Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Simply Perfect

Great Film overall

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

This is not my favorite P&P (I have perhaps an irrational love for 2005) but it has a lot going for it. It does change a few things from the book (all adaptations do) but I feel it remained true to the spirit throughout. It's much more under-stated and "low-key" than the other adaptations- no real sexed up scenes or over the top caricatures. It's biggest strength, IMO, is its cast, who are almost all close to the book characters' ages and descriptions. The biggest negative is the low production values of the time, which is just something one has to get used to.This version, even though it changes some things around and adds and cuts a few scenes, keeps others that no other adaptation has (unless it's one of those older ones that are not available to the public!). I especially like the scene after the second proposal where Darcy and Elizabeth discuss their attraction to each other and when it began. That's one of my favorite scenes in the book and it always disappoints me that the others don't include it! As with all the older adaptations, if dated, stagy production values turn you off, you probably won't like this version. But if you can look past that, I think you will really like it like I do!

This is by far the best version of P&P out there. I have seen all of them but the old TV versions before 1940 (although I did see the 1940 movie which was ludicrous and so far from the truth) thus I wouldn't waste my time on it nor the comedy version = yikes! I just checked the ratings to compare and am shocked to see that the modern Keira Knightley version is rated higher than this one! It must be for those who prefer Hollywood as that version is much father from the book and what Jane Austen wrote or ever could have intended. Even the Colin Firth version was better than that and again, I am surprised to see that version rated higher than this one. Colin Firth is a great actor but he was much too open to be a good or authentic Mr. Darcy. He would have been considered improper back in those days (as would have the Mr. Darcy in the Keira Knightley version). This Mr. Darcy portrayed by David Rintoul is most definitely the closest anyone has come to the true Mr. Darcy. He is handsome and appears haughty and arrogant as he should initially. He is rigid and barely betrays the passion that he feels... making it all the more powerful when he finally discloses his feelings. I loved this version and have watched it many times.If you are a true and authentic Jane Austen fan then you must see this version that is well cast, well acted and goes above and beyond any other versions.

I'm so glad others think as I do that this is an excellent version. I just don't understand why it is never mentioned in any reviews when reviewing new version of P&P. Even in IMDb, there is hardly any extra information. And is it true that this mini series is not available on DVD? I saw it on tape and it was such a good series and so true to book. I can see why the Colin Firth one is so popular; it was more sensual and as someone commented, Firth was more like a smoldering Heathcliff. I think that book influenced the movie because didn't you think the scene with Elizabeth and Darcy coming out of mist was more of Heathcliff and Cathy type scene? I suppose that's the next book that will be made into a movie yet again.I've just read a review of all the popularity of Austen books, movies and look-alikes and think it's quite good that they have become popular but am sad that no one will make movies like the above version because it is too purist. Everything for the new generation has to be 'sexy' and snazzy and cool. Oh well, even if one young person is motivated or interested enough to read a Jane Austen book after seeing one of the movies, then I'll be happy.

I did like this version of Pride and Prejudice. There were just a few things that I didn't care for, especially compared to the 1995 version.I hated Natalie Ogle's Lydia. I don't know why all of these BBC productions of Jane Austen with immature girls have the worst actresses playing them? Sense and Sensibility (1980) is the same way. They choose these young looking actresses on nothing more than their looks and their ability to read a script apparently. The only Lydia I've liked is Julia Sawalha, she played it genuinely, at the right age, and laughed naturally. Everyone else, including Jena Malone, plays her too young and with forced laughter. Like perhaps they are overcompensating for age, even though Sawalha was the oldest to play her, I believe. All the other Lydia's shriek and carry on, and I never really got that impression from the book. I don't think she is that different from other teenagers nowadays, well a middle schooler from now. Ogle played her like a 10-year old.My other problem was that they didn't do any voice-over until the the 3 or 4th episode. It was very strange that everyone was reading their letters that they had written aloud. As I watched I was seriously wondering if they just didn't know how to do them, but then I remembered that they have been doing voice-overs since talkies have been in existence. It is a worthless point but it really bothered me.Other than that, I have very few complaints. I did find it interesting that they used the same girl who played Elinor in Sense and Sensibility (1980) to play Charlotte. I was always under the impression that Elinor was relatively attractive (at least not plain), and I had resigned myself, while watching S & S, into thinking that tastes have changed.. but apparently not, if they used her to play the plain Charlotte. Anyway, that was a big tangent.I do agree with some of the other posters that the levels of beauty in the Bennet girls were better portrayed in this film than the 95 version. I think Susannah Harker is very handsome and I appreciate that now, but when I first saw it I kept thinking how much more attractive Jennifer Ehle was than Harker. I would say that classically speaking and for the time period, Harker would have been the most beautiful girl, she has a lovely neck and profile. Another tangent, sorry.But yes, it is a good film, but for me, the 1995 version will always be my number one. All the actors are great and I prefer the locations much more.