Just perfect...

How sad is this?

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

This is my first review. I watched this movie like 6 times and felt like it deserves a review. After all this time I still love every bit of it. The actors are brilliant and I can feel the passion between the two main characters. The ending is perfect and just the way austen movies should be.

There are other versions of Jane Austen's classic (whether a TV series or zombie movie), but let's not compare to those and just say that this is an adaption of the book, looking only at the book and itself.This movie is so romantic, so beautiful--great acting, too. There's lively and enchanting music, a well-written script, moments you won't forget. There are three things (positive and negative) that truly stand out about it:1. Characters. The characters are engaging. However, they don't match the book often. Mr. Collins isn't funny, Mr. Wickham is not as cheerful, and Mr. Darcy is more shy than proud. Jane has personality and isn't just a pretty girl. The characters would have been better and richer if they were like they are in the book (except for Jane; she had an improvement), but there's also a gain of making it interesting--you don't know what to expect.2. How organic it is: Did you know, that, if Jane looked like she does in this movie back in the early 1800s, she would have been considered ugly? (Whoa!) She's pretty in today's style not "back-then" pretty. Also, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy have their fight, constantly interrupting each other and shouting. Did you know that, if that's what they'd done back that, that would be considered horribly rude? (Whoa again!) Yes! It's unreal! But this isn't a problem--though it's not accurate to yesterday's standards, it is according to today's, and that makes the movie one thing: RELATABLE. You aren't from the 1800s, you're living in the 2000s. The way things are presented makes everything seem organic to the audience.3. Scene openings: At the beginning of each scene, there's a really long introduction to it. This movie is around the average length of movies (two hours), but the opening to scenes made it seem even longer. The introduction to each setting is dull. For example, you see a dance for one minute, the camera focused on no one in particular and just going through the ballroom, showing random people laughing and dancing. Or, Elizabeth goes out into the meadow, walking, walking, walking, and walking. Then Mr. Darcy comes along, walking, walking, walking... walking... and STILL walking. I suppose the reason all of this was here was to make the viewer get the feel of the scene, but those minutes (and all that walking!) could have been replaced with more story, and we would get the feeling just as much.So, we have a great story. Some characters are left out, while others are changed. The movie feels a bit dull at some points, making the story drag and its excellence dim a bit. But the way it's presented makes it feel real and fantastic.

Joe Wright's directorial debut showcases his talent behind the camera. Pride and Prejudice is filled with beautiful shots and excellent performances. In a story that is really driven by the emotions of the characters, more so than the nitty gritty of the plot itself, the direction is given a greater importance and Joe Wright rose to the challenge.Keira Knightley gives a great performance as Elizabeth Bennet, as does Brenda Blethyn as her mother. Keilly Reilly and Judi Dench also make the most of their brief appearances. The rest of the cast also does quite well.

The performances are good, although tamer than the BBC version, and I was pleasantly surprised by Keira Knightley, who managed not to leave her mouth hanging open too often. Matthew Macfadyen is a good combination of reserved hauteur and feeling, and Donald Sutherland does his best with poor direction - Mr Bennett should not spend his days roaming the farm and chasing round the garden after his family! Either the director did not understand the character or just ignored it, which is a shame. Mrs Bennett is a much more believable age and silly rather than monstrous.The direction in places is so random you wonder whether the director actually had any real plan before he started! Several scenes start off in one direction then change tack half way. When Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle visit Pemberley the scene begins with them being taken round by the housekeeper - then Elizabeth wanders off so the focus can change to her spying on Darcy and his sister; aunt, uncle and housekeeper are forgotten and presumably have forgotten her.The director was obviously determined to get in a reminder that she loves walking, so off she goes back to the inn - are we seriously supposed to believe the housekeeper forgot about a visitor and her aunt and uncle abandoned her to make her own way back? Other changes in the film jar - Mr Collins interrupts breakfast to ask for a meeting with Elizabeth; not only highly unlikely, but unnecessary - the book says he finds them alone 'soon after breakfast'; Elizabeth would never be out in public with her hair falling over her shoulders as though she has just got up, Caroline Bingley wears a sleeveless 1799 style dress to the ball when every other character is dressed c 1805- 10. These are disappointing because they suggest a lack of interest in the details of the society the film is trying to portray. Other changes undermine the characters' development: Elizabeth's vital line 'had you behaved in a more gentleman like manner' is left out completely, and the letter scene which is a crucial turning point for Elizabeth is so rushed the significance is lost. Lady Catherine turns up during the night for no good reason, which makes her line 'I see you have a small kind of garden' completely random and meaningless - the next scene has to be done inside instead of the shrubbery! It was nice to see scenes and characters that were left out of the BBC version, but again too often time is wasted on lingering shots of unimportant details while important characters and events are skated over, giving the impression the director didn't really have a grip on the overall arc of the story and hoped that long shots of characters staring into the distance would give meaning.Criticisms aside, this is enjoyable to watch and the script is true enough to the book to convey the characters well. I was just left feeling that with a bit more care and forethought this could have been brilliant.