Pride & Prejudice
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
Carmen Rasmusen, Orlando Seale. A charming, modernized retelling of Jane Austen's beloved story as the ambitious but charming Elizabeth Bennet schemes to win over a hunky bachelor who's several rungs above her in the social ladder. 2004/color/104 min/PG/fullscreen.
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The person who plays Elizabeth Bennet is so very good looking - in a very young Kim Basinger sort of way - that she lights up every scene she is in. The person who plays Darcy is very handsome and British, but more boyishly virile than Colin Firth could play. The romantic leads have great chemistry.
Needless to say, I'm glad I watched this film and I'd recommend it for rainy-day viewing. It's not a date movie because there is no sex, there is very little kissing, there is probably one swear word in the entire movie - did I mention this is set in very Mormon Utah? Refreshingly sweet, lovely to look at. Fun for anyone who ever read the book or saw the other adaptations.
If you like Deep Blue Sea, Sharknado, Napoleon Dynamite, and other movies that somehow work even though they really shouldn't and are actually pretty awful, but then realize how silly they are, so then the awful actually works, then I highly recommend this one. Go in with 0 expectations, maybe a glass of wine, and you should have a pretty good time.
I am so torn here. Ok, so if you compare this amateurish production to a real production then you get a rating of "WTF did I just watch???" But this is an obviously amateur attempt at one of the finest novels ever written. I have seen every version/interpretation of P&P and yes, this is by far the worst. But as far as an amateur goody two shoes attempt its not HORRIBLE. Don't get me wrong, it is bad but it is not painfully bad. More like lame and forgettable bad.
Sound: soundtrack forgettable and I cringed every time I heard a squeaky shoe
camera work: too many awkward closeups, bad framing
makeup: horrible. Practically every chicks skin looked horrible and if an actor does have bad skin then it is up to makeup to know how to camouflage that the actress who played Elizabeth had this gross weird mark on her neck the entire time. During a scene at the bowling alley they attempted to conceal it... it looked like a 8 year old color blind boy applied the concealer. So embarrassing and I couldn't stop staring. Note to makeup, red marks on the skin are incredibly distracting on camera. Its embarrassing for an actor to be forever captured on film with red swollen zits on her face. get it together!
Hair: not bad actually, although I was so NOT a fan of Darcy's giant curls
script: as far as a modern adaptation, it was decent. I don't mind the Mormon aspect at all and if anything it was a cool idea as a way to keep the Regency era ideals relevant in a modern world. As far as the attempts at humor, the reason they failed was because of casting. Basically, the characters who were supposed to be funny were just really, really bad actors and lousy actors should never attempt funny. A good comedic actor could have delivered some laughs, but there were non of those on this particular film.
Which brings me to casting:
Elizabeth: very pretty and decent enough of an actor (compared to the rest of the cast). I think she is supposed to be 26? Looked more like early 30's and besides, why would she be in college? I mean grad school makes sense at 26, as a matter of fact grad school makes way more sense considering the fact she is already writing novels. Everyone looked too old to be in college except for Kitty, Mary, Wickam and Bingly
Darcy: The other decent actor in this crazy movie but I don't like his dumb hair and he is not really dashing enough (hair didn't help) but his piercing blue eyes and sexy accent save him.
Jane: soo, was this the producers attempt at diversity? lol? She was very pretty, not a very good actor but at least she wasn't horrible
Lydia: She was actually well cast, she wasn't great but as far as pulling off an actual character-personality by using her actual acting skills, she was one of the better actors
Kitty:Kind of funny actually. she was able to pull off awkward and dumb without being irritating. Not a good actress by any stretch but she was cute
Mary: forgettable and all around lousy actress
Bingley: im sorry but he was one of the worst. another non comedic actor trying to pull off funny , even worse,"funny airhead", and failing miserably. I mean Charles is supposed to be pretty and just a bit shallow/ non intellectual. This guy delivered weird and stupid. The hell was up with his dancing? The infomercial could have been funny had someone else delivered his lines. Too bad, because he is pretty hot but between his facial expressions and just horrible line delivery...well, his sex appeal quickly drops to 0
Wickam: as far as looks, casting was right on, but he was also forgettable and a lousy actor, although not as bad as Bingley.
Collins: he wins the worst actor award for this movie. Just awful
Caroline and Anna:.... i can't remember because their presence was that forgettable, not because they were bad actors but it was like at the end of shooting the producers were like "oh crap, we forgot to include the sisters! Really, in this adaptation, Anna was actually an unnecessary character. But they should have spent more time with Carolines character. She was a decent actor and she could have brought some much needed conflict or interest to this dull movie
So was this worse than I expected? Yes, the answer to that question is a resounding YES it was actually worse than I expected and I knew going into this it was an independent Mormon of all things, production. But while i didn't enjoy it, I still like the concept and at least Darcy and Elizabeth didn't suck..