|
Post by mightyjack on Dec 3, 2005 19:46:21 GMT -5
I know, I'm a girl - but I like Jane Austin. I went with my sister in law and her daughter, for some reason my brother didn't want to see it. lol
I liked it, Emma was better, so was Sense and Sensibility. But it was good. The guy playing Mr. Darcy was kind of bland. Therr to look good brooding/ But Kiera Knightly was wonderful.
Yeah Mr. A; I know she's rail thin, but she has a sparkling smile and reminds me of Audrey Hepburn in charm. (Though not quite in Audrey's league).
Donald Sutherland was great as always.
Many funny moments and I love the language in Austins works. The dialog was a joy to listen to.
Not a flick for those -macho- men, but if your a well rounded fellow who's not afraid to show his sensitive side, it's a nice date movie.
|
|
|
Post by KGB on Dec 3, 2005 23:29:58 GMT -5
P&P has been one of my three favorite books for my entire adult life and I wouldn't mind seeing this new version, but I just don't see how it can possibly stack up the 1995 BBC version, which, at 5 hours in length, was able to remain largely faithful to the book. I suspect that it will be more like the 1940 Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier version, enjoyable in its own way (how could any rendition of Austen not be?) but with too many corners cut.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 5, 2005 13:06:51 GMT -5
Pride & Prejudice is one of my favorite books. I did not expect to enjoy this movie, as from the previews it seemed too much like a gothic romance to be true to Austen, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and was very impressed with how well done it is. It had more emotional intensity than other Jane Austen productions I've seen, and I liked that. It had the right mix of clever dialogue and social mannerisms that is a trademark of Austen, while also showing the emotional turmoil and change in Elizabeth's feelings as she falls in love with a man she used to loathe.
It really was a pleasure to watch, with a beautiful setting and costumes and some stylish camerawork. Of course it did not have as much detail as the book and the 5-hour BBC production, but it retained the essential elements that defined the characters. This is probably the most vivacious, warm Austen production I've ever seen.
Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen had sharp chemistry and both did a fine job. I believe MacFadyen was quite good as the handsome, dour, proud but shy Darcy. I knew him from the show MI-5 on A&E, and he was the only reason I ever watched that show. I must put in a good word for him, as Darcy is very important, and MacFadyen was convincing as the proud gentleman whose true goodness is revealed gradually. In fact, Darcy is the character with whom I identify the most, and MacFadyen had my soul right with him. Knightley, however, was certainly the driving force as the passionate, clever, strong-spirited Elizabeth, delighting in wounding Darcy's pride with her sharp wit. Who wouldn't fall in love with this Elizabeth? Ah, poor Darcy (thus poor MacFadyen); such a strong, fine, handsome gentleman is yet overpowered by this unforgettable woman Elizabeth (and Knightley).
This movie was truly a delight. Charming, humorous, warm and touching. Much to my surprise when I saw this with my mom on Thanksgiving weekend, the theater was packed, and there were many men in the audience! And they seemed to really enjoy it!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 5, 2005 13:59:12 GMT -5
Just an opinion, not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, but...
...holy crap, do I hate Jane Austen.
As an unemployable bum with a Literature Degree, I was subjected to her treacle every semester for 3 years. Is there really any discernable difference between "Emma", "Pride & Prejudice" and "Sense & Sensibility"? I say no. Rich girl, poor boy, rich snobby boy, tea parties, garden parties, class struggle, choosing love over social standing, give me a frickin' break.
Nothing more than 19 century soap operas. If Austen were alive today, she'd be hacking out "Guiding Light" scripts.
Now that I've said it, more power to you MJ. You're a better man than I. I'm glad Kiera is good in it. I don't have ill-will towards her acting (even though I could floss with her), and Donald Sutherland does always rule.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 5, 2005 14:06:40 GMT -5
Just an opinion, not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, but... ...holy crap, do I hate Jane Austen. As an unemployable bum with a Literature Degree, I was subjected to her treacle every semester for 3 years. Is there really any discernable difference between "Emma", "Pride & Prejudice" and "Sense & Sensibility"? I say no. Rich girl, poor boy, rich snobby boy, tea parties, garden parties, class struggle, choosing love over social standing, give me a frickin' break. Nothing more than 19 century soap operas. If Austen were alive today, she'd be hacking out "Guiding Light" scripts. Now that I've said it, more power to you MJ. You're a better man than I. I'm glad Kiera is good in it. I don't have ill-will towards her acting (even though I could floss with her), and Donald Sutherland does always rule. How many ways do I agree with you, Mr. A.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Dec 5, 2005 14:23:04 GMT -5
I did like Northanger Abbey, but I think that was because it was a comedy and not really about what Austen traditionally wrote.
|
|
|
Post by tomservo92 on Dec 5, 2005 17:37:00 GMT -5
I will sum this movie up with the following:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Dec 5, 2005 17:46:50 GMT -5
I will sum this movie up with the following: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ A fair summation of the book too.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 5, 2005 18:14:36 GMT -5
We were going to go see it but my friend made us go see Zorro instead.
|
|
|
Post by tomservo92 on Dec 5, 2005 18:22:02 GMT -5
Good move.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 5, 2005 18:30:08 GMT -5
I was upset but statistically it sounds more likely I would have been bored by Pride n Prejudice
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 5, 2005 23:48:42 GMT -5
I did like Northanger Abbey, but I think that was because it was a comedy and not really about what Austen traditionally wrote. NA was meant to be a send-up of gothic novels that were popular during the time. And, I'll admit, it's the one book of hers I've read that I actually like. But anything sincere...no.
|
|
yousonuva
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not insane but I am King of the Universe
Posts: 14,309
|
Post by yousonuva on Dec 6, 2005 1:04:35 GMT -5
I didn't see it.
Saw the old one though. It was neat.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on Dec 6, 2005 2:49:52 GMT -5
Sometimes I weep for my generation. Geee, that "ZZZZZZ" comment was deep. I need to just forget these movie threads altogether. The end results always depress the hell out of me. Yeah, I think this is the last time I visit Mitchells.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 6, 2005 3:08:39 GMT -5
Geee, that "ZZZZZZ" comment was deep. Yeah, nothing like an informed opinion to influence us all. Since you actually saw the movie, MJ, I'm inclined to believe you. The problem is that I read the book, and find it to be pretty un-redeemable, regardless of any moviemaking acumen. And please don't leave us. If I start a "Hard Day's Night" thread, will you stay?
|
|