Pride and Prejudice discussion

I definitely prefer the BBC series. It is more faithful to the book. Plus, I think Colin Firth played the role of Darcy better.

Up until recently, I had only watched the 2005 version and loved it. But I decided to give the BBC a go. I think both versions have their merits but I definitely prefer the 2005 version. Yes, it is not as accurate as the book but you have to keep in mind that they only have 2 hours to tell the story compared to 6 in the BBC. I liked both Ehle and Keira as Elizabeth but I thought Keira gave Elizabeth more spunk and I also found Ehle a little annoying with all her smirks and pointed looks.

The soundtrack and cinematography are to die for in the 2005 and I just enjoyed the overall feel of the movie better. I think you connect more with the Bennets and the characters in the film than in the BBC(ugh and can Alison Steadman get any more annoying? She was so grating and intolerable!). In general I found the cast to be better in the 2005 version- especially Jane!

Also, I thought Matthew Macfadyen played a very interesting side of Darcy and showed a more vulnerable side to him. I didn't really like Colin Firth as much (shock horror!) as I found he was too stoic- even at the end. The relationship in the 2005 version had more chemistry and just felt more real.

Series with Colin Firth!!

Personally I think the 2005 version was a failure as Pride and Prejudice. I don't have problems with it not being faithful to the book. After all, it's only a 2-hour movie. What I did have a lot of problems with was the casting. I have nothing against Mathew Macfadyen or Keira Knightly as actors. They are talented but they were completely wrong for the roles. No matter how I tried I could not picture anyone in their right mind, or with reasonable eye sight, say "she is tolerable, I suppose, but not handsome enough to tempt me." Keira Knightly not handsome enough??? She is a stunning beauty! She outshined Jane in the beauty department by a mile. I imagine Elizabeth Bennet being pretty but in a very "country" and modest way. Her prettiness should grow on you, not hit you in the head like a hammer like Keira Knightly's does. As for Mathew Mcfadyne, I like him as an actor in Little Dorrit and many other shows/movies but again he was completely wrong for Mr. Darcy. His appearance was far too sweet, gentle and, to be honest, untidy. lol When he tried to act the brooding, fastidious and proud master of Pemberley, for some reason he came across as...(I'm very sorry to say this but) a little empty upstairs. His eyes and facial expression became blank. He simply looked clueless and bored. These mistakes in the casting basically shook the whole foundation of the story. It made everything that was said and done in the story unbelievable. The movie may be a nice love story but it just wasn't Pride and Prejudice.

Honestly, I love both of them so much! The series for its length and full spectrum of the story and the movie for everything else! (Especially Matthew MacFadyen!!!)

Charletta wrote: "Hey. I would have to say that I loved them both for different reasons. The 2005 movie had more sexual tension than the BBC miniseries. I own both and have watched them both numrous times and as m..."

Agreed!! well said. Yall are way too harsh on the movie. granted I have not even heard of this BBC series, i have seen a clip from it and still i'm sorry I love the movie! my best friend and I have watched it so many times and we find something new in it. I agree with Charletta, the sexual tension is much more suttle yet powerful in the movie! LOVE LOVE LOVE P&P!

Susie wrote: "Personally I think the 2005 version was a failure as Pride and Prejudice. I don't have problems with it not being faithful to the book. After all, it's only a 2-hour movie. What I did have a lot of..."

I agree. I think you´ve said it all….I like the movie, I watch it sometimes and enjoy the romance and the energy coming from Keira’s and Mathew’s troubled expressions but somehow I always feel like it is a romantic movie I am watching not Pride and Prejudice. As long as I admit that, I can enjoy this version far too much.

BBC version for sure!

BBC version with Colin Firth without a doubt.

I prefer the TV series with Collin Firth for two simple reasons:
1. Collin Firth is an amazing actor and he pictured the enigmatic Mr. Darcy very well.( However, Mr. Darcy is my favorite character)
2. The TV series pictured the book better than the film because it has many episodes and the action captures all the characters, their behavior,etc. In general, there are not many good screenings of a book because in a two hours movie is hard capture well all the characters and the action.

I love Keira, I think she is the perfect Lizzie!!

No contest, auntie Beeb wins hands down

Oh dear. I feel like I have really missed something. I am just not attracted to Colin Firth at all! The impression I got from him is that Mr. Darcy is just some random rich guy who wanders around the countryside scowling. And the point of Mr. Darcy is that, despite his pride, he's actually a great guy. It's the same way with Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy. Her lipsticky smiles just felt too removed. I feel like the complete accuracy of the BBC version stifled the actors to the point where they didn't feel like they could make character choices without Jane Austen giving the go ahead, so they just ended up not making character choices at all. The accuracy of the BBC version's script did manage to capture the wit of the original text more effectively than the 2005 version. Overall I prefer the 2005 version because of its characterization, setting, and ability to make me really feel the story while watching.

