Pride and Prejudice - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Pride and Prejudice Reviews

Page 1 of 27
½ April 3, 2016
I was really enjoying this movie on TCM...right until the last 15 minutes. I understand films sometimes deviate from novels but Lady Catherine did not like Elizabeth. Making her some sort of ambassador for Mr. Darcy left me irritated.
July 16, 2015
It's good. Very good. One of the original tales brought to the big screen of the Jane Austin novel of the same name. It's a pretty fun story and the awesome personality of Liz and Darcy make the story so fun to watch. The plot can drag on sometimes like all films do of this era, but still it's a very good film.
May 30, 2015
Solid adaptation, but the 95 version clearly blows it out of the water. Olivier is probably very good on his own and in his time as Darcy, but Firth's performance overshadows Olivier's for me in every way. The movie does a good job with the basic plot, although some of the characters get a little short shifted.
½ February 8, 2015
Played for a comedy...kinda odd...but still somewhat amusing. Fun fact, the screenplay was written by Aldous Huxley!!!
½ 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 26, 2014
This movie was interesting. It's told of a society where class and money was nothing to be toyed with; it was life. This movie was all about marrying off 5 daughters to secure their future at the top of society.
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).
December 7, 2013
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...
½ 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.
½ August 10, 2013
Well made, Olivier was perfect. It seemed that they made the Bennett's out to be greater than they should, they seemed to be equals in dress, landscaping and decoure. Other shortcomings were merely spoken of as in the novel. The story was also shortened to include less travel and only described the things that took place.
½ August 5, 2013
Olivier as Mr. Darcy was perfect! Greer Garson was a really good Lizzy too.
½ 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.
½ May 19, 2013
This movie is classic loved it then and the remakes(chick flicks0
May 15, 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.
March 25, 2013
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.
½ March 5, 2013
Strays too far from the novel. If someone has not read the book more than once, they might enjoy this adaptation. However when you know the book backwards and forwards, the script becomes as annoying as the mother. The only bright spot to the movie is the cast. Olivier as Mr. Darcy is the best representation to date. Too bad the writers took too many liberties with the story to overshadow his performance.
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.
Page 1 of 27