“Damn tedious waste of an evening…”
Mr. Hurst, Pride and Prejudice (A&E)
David and I did not see the newest Pride and Prejudice when it came out in the theater last fall. I was not terribly impressed by the trailers I saw and am not inclined to go to the theater and drop $20 for a movie I’m not totally convinced is worth the money.
However, after it had been out a while I read several reviews online by fellow bloggers. Most of them indicated that while it could never live up to the A&E production, this one was good in its own ways and had something to offer. So when the movie was released on DVD last week, David and I reserved a copy. I had a guarded optimism that perhaps the trailers had misled me and I would enjoy this version even if it couldn’t compare to the other. I went into it with a genuinely open mind, ready to enjoy at least some of it.
Always trust your first instinct.
Several years ago CBS had a TV series called Christy based on the novel of the same name by Christian author Catherine Marshall. I loved it! I own the series on VHS and would gladly pay to convert to DVD if it came out. At the end of what turned out to be the final season there was a huge cliffhanger regarding whether Christy would marry the minister (the safe choice) or follow her heart and hold out for the doctor. Despite the biggest letter writing campaign CBS has ever seen, they canceled the show. It was very sad to not have that storyline resolved. However, a few years later someone decided to do a follow-up movie and resolve that storyline. David and I both looked forward to the movie, but we felt a little apprehensive because most of the major characters had been recast. The original actors and actresses were fabulous and it was hard to picture someone else in the role, but we were hopeful.
We were right. It was EXCRUCIATING to watch. It was so poorly done it was literally physically painful to watch it. I felt like screaming because I thought it would never end. I don’t think I’ve ever felt that way about a movie before or since.
Well, until I watched the new Pride and Prejudice.
Twenty minutes into it my hope was fading fast that it would improve. An hour into it I could have turned it off except for the fact that if I didn’t watch the whole thing I couldn’t write my scathing review. So I stuck it out, watching the counter on the DVD player move SLOWLY forward. Part way through the second half I started laughing out loud and there was nothing funny going on in the movie. David asked me why I was laughing. I told him I had just thought of the perfect quote to use in the opening of my blog post on this movie. (See opening quote.)
Now to be fair, I thought that maybe I didn’t like the movie because it was so short. I mean, they FLEW through some parts and left others out completely. So maybe I was expecting too much from a two hour movie. But, no, that’s not the case. Two good examples of two hour movies that do a great job with their novels are Emma Thompson’s Sense and Sensibility and Winona Ryder’s Little Women. Those movies are incredibly well done within the two hour time constraints. So it wasn’t just that the movie was too short.
It was just poorly, poorly done.
So how did I dislike the movie? Let me count the ways. But before I do that, may I point out something?
David happened to pick up a copy of USA Today the other day (we never read it) and it had a cover story about the production company that produced P&P. When I looked at the article, it all came together why I disliked this production so much. The same company that produced P&P produced the homosexual-themed Brokeback Mountain. I sincerely believe after watching this P&P that there was no intention of producing a movie that was accurate to the storyline. It was a production with an agenda and that agenda appeared to me to be to make this P&P the antithesis of the A&E production. In other words, take everything good and positive and beautiful about that production and replace it with what is ugly, slothful, and negative.
So here is what I liked:
Elizabeth’s hairstyle at the Netherfield Ball
That’s it. I’m not joking. There was NOTHING else I liked about the movie. Well, ok. The pond scene was pretty even if it was inaccurate.
Here is what I didn’t like.
The casting – Could the characters be any less likable? With the possible exception of Mary, every casting was vastly inferior to the A&E version. They were all flat and boring.
What happened to the Wickham storyline? It is a key part of the entire book. They could have added even ten minutes to the movie and at least gotten enough of it in there to make sense. Unless you’ve seen the A&E version or read the book, this part of the movie would have made absolutely no sense.
THE STRINGY HAIR. Good grief! Give them a comb!!!!!!!!! If I had to look at one more set of stringy bangs I thought I was going to throw something at the TV!!!!!
Charlotte Lucas? Hello? What is up with that major storyline rewrite?
No humor. Even the stuff that was supposed to be funny was stupid. When the women were scrambling in the parlor because Bingley and Darcy came to call, it wasn’t even funny because it was so ugly. Were the Bennets really that slovenly and common that they would act like that?
The music was nice – for a new age CD. Period music anyone for a period production? Hello?
Computer generated scenery? I haven’t researched this, but so much of the outdoor scenery shots look completely computer generated. YUCK.
Lydia and Kitty? Which is which? I couldn’t tell them apart. And most of the time I couldn’t understand what they were saying.
