The 1940 "Pride and Prejudice" is a good, if 'Hollywoodized' version of Jane Austin's famous novel. Greer Garson is at least 15 years too old to play Elizabeth Bennet, the film is set 30 years later than the novel (supposedly to allow use of the sumptuous gowns left over from "Gone with the Wind") and the ending has been sweetened. Never-the-less, the film remains quite enjoyable. Although not really looking the ingénue, Garson is quite good, as is Olivier, who plays the misunderstood Mr. Darcy. The rest of the cast are fine, especially Ed Quinn as Mr. Bennet. All in all, a good version of the oft-filmed romance.

Pride and Prejudice (1940): Dir: Robert Z. Leonard / Cast: Greer Garson, Lawrence Olivier, Mary Boland, Edna May Oliver, Maureen O'Sullivan: Overrated contrived drivel about status, class and wealth. It is one of those opposites attract romantic films where one hates the other while viewers already know what these airheads fail to realize. And listening to Greer Garson accuse Lawrence Olivier of being proud, while he counters about her being a tight ass quickly turns the film into a corny manipulative chore to sit through. Director Robert Z. Leonard does his best and he is backed by superb sets and art direction as well as appealing locations. The screenplay however jerks us around with Greer refusing to dance with Olivier and vice versa before they embrace with that final shot long kiss that is gut wretchingly predictable at best. In supporting roles there is Mary Boland who apparently wants her daughters not only to marry, but to do so in a wealthy family. She spends much of the film feeling ill and making viewers feel the same. Then there is Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine who comes off as stuck up and arrogant. Maureen O'Sullivan plays Garson's sister and she is about as bland as the rest of the cast here. The point of the film addresses our finger-pointing methods of distinguishing a person's worth but the real oversight is the popularity of this undeserving charade. Score: 5 / 10

The atrocious costumes alone are enough to make me want to take a flamethrower to the screen. They are hideous! And they are not Recency era costumes.More importantly, Lizzy, played by Greer Garson, is a walking disaster. First of all, she is too old for the part. Secondly, she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. She comes off as having more pride than Darcy, while at the same time, looking like an idiot.The story is not true to Austen either, and while I am not an Austen purist, I think the liberties they took perverted the whole meaning of the story. Darcy seemed to love Lizzy almost from the start, and the only time we see his "pride" is during his proposal. There are lots of other differences too, which are not so important.Overall, I think this film was an insult to the wit and intelligence of Jane Austen.

A few joke spoilers in here! Not much of the plot given away… I have read several reviews here that scandalize this movie for the great liberties taken with the source material. It's all true, of course. But I think what some people fail to appreciate is that the approach to "literary adaptations" and movies in general was very different in 1940. It was a very distressing time. There was a war going on, people were poor and frightened and wanted unchallenging entertainment, romance and comedy. Apart from the war, historical accuracy and closeness to the original were generally less important back then than they are now. So I don't think you can judge the movie by todays' standards. If you do, it's your own fault for missing the point. If you don't but still don't like it, that's another matter. Austen purists would probably not enjoy it much.Having said that, I do not think that the many departures from the original really injure Austens intentions that often (I've read the book many times, loved it and understood it, just to make that plain). Many of my favourite lines from the novel are in the script, produced more or less verbatim but given a more comical twist… like Lizzy aping Darcy's pompous comment "I'm in no mood to give consequence to the lower classes at play"… hilarious! You can tell that Aldous Huxley was involved in writing the screenplay. It is – and I hate to say this, because I love Austen – far funnier than the book. Austens book doesn't lack humour, but it is subtle and intelligent. There is often a serious note to the humour. When Lizzy teases Darcy in the book, he completely fails to respond and she takes this as proof of his arrogance. Not so here, the humour is very blatant.Where the screenplay DOES change Austens intentions, I think you have to blame the shortness of the movie (no movie could have done the book justice in that time, it's just a blank impossibility) and the time at which it was made. Darcy is too nice. Faaar too nice. But Lawrence Olivier is at his most charming (besides being one of the most gorgeous-looking men ever to walk the earth, if you ignore the two pounds of brilliantine in his hair). Greer Garsons Lizzy is intelligent, cheeky, full of humour and pricelessly amusing. Mrs Bennet is fantastically funny and Lady Catherine made me howl with laughter. "Give the chickens hot food, Mrs Collins. If they still don't lay, it means they are incorrigible. They must be killed and boiled, killed and boiled!" Of course the costumes are completely wrong, too. I think people just preferred Victorian-derived big fluffy affairs to regency costume back then, or MGM just had some lying around from some other movie and were too cheap to make new ones. I'm not sure. I don't much care for changes like that, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. Also, Lady Catherine's role as involuntary matchmaker is changed. Here she does it deliberately, which is completely wrong. But on the whole, I found it believable enough. The love story between Jane and Bingley is very very cute (perhaps a bit too cute, some reviewer used the expression "sugar coating" and I find it applies very well… however I don't agree with "little bite") In short: This movie falls short as a literary adaptation. If you judge it as one, it's one of the least faithful of all (together with the 2005 version which cannot boast any of the excuses I made for this movie earlier).As a movie, however, it's a masterpiece.If you're not a purist or haven't read the book, don't deprive yourself of the pleasure of enjoying this gem of a comedy.If you are an Austen purist (and there' s nothing wrong with that) it will doubtlessly annoy you… so steer clear.