film a high rating, because, even though this world is not anything close to the sugar and spice we would like to be, at least we can entertain ourselves with never hearing profanities, obscenities, and other degrading words that are not needed to send a message of love, or dislike..(but then, of course, this IS a HALLMARK FILM)...