That's how much I do not like the movie version of Pride and Prejudice starring Kiera Knightley. Let me just start off with her. Kiera Knightley does not have a lick of gravity or sparkle, and she is completely unbelievable as Elizabeth Bennet. Her mouth hangs open showing her whole bottom row of teeth for half of the movie. I don't know what her costumer and hairdresser were thinking. Her clothes make it seem like her family is poor, when they are moderately wealthy. Her hair is almost always messy and plain. Keira Knightley is a very pretty woman, and it seems like they uglied her up on purpose for the movie.
Now, on to the screenplay. They took nearly every line of the book and changed it just a little bit to make it sound awkward and trite. I understand that the screenplay cannot be a copy of the book, but Pride and Prejudice is a success for a reason. Why not use as much of the original language as is possible while adjusting for the understanding of the modern audience and the length of the movie?
Lizzy's character is completely strange in the movie, for more reasons than just Keira Knightley's acting inability. Since when does she swing in a cattleyard in her bare feet? When would she ever wander around Mr. Collins's house in her pajamas? When would she actually show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders? It was ridiculous.
The other characters are no better. Could anyone imagine Mr. Darcy bursting into rooms without announcing himself, especially to deliver letters to half-dressed ladies? Would Georgiana run to a complete stranger giggling without being introduced? Would the Gardners eat in the public rooms of a loud inn? Would Lady Catherine arrive at Longborne in the middle of the night and talk with Elizabeth while she in her pajamas? With the way Lizzy wanders about alone with men (especially the last scene), it's hard to understand how they could have all been so shocked when Lydia ran off with Wickham.
The use of the scenery is weird as well. Most of the views of the Bennett's estate seem to be dirty. They weren't a family of farmers; they were landed gentry. Why would there be a pig in the house? And I thought it was extremely weird that the camera should focus in on its testicles. What is that supposed to mean? P&P has the least amount of testosterone of any book in the English language; why would it have testicles in it?
The only bright spot in this movie is Judi Dench. Her portrayal of Lady Catherine de Burgh was marvelous, as is every role I have ever seen her in. I only wish the screenplay had included more scenes with her in them. Mr. Bennet is not too bad, either.
The movie was not at all elegant, not at all refined, not witty and bright like a Jane Austen novel. Mr. Darcy is a milk sop, and I don't believe him capable of feeling passion. Lizzy is dull and ordinary and constantly appears in her nightgown. Caroline Bingley wears sleeveless dresses to a ball. Wickham is about 16 years old and not capable enough to pull off a seduction. It is just all ridiculous.
The movie has such a trashy feeling, I half expected Mr. Darcy and Lizzy to end up with a shotgun wedding and chug some Budweiser at the reception. Book adaptation FAIL. Go see the A&E version with Colin Firth, or even the BBC version.
Now, on to the screenplay. They took nearly every line of the book and changed it just a little bit to make it sound awkward and trite. I understand that the screenplay cannot be a copy of the book, but Pride and Prejudice is a success for a reason. Why not use as much of the original language as is possible while adjusting for the understanding of the modern audience and the length of the movie?
Lizzy's character is completely strange in the movie, for more reasons than just Keira Knightley's acting inability. Since when does she swing in a cattleyard in her bare feet? When would she ever wander around Mr. Collins's house in her pajamas? When would she actually show up at Netherfield with her hair down around her shoulders? It was ridiculous.
The other characters are no better. Could anyone imagine Mr. Darcy bursting into rooms without announcing himself, especially to deliver letters to half-dressed ladies? Would Georgiana run to a complete stranger giggling without being introduced? Would the Gardners eat in the public rooms of a loud inn? Would Lady Catherine arrive at Longborne in the middle of the night and talk with Elizabeth while she in her pajamas? With the way Lizzy wanders about alone with men (especially the last scene), it's hard to understand how they could have all been so shocked when Lydia ran off with Wickham.
The use of the scenery is weird as well. Most of the views of the Bennett's estate seem to be dirty. They weren't a family of farmers; they were landed gentry. Why would there be a pig in the house? And I thought it was extremely weird that the camera should focus in on its testicles. What is that supposed to mean? P&P has the least amount of testosterone of any book in the English language; why would it have testicles in it?
The only bright spot in this movie is Judi Dench. Her portrayal of Lady Catherine de Burgh was marvelous, as is every role I have ever seen her in. I only wish the screenplay had included more scenes with her in them. Mr. Bennet is not too bad, either.
The movie was not at all elegant, not at all refined, not witty and bright like a Jane Austen novel. Mr. Darcy is a milk sop, and I don't believe him capable of feeling passion. Lizzy is dull and ordinary and constantly appears in her nightgown. Caroline Bingley wears sleeveless dresses to a ball. Wickham is about 16 years old and not capable enough to pull off a seduction. It is just all ridiculous.
The movie has such a trashy feeling, I half expected Mr. Darcy and Lizzy to end up with a shotgun wedding and chug some Budweiser at the reception. Book adaptation FAIL. Go see the A&E version with Colin Firth, or even the BBC version.
