Oh, please. If someone is going to use the name of one of the truly great English-language novels ever written as the title of his/her/its movie, it had better be (1) pretty darned good and (2) decently faithful to the intent of the novel. Otherwise, call it something else. In this case, using "Pride and Prejudice" is a gross insult to the intelligence of even modestly intelligent movie-goers and to the creative genius of Jane Austen.Compare this to an outstanding, perhaps the greatest, visual rendering of the novel: The 1995 Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth BBC television series made into a seamless 300-minute movie. It is superb in every way, a nearly flawless production with fewer identified errors of various sorts in it than are normally reported in a movie of more typical length. Then there is this sad spectacle. It would not be so offensive had it been named something like "Twits and Tittering" or "Plodding Petulance"--anything but Austen's own title. This is something like making a mediocre-or-worse movie about break-dancing and calling it The Holy Bible.One cannot say too little about this movie: It is embarrassingly poor. That is quite little enough to say.

PLOT: Elizabeth Bennet is in college studying to be a writer. In between class and her job at a local bookstore, she has written her first novel The Iron Carriage. While working at the bookstore, she encounters the superior (and sexy) Will Darcy who insults her and then leaves. Despite his offensive behavior, Darcy finds himself falling for Elizabeth's quirky and spirited ways--while Elizabeth is forming a decided dislike for him. Things get worse when Darcy turns out to be one of the editors who has read Elizabeth's book--and gives his honest, and negative, opinion.From the opening shots you can tell this one is not high budget or conventional. Initially, it suffers from an overwhelming stylism with far too much bright green and pink and too many unnecessary close-ups. The acting is lukewarm, though one feels that the actors might have an opportunity to truly grow under the right direction and with a better script. This is where my beef truly lies--in the script. The brilliant characterizations that Jane Austen created, and the relationships she established are not represented for most characters--and just enough with the hero and heroine to keep Lizzy and Darcy's story alive. For those of you out there not familiar with the original you may get lost in this adaptation, as many characters are not introduced more than once. The film feels slow, stuffed with too many diversions and Latter-Day allusions which take the place of the missing characterizations and still manage to make the film feel empty.OVERALL I enjoyed the film as a frivolous romantic romp. Its strengths lie in the scenes between Lizzy and Darcy, thanks to the gorgeous and, I think, yet untapped Orlando Seale. This is a "rent it" for me, BUT see or read a version of the Austen tale first or you may get lost. I would recommend the BEST version out there--BBC's Miniseries starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Happy watching.

This was the worst movie made from a Jane Austen novel, ever. The acting was mediocre. The dialog at first was okay, since there wasn't any for the first 5 or so minutes, but overall it was rather poor. The opening line, one of the most famous lines in English literature, is distorted and not even in an interesting way. The movie didn't do justice to the character of Darcy-he's prideful, makes mistakes, and comes to terms with this in the book, but in the movie he's perfect, no edges, no depth, nothing. He explains his bad behavior poorly and Elizabeth falls for it. OK. I'll stop--Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book, made me want to major in English and I love most movie versions of it. This movie was a waste of my time.

Jane Austen must roll in her grave every time this film version of her book is watched. This modern day adaptation fails miserably. The characters are not well defined. Even though Elizabeth is charming, there is no chemistry between her and Mr. Darcy. In addition, I cannot believe that the youngest girl in the group is the age the director is trying to portray her as. She seems much older trying to play a younger part. And every time she is on screen I am reminded how fake this film feels. The acting is generally too silly and unbelievable by the whole cast. They are obviously trying to appeal to a pre-teen demographic and in doing so eliminate every other demographic on the map from enjoying the film. Save your time and watch another version of this awesome book.