Pride and Prejudice (2003)

You won't be disappointed!

Just what I expected

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Oh, please. If someone is going to use the name of one of the truly great English-language novels ever written as the title of his/her/its movie, it had better be (1) pretty darned good and (2) decently faithful to the intent of the novel. Otherwise, call it something else. In this case, using "Pride and Prejudice" is a gross insult to the intelligence of even modestly intelligent movie-goers and to the creative genius of Jane Austen.Compare this to an outstanding, perhaps the greatest, visual rendering of the novel: The 1995 Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth BBC television series made into a seamless 300-minute movie. It is superb in every way, a nearly flawless production with fewer identified errors of various sorts in it than are normally reported in a movie of more typical length. Then there is this sad spectacle. It would not be so offensive had it been named something like "Twits and Tittering" or "Plodding Petulance"--anything but Austen's own title. This is something like making a mediocre-or-worse movie about break-dancing and calling it The Holy Bible.One cannot say too little about this movie: It is embarrassingly poor. That is quite little enough to say.

If you watch this expecting an updated classic a la Bridget Jones or Clueless, you'll be very disappointed. But this version has its own campy charm. I watched this the same night as I watched the recent Keira Knightley adaptation. The Knightley version was modernized without seeming to know it; the character interactions and language struck me as too contemporary among the lavish sets and costumes. This version of Pride and Prejudice never tries to pass itself off as great art or writing, and in fact, it never takes itself very seriously at all. That made it a lot more enjoyable for me to watch. So if you don't go in expecting greatness, you might be able to enjoy it for what it is.

My roommates and I just love this movie! Even thought the story doesn't follow the book exactly, you get the same feel as in the book.In this story, all the sisters in the book are roommates in the movie, Kitty and Lydia being the only sisters, however, each character retains the same personalities as in the book. Kitty and Lydia are vain and revolve around boys, Mary is completely awkward but tries REALLY hard, Jane is extremely nice, and Elizabeth is stubborn and independent.Many of the events in the book are put into a modern setting, so it's fairly faithful. Everyone meets at a party thrown by Charles (where he dances the majority of the night with Jane), Wickham elopes with Darcy's sister (and tries to with Lydia), Charles leaves, Collins proposes, etc., etc.True, my roomies and I are Mormon, and there are plenty of inside jokes for us Mormons, but its really just a cute, simple movie that's just lots of fun. In one of the comments, someone says that it teaches girls that independence is a bad thing. I don't really get that out of the movie. Elizabeth goes on with her life, even after making up with Darcy at the end of the movie. In the book, Elizabeth changes her views of not needing men, and thinking all men are pigs, just as the Elizabeth in this movie does. It's really just a fun movie, I would recommend it for anyone.

i am crazy about modern day takes on classic stories--clueless is one of my favorite movies because it so perfectly retells Emma. so, of course, when i saw this movie was coming on TV...i was eager to give it a try (though skeptical, considering i'd never heard of it)...to be honest, i wish i had that hour and a half back.it's a ridiculously saccharine, terribly written, horribly acted movie--certainly, filled with clever tricks (like the Austen quotes that bookend all the scenes), but, at its core, a boring, unsexy, uninteresting version of a remarkably sensual novel. Darcy is more dopey than brooding, and Lizzie is cute--but too flat to play such a rich, nuanced character.i didn't know it was a "Mormon" movie until i just looked it up--but i'm not surprised. that explains the constant references to church and the reason why everyone was interested in marriage--rather than dating.if you're Mormon and a Jane Austen lover--i imagine you'd enjoy this...but if you're not a Mormon--rent Bridget Jones--it's a better bang for your buck.