Watch Pride & Prejudice For Free

Great Film overall

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The music was too loud, the dialogue was too fast and the entire pace of the movie was too fast. I didn't hear one word uttered over the loud music. Since I know the story well, I was able to follow it but much of the best of the book is left out. The plots and costumes were good that's all I can say good about it.

Keira Knightly looks constipated during the whole movie. Not an ideal actor to play the role of Lizzy Bennet. Let's not start about. No character does justice to the book. It actually deserves just 1 star but the background score made me give it a 2.

Do yourself a favor. Watch with your significant other. This is Just a FANTASTIC movie at all levels. Extremely entertaining (NO LULLS) Smart script. Incredible cinematography great acting and story. Draws you in and doesnt let go until its over. It comes loaded with all of the old school grace and charm that is lacking in our society. As an example one scene where Mr. Darcy is helping Lizzie into her carriage he gently guides her hand as the camera zooms in on their hands and then backs off to Mr. Darcy walking away then zooms in to him extending his fingers showing the effect just her touch had on him. Another Scene Lizzies sister is wearing a sheer white dress to a ball and her love interest walks up behind her and for a split second grasps the dress material between his thumb and forefinger. We get the point. He is mesmerized by her presence. I would be remiss if i didnt mention the FLAWLESS character of Lizzies father Donald Sutherland. His role as father to several daughters is amazing. Especially the relationship between him and Lizzie, his obvious favorite. Any father who has daughters will totally relate.One complaint. The old english verbiage is so pedantic that i like to watch with subtitles to understand - "what they hell did she say?? 10 stars for sure and BRAVO !!!

This film does not even deserve 1 out of 10. Despite my heavy bias towards the comparatively brilliant 1995 BBC adaptation, I was willing to give this film a chance, parting with £6.99 of precious money on Google Play. I will admit, however, that I came with the full expectation of this film being inferior to Firth and Ehle's adaptation, primarily because I never believed that Keira Knightley could carry the role of Elizabeth Bennet and because I had seen a short clip of the first marriage proposal which had been deliberately altered from its original context. However, if I had been proved wrong, I would have accepted this and loved the 2005 movie just as well as the 1995 adaptation, and, of course, Austen's timeless classic.As it happens, the film is just as deficient as I expected-- and perhaps even more so. The litany of faults, which I am not at all ashamed to denounce, are so great that each following scene has me either staring at the screen in disbelief, or with my head in my hands. Such disrespect to Jane Austen's work is, in her words, not to be borne. We begin with Keira Knightley's "portrayal" of Elizabeth Bennet. Putting aside the gross historical inconsistencies, apparently insisted upon by the director in the name of God knows what (certainly not authenticity), we have none of the characteristic wit and livelihood that is found in Austen's work, or in Ehle's as yet unmatched portrayal. Knightley mistakes Elizabeth's spirits for endless gaiety, missing the mark entirely. There is, of course, the distracting spectacle of anachronistic hair, anachronistic dresses and an anachronistic attitude that often reverts back to toneless repetition of the novel in key parts. The casting of Charles Bingley is abominable. Bingley might be easygoing and suggestible, but he is no wet blanket or simpleton like the man portrayed here. I could hardly bear to look at him, and cringed every time he opened his mouth. Macfayden's Darcy I have read was considered by some reviewers as superior to that of Colin Firth. Had I been drinking water, I would have spat it out all over my screen. Quite apart from the unrealistically crowded dancing hall (the first ball was at Meryton, and far fewer people came), Darcy came across as sullen, repeating his lines like a robot and quite misunderstanding the complexity of Darcy's character shown even in the early stages of the novel. I was extremely disappointed in the casting of Mr Bennet; his voice was so gravelly, I could hardly hear his delivery of the classic witty lines so brilliantly portrayed by Benjamin Whitrow (RIP) from, yes, the 1995 adaptation-- not to mention the book. In every scene, he looks drunk and bored. Mrs. Bennet was nowhere near as garrulous as one enjoyed (maybe to excess) in the 1995 adaptation, and of course in the book. Jane Bennet could not have been more boring. No one else was memorable at all. As for mashing several important scenes into larger ones, this tactic served to greatly diminish the irony and wit and deeper meanings in Austen's text. Indeed, much of Austen's brilliant wit was thrown out of the window in favour of over-romanticized scenes between Elizabeth and Darcy that, much like the other interactions in this film, bear little resemblance to the formality of the Regency period. This was not the 21st century at all, and other reviewers who actually appreciate and love the books (not to mention the seminal 1995 version), have taken great pains to detail the profligate attitude towards vital historical details-- without which, one cannot understand the power of this brilliant novel. In short, save your time. Read the book, then stick with Firth and Ehle.