Lady Catherine shows up in the middle of the night after the family is in bed? Um, propriety questions come to mind?
Elizabeth and Darcy meet at dawn? Hello? Propriety again? This felt completely contrived.
Bingley – WHAT A DORK!!! He wasn’t happy and easy going. He was an idiot!
Did I mention the STRINGY HAIR?????
What was the deal with Lizzy on the swing?
Was Mr. Bennet a gentleman of some means or a dirt farmer? Was that a pig running through the house?
Could some of the secondary characters be any less appealing? Georgianna? Col. Fitzwilliam? Uncle and Aunt Gardiner?
And speaking of secondary characters… What did they do to poor Caroline Bingley? Yes, she was a proud person, well aware of her station in life, but she was at least human in the book. This woman was so cold and shallow she wasn’t even believable.
Were the nudes at Pemberley really necessary? Elizabeth gazes on a portrait in the book, not a sculpture surrounded by nudes. (Reference earlier comment about production company.)
Have I mentioned the STRINGY HAIR????
Could there be any less chemistry between Elizabeth and Darcy? I mean, really? I could have cared less if these two got together there was so little tension and chemistry.
And speaking of tension… The tension between Elizabeth and Darcy in the A&E production was one of the best parts of the movie. This movie had none.
And, lastly, could the final scene be any dumber? I remember reading that they added it for the American audiences. Yuck.
So, there’s my take on this movie. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2 and I’m really being generous only because it seems like shame to drag anything associated with Jane Austen much lower than that. My recommendation? Avoid this production at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia. Well, no, that won’t work either because it is such a tedious movie that your blood pressure will rise and you will never get to sleep.
Count sheep instead.
A big, fat, hearty AMEN.
I HATED the P&P short version.
The A&E version ROCKED!!!!
Oh, and ditto on the Christy series versus the movie. Blech.
But I will say, I personally just HATE-HATE-HATE the way the A&E production so wildly overplays Mrs. Bennett (and Kitty and Lydia) — they SCREAM, constantly! I know they were crude, boorish and laughable…but I do not believe they screamed all the time. To me, they seemed to be played up for the slapstick value. I believe Austen was more subtle than THAT.
So I liked this production better in that way. To me, Mrs. B at least seemed like someone Mr. B could conceivably have married, whereas in the A&E, I could never imagine why any intelligent man in his right MIND would have been interested. Ever.
Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t much like Donald Sutherland (sp?) as Mr. B. I disliked big parts of it. Particularly that dawn meeting, the midnight visit, and the final scene.
And I am an A&E lover.
But I wouldn’t go so low as you.
Smiling, Susan
Yes, yes, yes, amen, and yes. I agree. What a disappointment!
I absolutely loved the Anne of Green Gables and Anne of Avonlea but loathed entirely the part three. I can’t even remember the name of the dreadful thing right now. Anne was obnoxious and we didn’t see enought of Gilbert. So I understand your feelings.
But….
I loved the new Pride and Prejudice. I was happy that it wasn’t so long….I am not a huge Austin fan so I guess that is why the A and E version was tedious for me. I could have done with less tittering and giggling, however.
I agree with Susan…I wouldn’t go that low. I still thought there was a lovely story told and I also liked it that there was a better representation of a commoners’ lifestyle. In the A and E version, it is hard to believe that they are as needy as they are supposed to be.
Oh Sallie,
My sister would soooo agree. She’s not into blogs (yet *smile*) so I am going to forward her a link to this review. She had many of the same complaints. I personally haven’t read P&P, although I remember an old B&W version my mom had us girls watch as a kid. The most recent brush I have had with it is in “You’ve Got Mail” where Meg Ryans character just gushes over the book.
Thanks for saving me the $1 I would have spent to see it at our local Dollar Theatre.
Many blessings!
You caved. I’m ashamed of you.
I however am still pure and unsullied by this cinematic anathema to all things Austen. I look down my snooty anglophile nose at you and derisively snort in your general direction.
(insert hysterical laughter here)
I crack myself up!!
Thanks for confirming to me – yet again – why I won’t be seeing that movie!!
Now behave yourself – you wouldn’t want to interfere with the cultural development of the baby! (Hee hee hee!!!)
It is always hard to see a different version of something. The BBC (what is A&E?) version was about 6 hours long and my friends and I loved it. They showed it on a Sunday night, so we couldn’t wait to get home from school on a Monday and watch it. I far prefer that to the new movie, but I think it was made with a different agenda. I watched it a second time recently (my mum had the video) and I won’t make an effort to see it again, whereas the original……I could watch time and time again. The story is just too involved to squash into two hours, and some of the lines were delivered far too fast.