I think 2005 movie is perfect. It have some scenes which are not present in the book and I loved them. The characters of Darcy and Lizzie are played so well that I can watch it thousand times without getting bored just like I can read the book. And Matthew was best Darcy ever.

My main comment is that the film totally messed up the character of Mr Bingley. The TV series made him the lovely guy he is in the book, but the film turned him into a twit, and therefore Jane into a mercenary young woman. Which she isn't. Otherwise, well both versions tried hard. Love the scene in the film of the deserted house, love Alison Steadman's Mrs Bennet in the series.

The series was far superior in both script and casting. Jennifer Ehle was perfect as Elizabeth as was Colin Firth as Darcy. To be honest I thought all were cast exceptionally well. The settings were wonderful as were the costumes. I've watched the DVD's of the series many times (I've read the book many times too), and I simply do not get tired of it.

I love both but opt for the movie.
Love love love Matthew as Mr Darcy and that raining scene when he almost kissed Lizzie (looked like he was about to) was absolutely super sweet despite the dialogue between the characters. Never got bored watching the movie :)

I really like the 2005 movie personally, but I'm sure if I saw the BBC series I'd like it too. I love me some Colin Firth.

Colin Firth was the perfect brooding and aloof Darcy

Beeb every time

2005 is better.

Comparing P&P95 to P&P05 is like comparing the A-Team TV show to the Terminator movie.

Everything in the movie is superior: acting, direction, cinematography, supporting cast, art direction, filming locations, sexual chemistry between the lead characters, musical score, screenplay, art-house symbolism.

P&P05 takes a great story, trims the fat, creatively peppers it with hints of Romanticism and Modernism and serves all P&P's greatest hits in two hours.

The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is hands down superior to all versions. The acting, music, and thoroughness is far superior. Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle, and everyone in the film knocked it out of the park. Keira Knightley's whiny acting drains the 2005 version from even being tolerable. Not a fan of MacFadyen's portrayal of Darcy. I will even dare to say that the acting and portrayals done in the 2016 Pride and Prejudice and Zombies are far better than the 2005 version.

Evangelina wrote: "The 1995 Pride and Prejudice is hands down superior to all versions. The acting, music, and thoroughness is far superior. Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle, and everyone in the film knocked it out of the ..."

Interesting. De gustibus non disputandum. I found P&P95 ok, but pretty slow and dull. Wanted to give myself paper cuts just to feel something, anything.

All the key scenes are emotionally deflating.

But it has lots of fans among the Austenites. So they have that version to make them happy.

2005 is way better. Keira was nominated to all kinds of awards, even critic awards, for her performance. She had the perfect balance of self-reliance and feminine vulnerability and expressed a far greater range of emotions than Ehle did in 1995.

1995 TV series was more faithful to the book, but it was dull and insipid. All the key scenes were emotionally deflating. Cinematography and soundtrack were mediocre at best.

Firth's performance is ok if you only want to see one facial expression on an actor for 5.5 hours straight.

Watch the key scenes back to back in both versions. 2005 will win every time in every category. For example, watch the first proposal in both versions. In 2005 it's an explosion of emotions, a real heated argument, with excellent cinematography and musical score. It's alive.

In 1995, the argument feels like bits of Ayn Rand-like monologues, and Elizabeth does not even look astonished when Darcy tells her he loves her. She just looks vexed.

What about the scene between Elizabeth and her father when he gives his blessing to her and Darcy. Do you want to tell me that it's better in 1995? Watch them back to back, and tell me which version exhibits more life-like emotions.

Watch the second proposal. It's totally deflating in 1995. Isn't Darcy supposed to show happiness he has never felt before? To express himself as sensibly and warmly as a man violently in love is supposed to do? Is that what Darcy does in 1995?

1995 is ok if, for whatever reason, you can't or won't read the book and need to do a school report on it. It's faithful enough (even though it still manages to miss the most important line in the book, which you'll need for your book report).

For sheer entertainment, 2005 is way, way more fun to watch.

Francesco Scinico wrote: "2005 is way better. Keira was nominated to all kinds of awards, even critic awards, for her performance. She had the perfect balance of self-reliance and feminine vulnerability and expressed a far ..."


I wholeheartedly agree. Keira and Matthew are perfect and cute. I can watch 2005 movie 1000000000 times and never get tired of it.

Philip wrote: "You're all being rotten on the film. Period grittiness lifts it above the ordinary, and most of the acting is spot on.
Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has that typical English combination of clever, sp..."

Agreed, I like the film better.

Yue wrote: "I have to say the movie. Colin Firth seems too stiff, no passion. Jane-movie was much more beautiful, the soundtrack is lovely, and Judy Dench was much more respectable and formidable than the one ..."

Totally agree, I really like Bingley in the series better but everyone else seems closer to the characters for me in the movie.

