This is an excellent version of Pride and Prejudice second only to the lauded and beloved 1995 production. Elizabeth Garvie's "fine eyes" and bright performance is a standout. She is lovely and likable. I would put it on par with Jennifer Ehle's interpretation. Unfortunately David Rintoul's performance is a real hindrance. He is as stiff and expressionless as a board. He moves through the film as a Zombie. This would have been fine for most of the production, but he almost never unbends to show us his true colors at the end. He only smiles when he is inviting Mr. Gardiner to go fishing, and even then he looks like his face would crack from the effort. Darcy must be shown to have evolved into someone Elizabeth could love and like. Colin Firth revealed Darcy to be shy as well as proud and it was a charming portrayal. For much of his portrayal, I was looking forward to the change when Darcy finally melts. I was very disappointed. What a lost opportunity! It was very vexing! All of the other actors stand up quite well to the classic, especially Jane, and Mr. Collins. Jane is, in this version, much more of the beauty she is described. Susanna Harker in the 1995 version is attractive and interesting looking but she is not really a beauty, in my opinion. I do prefer the more comedic performance of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet. Julia Salwaha killed as Lydia, and unfortunately this one was not up to snuff by comparison.

This early BBC mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" is the first production to flesh out most of the significant characters of Jane Austen's novel. Of course, it needed the nearly 4 ½ hours to do that. The production values are very good. The scenery and filming are excellent. The cast is very capable, but only a couple of the performances seem exceptional. Those would be Sabina Franklyn as Jane Bennett and Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Irene Richard also was quite good as Charlotte Lucas. David Rintoul made a striking figure for Fitzwilliam Darcy. But, in his transformation at the end, his character still seemed to be dour. There was no apparent warming and enthusiasm with his love for Elizabeth. Elizabeth Garvie is good as Elizabeth, but I think her character was too uncertain at times. She sometimes seemed wishy-washy. Whether this was from her interpretation of the role, or the director's lead, it seemed to weaken the character. I don't think that's the image of Elizabeth that Austen had in mind. Overall, I just didn't sense much life or enthusiasm in the characters. Before this 1980 mini-series, the BBC had made three other mini-series of P&P — in 1952, 1958 and 1967. But those were all in the 3-hour range, with 30-minute installments. They barely touched on some of the characters. The interest has been there for Jane Austen since at least the last half of the 20th century. So at intervals the BBC would put out a new production. Yet, none seemed to improve on the story. By that I mean, succeeding versions didn't add much more from the story than the earlier ones. And no exceptional stars or role insights emerged. So, the preferred version for many movie buffs over four decades was likely the 1940 film with its cast of big name stars – Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edmund Gwenn, and Edna May Oliver. But, with the 1980 mini-series, we had the first flushing out of characters that were ignored or barely mentioned in the movies and shorter series. While it's not a particularly exciting rendition, the 1980 mini-series production is a good wholesome treatment of Austen's great novel of pride and prejudice. And, it would retain the foremost position of P&P films until 1995 and the last great mini-series on the story. A word to the wise – for those who may want to acquire or watch all the various versions of Pride and Prejudice. Watch this 1980 mini-series version before you watch the 1995 version. The difference will become pleasantly clear when watching the second series. To do it in reverse invites awareness of the differences that will be not so pleasant and may even lead to uneasiness or lack of interest when watching this series last.

The 1980 version of "Pride and Prejudice" is by FAR the best, it is truer to the spirit of the novel. Elizabeth Garvie is perfect as Eliza Bennett and David Rintoul plays Mr. Darcy as portrayed in the book. All the cast is excellent: Sabina Franklyn as Jane, Moray Watson as Mr. Bennett and Desmond Adams as Colonel Fitzwilliam are good. This adaptation is superior to the A & E version which is too "Hollywood" and over the top . I have seen the 1995 version and found it very entertaining. Colin Firth is very sexy and earthy. I found Jennifer Elhe to be a very good Elizabeth Bennett, but almost looked too old for the part.

Pride and Prejudice has been my favorite book since I was eleven years old, and I've seen every other adaptation of it--even taken a class on Romantic Comedy, in which P&P was included. However, I was determined to take this version on its own merits and try not to compare it to the other versions. Those don't matter as much as its trueness to the book in spirit and content.This is what I told myself when I put the DVD in. During the first scene, my hopes were dashed--Mary brings the news of Bingley? They just cut out the great opening banter between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet! Really, it's all downhill from here.The greatest complaint is that the people behind this movie completely sucked the life out of the story. This is a comedy of manners, people, not solely a love story. It's about human character, and here, the characters have no life at all. Look at Mr. Darcy: Aie! He looks like a walking corpse with a burr up his you know what. It seemed as if every line was painful to utter and that he was bored to death. Elizabeth has altogether no wit and shows a strange contradiction regarding her family: She whines and pleads with Jane to get better faster so she can go home! What!?!? Whining, selfish creature! She then comments with a sign of satisfaction how good it is to be home, and coddles her mother too! Agony. Because of these flaws in writing/acting, the ending is improbable, even laughably ridiculous. Sorry, did the casting director think that chap playing Wickham was a hottie? Youch.Did anyone notice how awful all of the grand houses looked? I mean, since Darcy has ten thousand pounds a year (that's a LOT of money) he could at least have the stone on Pemberley cleaned up a bit. It was all stained and icky. *shudder*If I detailed everything that was wrong with this, I'd be here for hours. I know many of you love it dearly, but I'm sorry, I see nothing to love. I see a dried-out husk of an adaptation of the most brilliant book ever.