I do think they had more relistic age casting though.
The Anne of Green Gables came to my mind too. I am a fan of the books and original film, but the continuing story is just bizarre and has nothing to do with the books at all.
Anyway, sure i have bored you silly by now!
AMEN SALLIE!
Because we just love Sense and Sensibility, my girls and I rented Pride and Prejudice this past week. We were bored silly and didn’t even watch all of it. I HATED Elizabeth’s hair and the way she told everybody off all the time. I didn’t understand half of what they were talking about. I have not seen A&E’s version, but am looking forward to it. In a few weeks after I’ve forgotten what we’ve just seen. 🙂
I’m glad you wrote this. I was planning to watch this. You just saved me so much time -which I don’t have enough of.
Sallie, A big thanks! and relief. I opted to just read the book again and be content with that, but this little naggly thought kept bothering me now & then about what I might have missed….Ha! This entry has been good news. Pam
Sallie…I completely agree! I took my 3 older daughters to see the P&P movie in the theater and was verrrrrrrry disappointed…my girls liked it because they like Kiera Knightly. I didn’t want to spoil their night, so I just kept it to myself, but my reaction was just like yours. I probably had a scowl on my face the whole time, looking at the filth and unrefined, piggish way they had the characters behave. It all struck me as very off…very wrong…just wrong and bad. *scowl* And that ending…totally not Jane Austen….it was more modern Hollywood. Why mess so much with great literature?
The A&E version is so wonderful and well done that this new one about made my stomach turn.
Glad you’re feeling better!
Christie
lol ok here’s my daughter take. You can over look those things and look at the bigger picture, which was Elizabeth’s personality and how classic it is that a wild young obnoxious girl, ends up falling in love with a refined, well educated “rich” man, lol. She says if you didn’t know the background she could understand picking it apart. She enjoyed the movie very much and had that “ohh , kind of look in the clouds” after it was over.
Suzi
Janet sent me over here to read this after what I posted on my blog today — hilarious and great review. I wholeheartedly agree!
Lots of interesting opinions!
Karen – I did not see the third Anne of Green Gables because we heard it was so bad. So I’ve never felt sorry for avoiding that one. 🙂
blestwithsons – I know, I know… I should have known better. Hopefully Peanut won’t be scared for life. It is still early so hopefully he/she was blissfully unaware of what was going on. 😉
Thanks for all the great comments, ladies!
Well Sallie, I think you are right on most things (*grin*) but you lost me here. I totally disagree with you. I LOVED the new version. It was condensed, yes, but it was well done and the movie is packed with visual images that further the story along. I thought the casting was great and thoroughly enjoyed it.
One of the best parts? This Jane was actually pretty – much more believable in the role than the Jane in the A&E version with her strangely small head. She’s so distracting I can’t even watch that version any more!
It’s always fun to see what other people think of movies though. Sorry you didn’t like it. 🙂
Amazing how many differences of opinion there is in all this. I believe that the A&E production followed the characters rather faithfully. Having read the book numerous times in my lifetime – as an adolesent and as an adult(reading it in college, and several times since)my memory is that the A&E version had more substance in it, following the story more accuately. The latest movie is so far off the main story that you can get lost in counting all the errors…although Sallie did a good job of listing the main ones. I hated to see so much humor, sarcasm (and Austen does a GREAT job of that in the book) lost! On the stringy hair issue – AMEN Sallie! Historically the stringy hair is very inaccurte, not just from Austen’s perspective – but from the social structure of the era. WEll, that’s my two cents!
Sallie, I could not agree with you more. If I may be so bold as to add a few things.
1. Bingley going into Jane’s room while she was sick in bed. Like that EVER would have happened.
2.Jane as a character on the whole: This actress, although very pretty, portrayed none of the elegance for which Jane was so admired in the book and the A&E version.
3. The Bennets were not a common family; merely in a bad situation due to a lack of male heirs.
4. Was Kiera Knightley seriously nominated for an Oscar for playing Elizabeth Bennet. All she did was burst into laughter instead of bringing out any of Lizzie’s wit or intelligence…and by the way, she was noted to be pretty (although not as pretty as Jane), so what was up with making such a pretty actress so homely looking???
5. Even the actors who are well respected (Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench) didn’t have the right direction or script to make their characters even remotely funny. No one in the cast or crew seemed to get Jane Austen’s subtle English humor (I found the same problem with the Hollywood version of the Importance of Being Earnest) (OH…with the exception of Rupert Everett).