Okay tbh I've never seen the BBC series. Shame on me.
I know the majority loves the series BUT I can't get enough of Matthew MacFayden as Darcy. :)
Everyone in the film was perfectly cast, the acting was good...the only thing that keeps annoying me is Lydia's and Kitty's giggling. WHY?! WHY won't they just shut up?

Aunts Beeb's version was best , just!!

I liked the movie better. But that's just me.

I adore this book, its characters, its theme and everything about it.. its a great piece of literature but i have only seen 2005 movie adaption which i love tooooo much, Darcy and Elizabeth both are well played in movie, although i believe they can put some more scene and can increase the movie length, as to me it was very short!

May be in series they took the leisure to expand the story and portray its characters exactly as book narrates, it may be a reason that readers can get connected with series more than the movie!!

I hope, i will also get to see this series soon, so much is written about it here, i am actually excited now!
Thanks everyone.

Neither of these versions is my favourite, but if it's a choice between them then DEFINITELY the 1995 series, no question! The 2005 movie, quite frankly, was garbage, nothing more than modern Harlequin romance that made a pathetic attempt to disguise itself as a classic novel.
But personally, I actually prefer both the original movie from 1940 and the BBC miniseries from 1980 to either of these movies.

Aileen wrote: "Neither of these versions is my favourite, but if it's a choice between them then DEFINITELY the 1995 series, no question! The 2005 movie, quite frankly, was garbage, nothing more than modern Harle..."

I agree about the 05 movie. The best, by far, to me is the BBC miniseries. Darcy is phenomenal.

Colin Colin Colin

Fatema wrote: "Colin Colin Colin"

Yes, Colin Firth is a terrific brooding presence in the BBC series, but he's really not a Jane Austen hero as she created them. None of her heroes ever brood.

Definitely the series with Colin Firth. The annoying characters--i.e. Mr. Collins and Mrs. Bennet--were played perfectly in my opinion. Plus, I also thought Darcy and Bingley were spot-on. Bingley from the 2005 version looked nothing like what I imagined him to while reading the novel. Oh yeah, and the fact that Mr. Bennet from the 2005 version is President Snow doesn't help either. XD

Watching the BBC series for the first time was like diving right into the book for me! I've watched it so many times since and it still gives me the same feeling :) Colin Firth is definitly the better Mr. Darcy, though I don't hate Matthew MacFadyen in the movie...but Keira Knightley was a total desaster as Elisabeth Bennet! Jennifer Ehle was just so much better!

Fans of the 1995 series, please do not strangle me for these comments.

I prefer the 2005 version. I think the 1995 Elizabeth Bennett smirks entirely too much, even through the most uncomfortable situations. Or she looks down, very passively when rude comments have taken place. I grew extremely tired of the smirk on her face, and then it begin to grate as I felt it was poor acting. There were times when she spoke, she would roll her eyes upward.

The actress who played Jane was supposed to be the family beauty. But the actress playing Elizabeth was clearly, the more beautiful of the two. While Keira Knightly is naturally a very stunning beauty, they production went to great length (and failing) to lessen her beauty for the benefit of Rosamund Pike's Jane, who was absolutely radiant. I thought the actress who played 1995's Jane, her acting was dismal.

I think Keira's performance was outstanding, she really tackled the role with aplomb, whereas the 95 Elizabeth does not show the appropriate range of emotions, or contempt. I think There was no build up to Mr. Darcy's unrequited love of Elizabeth, as much as I like Colin Firth, and he is the ONLY thing this version has going for it.

I think Mr. Collins was fine, but Mrs. Bennett was too hostile, and not as "nervous" as the 2005 Mrs. Bennett. She mostly just spoke loudly and very harshly. Lady Catherine in the 2005 movie is a favorite. I mean really, Judy Dench was phenomenal whereas the 1995, was just annoying and very frail looking. Her acting lacked the power of Judy Dench's performance.

I love Matthew McFayden's performance. Colin's Mr. Darcy was distant, appropriately aloof, but I did not buy the unrequited love aspect as much, though he completely nailed the snobby part in the beginning, whereas McFayden's Darcy was not snobby enough, he was almost too sympathetic. We are not meant to like Darcy at first, but we like McFayden, and empathize with him almost immediately. I only really begin to like Firth's Darcy at his first proposal attempt, as he seemed vulnerable enough at this point. But I don't think his proposal was as passionate as Matthew McFayden's. Maybe it was the setting, the park, the downpour, wet clothes, both Keira and McFayden panting, emotionally exhausted. Jennifer Ehl's refusal of Mr. Darcy was wanting. It came across like a school play. It was very weak, and she is almost near tears. I prefer Keira's fiery response.

So here's a chip in the hat for the 2005 version.

