Pride and Prejudice Reviews
February 8, 2015
Adaptation of one of the most popular and enduring 'novels of manners' done to delicious satirical effect and the excessive costuming to go along with it. Garson and Olivier clash and banter until the inevitable climax, but I most enjoyed Edna May Oliver and Mary Boland. Great fun.
May 28, 2014
I love the book, it is hands-down brilliant. And I like this movie, it is delightful, the casting was excellent all around; Olivier and Garson were both excellent in their roles, and Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine De Burgh was brilliant. I deducted one star for costuming and hairstyles of the female actresses in particular. The costuming was completely wrong, more like 1860s styles, which is not correct for the Regency period (1811-1820). Most of the women's hairstyles were ok, but again, some were not correct for the period, which was about 1810. In the first half of the movie, Greer Garson's hair was styled in the then popular 1940s style which looked bizarre, and in the second half, they made an attempt for something a little closer to period and then switched back to the 1940s style. Bizarre. Other than these defects, the movie is completely enjoyable and doesn't stray too far from the book. That being said, it must be remembered that this movie was made during the "Golden Age" of moviemaking in Hollywood, and they lavished it up, sometimes without concern for whether or not everything looked right, doing what might increase ticket sales, the bottom line. Even so, it's well worth watching and appreciating.
May 22, 2014
The classic novel adaptation is strong enough, but Laurence Olivier misses a trick here and doesn't really shine in his leading man role and merely seems to be going through the motions of an already established literary character.
May 17, 2014
This is a very poor film on every level. Even Olivier's performance isn't his best probably due to the poor direction and dreadful script (he probably felt embarrassed playing them). I suspect it was shot in a few weeks. It's an MGM massacre of a great work of Literature. Not content with the original script, this adaptation arrogantly removes key scenes and (bizarrely) adds its own plot lines. It reduces great characters into cynical caricatures and it has non of the wonderful subtitles of the original. Austin without nuance and subtly is just fluff which is what this film is. Painful over acting from the supporting characters and terrible continuity in parts (in one scene Lady Catherine knocks over a small table as she sits down suggesting that each set up was shot in only a handful of takes) round off the what is without doubt the worst adaptation I've ever seen. Poor Olivier having to endure such a production! (The one star is out of respect for him).
February 3, 2009
It was cute... though it definteily strayed from the book... I still really enjoyed it and as always, I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Darcy. Overall, very classic and classy - somewhat reminiscent of "Gone With The Wind" in a way...
October 14, 2013
Caroline Bingley (Frieda Inescot): [observing the Bennet family at the party at Netherfield] Entertaining the rustics is not as difficult as I feared. Any simple, childish game seems to amuse them excessively.
This was alright but the acting was little too hammy for my taste but I would supposed for that time it was an acceptable method of acting. The principal cast (Garson and Olivier) seemed too old for the roles of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet and Olivier's Darcy was much too chatty. I also disliked that Catherine de Bourgh turned out to be a nice lady; I preferred the nastier portrayal of her in the more modern adaptation of this novel. On the plus side, Mrs. Bennet played by Mary Boland was awesome and I loved the ultra snobbish Caroline Bingley (played by Frieda Inescot). Overall, this was an interesting adaptation and a fairly good film to watch; it had it's good parts and bad but I much prefer the more modern version of this film.
September 3, 2013
Delightful and enchanting performance by Greer Garson.
July 23, 2013
An entertaining version of Austen's classic. For those who have read the book and would expect a faithful word-by-word reenactement, they will be surprised: there are significant changes in the film, which reduce the cutting criticism of the classes very known in the book. Though the main leads are as charming as ever, their portrayal isn't very according to the Austen's mind as well: in this film, Darcy is less serious, rigid, and is always running around Elizabeth. But who can argue against Laurence Olivier?
In conclusion, a good and charming adaptation, not too loyal to the book, but still interesting enough to watch.
May 19, 2013
This movie is classic loved it then and the remakes(chick flicks0
May 13, 2013
Jane Austen's books never get old and I am always eagerly anticipating the next adaptation of her books. This time, while waiting, I decided to have a look at an older adpatation from 1940.
Unfortuantely, I cannot agree with the extraordinate ratings. It's not a bad version but is did not touch me as others did. Looking at the different sides of it might explain why.
Greer Garson as a lead actress is a good choice. While she is older than I would have imagined Elizabeth (and so are all the other actors), she perfectly captures the sassiness, the wit and intelligence that are characteristic of Elizabeth. Her sisters with the oldest sister played by the Maureen O'Sullivan and Lydia played by , both actresses I knew from other movies, are perfectly cast as well. Ibviously, since it's the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, the casting of Darcy is a key determinant. And this is where I was very unhappy. Undoubtedly, Laurence Olivier demonstrated superb acting skills in other movies and deserves his place as one of the best actors of his generation. However, here, his character is too plain and weak to attract attention and affection. Ultimately, this leads to an overal disappoiting impression the movie had on me.
In addition to the largely good cast, the dialogues are witty and intelligent. A good mix of Jane Austen's line and modern phrases, keeping a fresh balance. The deviations from the novel were not really necessary but are nevertheless forgivable.
October 28, 2012
Pride And Prejudice is an imperfect, but still very enjoyable romance film. While the script could use more fine-tuning since the film kinda jumps around too much at times, the performances are great, the writing is witty, and it's a consistently entertaining film that's fun to watch.
March 5, 2013
The opulent setting is standard issue fare for 1930s Hollywood, but it strikes the modern viewer as ridiculously inauthentic. While Greer Garson does a nice enough job, the acting overall is little better than high school level. Even Olivier seems wooden. The acting is so over the top that the cast does not seem to know that movies value subtlety and naturalness. The cast seems to be projecting from the stage to the person in the last row, and not to the camera.
February 22, 2013
Really horrible, clothes all wrong, thought it was Gone with the Wind.... really didn't like the characters looking so much alike...girls were all too pretty for the story. Really didn't like this version and I like old movies.
January 15, 2013
I've seen it and its the best in my opinion
December 26, 2012
i did like this version, though the casting was not much settling... Olivier, to me, did seem too tightly wound for Mr. Darcy, he is good but just plain old good..
December 3, 2012
anything old is perfect.
September 30, 2012
Didn't think it was possible to mess up Jane Austen... I've been proven wrong.
July 3, 2012
still the best version of this:warning don't bother with the 2005 kiera knightly version
July 1, 2012
The best movie adaptation of one of my favorite books! The 1995 A & E television version is also good, but this movie is the best if you love Jane Austen.
July 17, 2010
Even though it strays from the book quite a bit, it's a fun adaptation! :)