I own the three most recent adaptations of "Pride and Prejudice". They are all good in different ways, but I would rate the 1980 version the best. If the 1995 BBC version has a fault, it seems to me to caricature some of the characters. This is especially true of the portrayal of the Bingley sisters, who are almost pantomime "ugly sisters" ; Alison Steadman's portrayal also seems a bit OTT. The portrayal of Mr Collins in the 1995 version also misses his bulky clumsiness. Another weakness in the casting is that Susannah Harker as Jane is not the beauty of the family. Jennifer Ehle is, to me, the more attractive. I think the same criticism could also be levelled at the film version. The Keira Knightley film, because of it's limited length, must, of necessity, miss out quite a lot of detail and dialogue. The film portrayal of Mrs Bennet is probably the most sympathetic of her, though Jane Austen is hardly sympathetic to her in the book. I think all three versions, with the above provisos, are all well cast, and the productions are enjoyable. It is quite interesting to see how the 1995 version has filled in bits of the story. Perhaps the one weakness of the 1980 version is that some of the scenes are clearly shot in a studio, with rather artificial views out of windows. The other mistake, as noted by other reviewers, is the Brahms music on the instrument. Elizabeth Garvie is, for me, perfect as Elizabeth. She is attractive, without being the beauty that Sabina Franklyn is. Her eyes are lovely, as they should be. She displays a wonderful range of expression to convey her feelings, without ever overacting, which is in keeping with Jane Austen's style. David Rintoul has been criticised as Darcy, especially by comparison with Colin Firth. Both are very good, but different. Firth is the more passionate, but Rintoul seems the more aristocratic and arrogant. Moray Watson is very good as Mr Bennet, conveying both the character's wit, but also other aspects - like his frustration with his wife, and overall laziness - well. Priscilla Morgan is excellent as Mrs Bennet, but the portrayal does not descend into caricature, and can at times elicit some sympathy. The portrayal of Mr Collins is excellent - large, pompous, clumsy, tactless, obsequious. Judy Parfitt is excellent as Lady Catherine. She is arrogant and dictatorial, simply as a matter of nature, while she never seems petulant, which Barbara Leigh Hunt at times appears in the 1995 version. The Bingley sisters are also well played, arrogant, and at times bitchy, but in a rather understated way, as they appear in the book. All in all, I find this a most satisfying adaptation. It is very true to the book, both in detail and in the spirit of the book. It conveys the wit of the writing in the spirit in which it was written, without ever over-romanticising, or caricature. The casting seems to me the best and most consistent, with the principal players, especially Elizabeth Garvie who is a delight in her part, very good indeed. I will return to this version often, with delight.

This is TV for the late seventies - faithful to source, stagey, studio-bound, with the odd bit of outdoor filming, so don't go looking for flashy film technique and 'modern' soap-like characterisation with a driving narrative. This is supposed to be Jane Austen on screen, not another ever so modern, emotionally over the top, easily delineated character put into period for modern audiences with the attention span of twenty five minutes.So the pace is leisurely, life revolves around sowing, being gentile, with the odd highlight of dinner with neighbours or a small ball with four and twenty families! This adaptation presents this lifestyle excellently, which means that characters do not rev up for the audience. The acting is a little patchy - for instance, Elizabeth Garvie (of whom we saw too little afterwards) starts hesitantly but improves remarkably, while David Rintoul is left too stiff and starchy throughout (Fay Weldon's feminist revenge?). But the support is good, and not overplayed, except in the case of Natalie Ogle (Lydia). certainly Wickham and Mr Bennet are seen for what they are - the former a lying cheat but smooth, while the latter is totally disdainful of his simpleton wife.Let's face it - those critics of this version do not seem to criticise Ms Austen for ignoring the life and death struggle of Britain facing Napoleonic France, but say that the characters are too passive to be interested in. The words of Ms Austen are there, and she was not writing Barbara Cartland!

It's totally unbelievable how someone could watch this in its entirety (which is a task worth of a medal) and honestly say it's the best adaptation there is. It wouldn't be the best even if it was the only one! So, maybe it is truest to the book, but who cares if the entertainment value is zero? I'm not one those Austen fanatics who knows the book in question by heart. But I have read it, and it is certainly important that the adaptation is true to that book, that's why I wouldn't even try to watch the latest movie version of it. But who can argue that the 1995 version wasn't also a faithful adaptation? If there was some slight alterations, so is here! So maybe there was some scenes omitted, but do you need to hear every word they say in the book to enjoy the show? No, you don't. When you see things in front of you, you certainly want to see something more than endless talking sessions. It's not enough that these people talk and talk, it all sounds like one long weather forecast. If these conversations can you keep you entertained, good for you! But if one wants to hear and see people who has a character and feelings, go look elsewhere.The 1995 version of P&P had everything which makes a costume drama work, and it's my favourite series of all time. This version has instead all of the elements which can totally ruin that same genre. Let's pretend that this would be nothing but TV-series and had nothing to do with Jane Austen; what merits it would have? Insignificant acting, lifeless characters, tedious dialogue. One couldn't care less if that stiff bloke get the girl he claims to love - though it's hard to believe. Watching him proposing Elizabeth is almost embarrassing in its rigidness.

I did like this version of Pride and Prejudice. There were just a few things that I didn't care for, especially compared to the 1995 version.I hated Natalie Ogle's Lydia. I don't know why all of these BBC productions of Jane Austen with immature girls have the worst actresses playing them? Sense and Sensibility (1980) is the same way. They choose these young looking actresses on nothing more than their looks and their ability to read a script apparently. The only Lydia I've liked is Julia Sawalha, she played it genuinely, at the right age, and laughed naturally. Everyone else, including Jena Malone, plays her too young and with forced laughter. Like perhaps they are overcompensating for age, even though Sawalha was the oldest to play her, I believe. All the other Lydia's shriek and carry on, and I never really got that impression from the book. I don't think she is that different from other teenagers nowadays, well a middle schooler from now. Ogle played her like a 10-year old.My other problem was that they didn't do any voice-over until the the 3 or 4th episode. It was very strange that everyone was reading their letters that they had written aloud. As I watched I was seriously wondering if they just didn't know how to do them, but then I remembered that they have been doing voice-overs since talkies have been in existence. It is a worthless point but it really bothered me.Other than that, I have very few complaints. I did find it interesting that they used the same girl who played Elinor in Sense and Sensibility (1980) to play Charlotte. I was always under the impression that Elinor was relatively attractive (at least not plain), and I had resigned myself, while watching S & S, into thinking that tastes have changed.. but apparently not, if they used her to play the plain Charlotte. Anyway, that was a big tangent.I do agree with some of the other posters that the levels of beauty in the Bennet girls were better portrayed in this film than the 95 version. I think Susannah Harker is very handsome and I appreciate that now, but when I first saw it I kept thinking how much more attractive Jennifer Ehle was than Harker. I would say that classically speaking and for the time period, Harker would have been the most beautiful girl, she has a lovely neck and profile. Another tangent, sorry.But yes, it is a good film, but for me, the 1995 version will always be my number one. All the actors are great and I prefer the locations much more.