Pride and Yukiness
I TRIED. I tried to be open-minded. After all, Jane Austen is Jane Austen, right? I tried not to compare the most recent film version of Pride and Prejudice with the 1995 BBC version. But after 24-hours of reflection, I have decided that even if this one had come first, I still wouldn't have liked it.
1) What WAS with the statues at Pemberley? Why were the shades of Pemberley thus polluted with weird Narnia-like alabastor statues? When Lizzy walked by the one with the enormous backside, my sister erupted into hysterical laughter. We both agreed afterwards that it would have been funny if Darcy had been a naked statue instead of just a bust.
2)I couldn't tell Kitty and Lydia apart. Was it just me?
3) My mom pointed out that the grounds at Longbourne probably looked so small to Lady Catherine because the most ginormous tree on the planet was in the yard. Lizzy looked like a dwarf next to it.
4) That pig had ginormous balls. WTF? It's like in fan fiction when someone writes "velvety, chocolate-colored cinammon eyes." Did we really need to see the pig's backside? And what was it doing in the house?
5) And with so many animals running around, I wouldn't have run around barefoot the way that Lizzie did throughout the entire movie.
6) I heard that in England, audiences weren't subjected to the gross calf-rubbing "I love you, Mrs. Darcy *kiss* Mrs. Darcy *kiss kiss* Mrs. Darcy" scene at the very end of the movie. I wish American audiences could have avoided it (although my mom thought it was romantic, so I know that some people liked it). It reminded me of that awful scene in Star Wars III where Anakin and Padme declare their love for each other over and over and over and over again.
7) Couldn'tunderstandawordDonaldSutherlandmutteredthroughouttheentiremovie
8) Wickham, aka, Orlando-Bloom-clone with effeminite-ribbon-in-hair
9) Could Keira Knightly be any skinnier? Of course, she's absolutely beautifuly. I won't hold that against her, but there seemed to be an awful lot of closeups of her large doe-eyes. Did we have to see her stare in a mirror for five minutes?
10) Sorry... but not-just-anyone-in-a-white-shirt can be Colin First. At the end, did we have to watch Darcy approach for a million years?
11) Does the Bennet family do anything except listen at doors?
Some of the dialogue was rearranged in such a way that it seemed incredibly awkward. I was thinking about the Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility, and what a good movie that was. It didn't follow the book by the letter, but the screenplay was such that the story made sense to those who hadn't read the book. And this version of P & P is getting good review! WTF? (I realize this is only my own opinion...)
Just to bring Harry Potter into the conversation, this version of P & P reminded me of the Harry Potter movies. They get the basic story, but it doesn't ever feel complete. I'm waiting for the BBC to do their 87-hour version of Harry Potter. Stephen Hunter said in his review of Pride and Prejudice:
"Is it as good as the superb BBC miniseries of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle as Lizzy and Colin Firth as Darcy? How the hell would I know? Do you think I watched it? Get serious. Life's way too short for five hours in front of the tube watching ponces and twits flounce and scrape and talk tony Brit. However, many learned people say it is not as good, and that would therefore become my official position.
I found that pretty funny. Sure, that's true. But there are some of us who would gladly spend five hours watching something good than two hours watching something dumb.
Anyway, I don't want to bash it completely. I thought it was fun to move the time period back, and I actually found Mr. Collins and Charlotte in this version to be more believable. I was amused by drunken Mrs. Bennet. And even though it's out-of-character for the book, I enjoyed the fact that they showed some true affection between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. You could at least sort of understand how they might have produced five daughters.
But I just had to get that out I feel better now.
1) What WAS with the statues at Pemberley? Why were the shades of Pemberley thus polluted with weird Narnia-like alabastor statues? When Lizzy walked by the one with the enormous backside, my sister erupted into hysterical laughter. We both agreed afterwards that it would have been funny if Darcy had been a naked statue instead of just a bust.
2)I couldn't tell Kitty and Lydia apart. Was it just me?
3) My mom pointed out that the grounds at Longbourne probably looked so small to Lady Catherine because the most ginormous tree on the planet was in the yard. Lizzy looked like a dwarf next to it.
4) That pig had ginormous balls. WTF? It's like in fan fiction when someone writes "velvety, chocolate-colored cinammon eyes." Did we really need to see the pig's backside? And what was it doing in the house?
5) And with so many animals running around, I wouldn't have run around barefoot the way that Lizzie did throughout the entire movie.
6) I heard that in England, audiences weren't subjected to the gross calf-rubbing "I love you, Mrs. Darcy *kiss* Mrs. Darcy *kiss kiss* Mrs. Darcy" scene at the very end of the movie. I wish American audiences could have avoided it (although my mom thought it was romantic, so I know that some people liked it). It reminded me of that awful scene in Star Wars III where Anakin and Padme declare their love for each other over and over and over and over again.
7) Couldn'tunderstandawordDonaldSutherlandmutteredthroughouttheentiremovie
8) Wickham, aka, Orlando-Bloom-clone with effeminite-ribbon-in-hair
9) Could Keira Knightly be any skinnier? Of course, she's absolutely beautifuly. I won't hold that against her, but there seemed to be an awful lot of closeups of her large doe-eyes. Did we have to see her stare in a mirror for five minutes?
10) Sorry... but not-just-anyone-in-a-white-shirt can be Colin First. At the end, did we have to watch Darcy approach for a million years?
11) Does the Bennet family do anything except listen at doors?
Some of the dialogue was rearranged in such a way that it seemed incredibly awkward. I was thinking about the Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility, and what a good movie that was. It didn't follow the book by the letter, but the screenplay was such that the story made sense to those who hadn't read the book. And this version of P & P is getting good review! WTF? (I realize this is only my own opinion...)
Just to bring Harry Potter into the conversation, this version of P & P reminded me of the Harry Potter movies. They get the basic story, but it doesn't ever feel complete. I'm waiting for the BBC to do their 87-hour version of Harry Potter. Stephen Hunter said in his review of Pride and Prejudice:
"Is it as good as the superb BBC miniseries of 1995 starring Jennifer Ehle as Lizzy and Colin Firth as Darcy? How the hell would I know? Do you think I watched it? Get serious. Life's way too short for five hours in front of the tube watching ponces and twits flounce and scrape and talk tony Brit. However, many learned people say it is not as good, and that would therefore become my official position.
I found that pretty funny. Sure, that's true. But there are some of us who would gladly spend five hours watching something good than two hours watching something dumb.
Anyway, I don't want to bash it completely. I thought it was fun to move the time period back, and I actually found Mr. Collins and Charlotte in this version to be more believable. I was amused by drunken Mrs. Bennet. And even though it's out-of-character for the book, I enjoyed the fact that they showed some true affection between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. You could at least sort of understand how they might have produced five daughters.
But I just had to get that out I feel better now.