Film is Pwn

Let me start by saying that the latest attempt at catching on the Jane Austen classic Pride and Prejudice was my first experience with the story. When I saw this movie the first time I knew nothing about the about Liz and her feistiness, nor did I know about Jane’s subtle manner. I didn’t understand quite what kind of person could take a certain pride in their prejudice as Darcey does. I never considered a silly, kindly man of the classic British aristocracy a possibility like Bingley. I suppose what I’m saying is that this was a complete surprise.

If you aren’t aware of the story, it’s fairly simple on the surface. It is the journey of two young women, Jane (Rosamund Pike) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley)who are the eldest daughters of five, as they find love in a time when marriage was about station, position and money.

My wife had insisted it was a good story, told me how much she liked it – expressed interest for months about seeing the newest rendition before we finally got to it.  When we did I had rather strong mixed emotions about the movie. I loved the music, I loved the story which has depth and subtlety without losing it’s fairly lighthearted approach. The cast is acceptable, the women – to me – all feel in their element. Its the men though that appear out of place. Mr Bennet played by Donald Sutherland is especially empty to me. His portrayal of the sharp, sarcastic father is dry and lifeless.

Perhaps now is a good time to mention that while when I first saw the movie I knew nothing of the story I have now seen the A&E production from 1995 and read the book. Austen’s writing, which is used largely and often throughout the film, is quick, witty and never hollow. There’s meaning hidden behind each statement. I felt like the men simply missed the guised character in the writing.

The mediocre acting from the men is incredibly passable given what I consider the one real flaw of the movie – the story. Don’t get me wrong, the story of Pride and Prejudice is good, it’s very good. But taken from a several hundred page novel and squeezed like a women into a corset into a measly two hours and nine minutes.  If King Kong deserves three hours than Pride and Prejudice most certainly does.

Normally I don’t like to complain about the story in the translation of a book to film, however in this situation I think its deserving. As I said, I saw this when I knew nothing of the story and I was utterly confused in several situations as the pieces of the story to explain different happenings were simply skipped for time. For example, there is a journey to the country in which Elizabeth appears all of the sudden and with no explanation.

This movie is good, but mostly because of Jane Austen’s writing and excellent performances from Keira Knightley and Rosamund Pike. It’s possible that I’ve been tainted in my opinion on how a character is played due to the A&E series. If you’re familiar with the story, watching this movie will likely be enjoyable. However, if you are like I was and know nothing about it. You’re better off watching the excellent A&E series or reading the book first.

Of course, if you want to appear sensitive and don’t care about the story itself, get this and watch it with your wife or girlfriend, they are almost guaranteed to like it.

I give this movie a good solid: Buy-Itish - Rent-Itish depending on you and what your significant other may say (demand). I own it, but only for my wife.

-TES