The story is based on Jane Austens novel about five sisters - Jane Elizabeth Mary Kitty and Lydia Bennet - in Georgian England. Their lives are turned upside down when a wealthy young man (Mr. Bingley) and his best friend (Mr. Darcy) arrive in their neighborhood.
Review
I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them) you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however who had seen neither was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though or even a filmgoer who dislikes historical inaccuracies it will be painful to sit through this.
Ugh the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldnt have fared half so badly if theyd had a decent script perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austens work.
What travesties were committed Well youll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Dont you dare judge me Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austens eloquent pen but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that in the book were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all when they do try to stick a bit closer to the books writing the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austens phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austens words she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However for me it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austens most beloved work.
The casting did have potential though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden though I find him tolerably handsome enough misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.
Oh but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas Though he was in the movie for under two minutes I daresay and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.
On a wardrobe note I would kill for Miss Bingleys dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown Please! More Versace than Austen that is sure) And poor Keira all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh and Im sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately they didnt catch him soon enough to comb the actresses tresses before filming rolled.
In short with this new Hollywood version bid adieu to Austens eloquence subtlety and wit because youll be getting the complete opposite.