Pride and Prejudice [based on book] by dir. by

26 September 2005

Genre: ,
Cast: , ,
Setting: ,
Rated :

Sometimes directors really make you think, make you stop and consider their work, make you want to never ever see anything in the cinema ever again because they have killed any desire you might have felt for moving pictures. Wright has almost managed to do this.

I mean, how does one go about transforming Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, a book full of wit and humour, into something so dreadfully boring? And I can’t blame the dialogue, because a lot of it was lifted directly from the book. And I can’t blame the actors because I’ve seen them do so much better in other works, and there is one scene in this film that hints at how good this film could have been. Who is left to blame? Well, the director who instead of giving us a romantic comedy instead decided to show off his camera skills.

Ohh, look at the countryside. See the strange camera angle. And what was with the porcine fetish? Did I really need to get that close to a pig’s testicles?

The one good thing about this film, it was so terrible I was actually in fits of laughter in the middle of it. Never before has seeing some one walking, walking, walking through the misty countryside been so humourous. I’d swear I laughed for ten minutes. And I so wanted to just shout out “How lame is this entire film” but I resisted out of courtesy, although I’m not quite sure if anyone who enjoyed this film deserves any respect at all.

It may seem like I’m being a bit harsh on this film, but that is only because it deserves it. Knightly looked ridiculous in her costumes. All they did was emphasize how flat-chested she is (something that didn’t crop up in Pirates…), and made her look, well terrible. ANd speaking of terrible; Matthew McFadyen, what the hell happened to you? A man who was great as the taciturn, withdrawn character in Spooks, is here a pasty-grey faced twat.

I think it is best if you didn’t put yourself through this hell.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Kelly says:

    Ah yes, just as I suspected. Scathing and titillating… =o)

    I didn't know you had this site!! Maybe I should read your sidebars sometimes, huh? Goodness…

    I also can't stand the way Keira holds her mouth, in any movie, and this was the worst. Aren't I shallow?

  2. Fence says:

    I'm not too fond of Keira. She just annoys me, I think it is the way she talks.

    I'd forgotten how much I disliked this film, but skimming my review it is all coming back to me :)

  3. gfhsh says:

    Well, I liked it rather much.

    However, I can see where you are coming from when you commented that you were practically dying with laughter. There are a few parts that were so quirky that I could not contain myself. For example, the last scene with the foot massage.

    An Keira Knightly, who is a very tasteful in beauty, looked TERRIBLE in this movie. I understand the need to portray what her character might have looked like in that time period and at her social status, but did they try to make her look so ugly? Her face was beautiful, as always. Her bangs, however, were so greasy that it took away from her pretty face. And the costumes she wore–enough said. Either they accentuated her flat chest (which appeared quite full in Pirates), or the colors did nothing for her. Her acting shown through it all, though.