This movie was like fingernails on a chalkboard to me…portraying none of the wit, sentimentality or intelligence that Jane Austen no doubt would have looked for in a movie version were she alive in this time. In fact, I’m glad she isn’t alive to witness the monstrosity of a mess that Hollywood made out of her beautiful novel.
AAAAMMMMEENNN, Sallie.I’m an MA in English lit, and while I do understand time constraints when making a movie out of a novel, I did not understand this movie. Idle prattle, and a HORRIBLE story line. I wasted a buck on this at Tuesday dollar night at the local theater here in Milwaukee…I’m now imagining other things I could have spent that dollar on. 😉
I enjoyed the movie greatly. I am a huge Austin fan and I did NOT like the A&E production. I thought the actors were old and unbelievable and it took FOREVER for the movie to move along. So I ejoyed the new one more. There were several scenes I thought odd(see others responses) and several characters (Bingly) falling rather flat. However, Lady Catherine de Bourgh in the A&E version did little to inspire terror and awe. Judi Dench was fantastic. I did hate the ending of the new P&P. Insipid. Overall, I vote for the new one. And I was pleased that ‘Emma Thompson’ did an uncredited and unpaid re-write of the script. She receives a “Special Thanks” credit at the end of the film.
I know this is old, but I just saw the movie. I agree with most every negative comment about the new movie. One thing I did like about the new movie, though, is how accurately the filthiness of life in the past is portrayed. While a bit overdone in the movie, life in the past usually never was (or could have been) as antiseptic as portrayed in many movies.
I’m also posting this quite late, but I stumbled across this blog while searching for P&P quotes from the A&E version. Your review made me laugh, and although I have seen the 2005 version, I blocked it from my memory and simply remember hating it. I’m a HUGE fan of the A&E version – anything they do based on a novel is going to be as accurate as possible – and now own it on DVD. (Got it for Christmas, actually!) My husband and I just watched it again (we’ve now seen it countless times) and we laughed just as hysterically as we did the first time around. It’s a wonderful story, and A&E did a marvelous job of casting, prop-placement and sticking with the period. Even the music was period-correct.
I would like to comment on others’ comments regarding how the A&E version was unbelievable. (i.e. How badly off the Bennetts were, why Mr. & Mrs. Bennett ever got married, etc.) I have one simple thing to say: If you don’t understand how life was in England during Victorian times, you won’t understand how accurate the A&E version was. You can’t watch/read a story like this with 21st century American eyes. You MUST put on your Victorian era English glasses. Otherwise you’re right – it will be unvelievable.
The A&E version of P&P is definitely number one on my list of favourite movies of ALL TIME. Stunning review of the 2005 version – it almost made me want to watch it again so that I could see all the little things you pointed out. But then again…why would I torture myself like that? Thanks for this. :o)
Yes, yes me too. We have the videos that came out back in the 90’s and watch them at least twice a year. We just watched them for the first time this year just a couple of weeks ago.
I wasn’t going to see the new version because of bad reviews on blogs but then I read, as Sallie mentioned, to enjoy it for its own sake. So, one gray December Saturday my family traipsed off to the movies to watch it when it first came out.
I must admit, I liked it better than I thought I would. I even bought the dvd, and we watched it again recently as well. However, there is NO comparison to the A&E version-none, nada, zero, period.
Sallie’s review made me laugh out loud and I rarely ever laugh from reading something. Spot on. 🙂
I had to look up what you meant by the A&E Version of Pride & Prejudice (English person I am…hmm I sound like Yoda)…you meant the BBC production with Colin Firth and the famous diving in the lake in his white shirt? Is A&E a TV channel in the US?
I looooved Harrison Ford pre-marriage, but now I’m married I have eyes only for hubby, even if he doesn’t save fly a space ship or go on dangerous archaeological expeditions.
This was fun, I might have a go 🙂
I thoroughly disliked the new P&P for all of the reasons mentioned both in comments and in the review.
After watching it, My mother, sister and I began the commentary on the DVD in hopes of understanding the motivation for the altering of the story. We didn’t get very far, but what I did glean were two things.
1) The director changed the historical setting because he thought the dresses of the previous era were were more attractive, even though he knew the proper era (he said so).
2)During the scene when Miss Bingley says, “He is a man without fault.” Mr. Bingley’s line is (I believe)verbatim from the book. The director’s comment? (and I quote)”I don’t like that line. It sounds more like Jane Austen than Mr. Bingley.”
Umm….
Thank you for you review!
Warmly,
Miss Carey