E. wrote: "Fans of the 1995 series, please do not strangle me for these comments.

I prefer the 2005 version. I think the 1995 Elizabeth Bennett smirks entirely too much, even through the most uncomfortable ..."

Very interesting and I agree with much of it though McFayden's agony looked too much like a stomach ache for me.

However, reading your critique, all I could think was that you would LOVE the BBC series done decades ago. (1980) I think it's never been improved on and, in terms of accuracy reproduces the novel the best. I agree that Colin Firth is hot stuff! but, Austen didn't write about hot guys who smolder and the earlier Darcy is nothing short of perfect! So is the mother's nervousness, Elizabeth's brightness and so forth. The novel is truly brought to life.

Matthew Macfadyen, for sure.
Colin firth was too old for the role, and movie version, the casts were secelted well.
Also, the movie has some issues, it is shortened too much, but, I like Matthew Macfadyen very much, and his difficulty in the beginning, to communicate with Elizabeth, was shown very well.

Colin Firth for sure. He is a great actor, but mainly they changed up and cut too much in the movie. Less about their pick of the cast. The BBC series is truer to the book Pride and Prejudice is one of those rare books that I got more out of after watching the series. Though I read it as a teenager when I read it again recently I watched the series while I was reading it.

The BBC adaptation is glossier than the film but truer to the novel. The film was, in my opinion, awful. Yes, the Bennet's house in the film was less glamourous, which no doubt would have befitted their status in the period; but the characterisations of Elizabeth and Darcy were weak and lacked any real likeness to the originals. The film cannot resist having Darcy and Elizabeth snogging; get off! If you're going to adapt such a classic, then please do justice to the brilliant writing. Firth and Ehle every time for me.

Darcy admits that he does not converse easily with strangers, this confirms that he is shy, just like his sister.
Also, he told Elizabeth how he was brought by his parents, he was left to follow them in pride and conceit.
Yet, he read many, so he must have self taught from some books.
And he is clever too.
He was good to the poor in his kingdom.
And the proof from Mrs. Reynolds.
And he is only 28.

To consider everything above, I want Darcy to be 50% proud, but 50% shyness and some kind of humbleness.
Colin firth’s Darcy is however, rather too “proud”. This is the problem to me.

In the film, Darcy proposes Elizabeth in the rain, which is totally wrong. But, there is some mixed feelings, like, young people expressing their feelings freely(since they are alone), and some social manners. It looked natural to me. BBC’s version however, was too civil. (although, dialog is very near the original)

Oh, but one more thing. Elizabeth’s make up in the film is totally wrong!

I felt like the 1995 BBC film was a much more developed story line. I've watched it many times over. I felt the 2005 version; although beautifully filmed with so many beautiful people, was not up to snuff. Colin Firth is my favorite Mr Darcy to date. I even named my son, Colin.

I loved the 2005 Film and the 1995 BBC series.
The BBC version definitely was more loyal to the book, dialogue almost 100% the same and the whole feel of the series was just lovely.
I found BBC Elizabeth witty and charming, she would be perfect if she's combined with some of Keira's Elizabeth, I wanted to see that opinionated and stubborn Lizzy, BBC's version was a bit too delicate for me, nonetheless I liked her.

Colin Firth, I love him and as we all know his version of Mr. Darcy was the most iconic of all but what I loved from Macfadyen's was that he WAS proud, but is shy and awkward at the same time, and he was more youthful I daresay. And although I adore BBC Darcy, I was not moved by his love confession,
but I was swooned with Macfadyen's, yes the confession in the rain was not in the book, but it was moving all the same. They showed that TENSION i was imagining between Lizzy and Darcy, and that hand flex, God.

In the BBC Version, I just wanted to skip to the scenes that has Darcy and Lizzy in it because I crave for their interactions, their eye contacts and those smiles they give each other, I see longing from Colin too when they look at each other and yes.


We all have preferences, but I think it's really snobbish to HATE the film and call it horrible just cause it was not as accurate as the BBC series version.
And you may not prefer the BBC version too but you cannot crap on the actors for being too "stiff" in your opinion.

There are nine versions of this great novel. For me, the best version is still the 1980 BBC mini-series which is the novel come to life!!

https://www.amazon.com/Pride-Prejudic...

Can't make up my mind! LOL
Love both adaptations!

I think that the set of the series was better quality then the set of the 2005 movie. I also think that Colin Firth portrayed the attitude of Darcy better then Matthew MacFadyen. Additionally, I like how the series used a lot of the dialogue directly from the book.

Stacey wrote: "I'm probably going to be boiled alive for this, but I'm a fan of the 2005 movie. We are, after all, talking about movies here, and while I will totally agree that the BBC series is a much more fait..."

I think I may may prefer the movie for this reason as well.

I just watch the movie again a few days ago. Enjoyed it, except the end where Lizzie is talking about her nicknames. That was just silly.