narnialover, I'm looking at some of the reviews of criticism of the '05 P&P online, and these seem to be the major problems people have with the film (most of which I agree with):

- The film focuses on the love story, losing some of the funnier and more socially relevant aspects of the novel.

- It is rushed, and at times, difficult to follow.

- Many of the costumes, sets, hairdos etc., are historically inaccurate.

- The women go around bareheaded! Put your bonnets on, girls. Scandalous stuff!

- The Bennetts' home, clothes, etc., look like they should belong to people of a much lower class. They certainly wouldn't have had pigs wandering around the house. And Mr. and Mrs. Bennett would not have been in the kitchen. Also, the dancing is more rustic than would be appropriate for the best families of the county - to say nothing of the Bingleys! - to participate in.

- Keira Knightley's Elizabeth is perhaps a little too self-consciously a "modern woman."

- MacFayden's Darcy is not at all prideful, more shy and sensitive.

- Elizabeth and Darcy seem to fancy each other from their first meeting, which is not as it is in the book.

- The tone throughout is more like Hardy than Austen. (Again, the pigs.)

- Many of the comic characters, such as Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Collins, and Lady Catherine deBourgh, were softened and "humanized."

- On the other hand, Bingley was made into a total dimwit.

- There is a shocking lack of propriety throughout. Lady Catherine shows up at the Bennets' in the middle of the night, at which point Mr. Bennett answers his own door in his nightgown. (It would have been a servant.) Bingley and Darcy at different points enter Jane and Elizabeth's rooms respectively (the first while she was in bed!). Darcy and Elizabeth meet for the second proposal dressed in next to nothing. It simply wasn't done.

- There's a bunch of innuendo, including a close-up of pig genitalia, Lizzie checking out Wickham's behind, and a Freudian slip by Mr. Collins during one of his sermons.

Again, these are not all my criticisms, and I don't agree with every single one of them. Overall, the innuendo, inaccuracies, lack of etiquette, lack of bonnets, probably bother me the most. I do love the cinematography, and the music, and some of the performances. Rosamund Pike is a perfect Jane, and Judi Dench, Brenda Blethyn, and Tom Hollander are pretty good as Lady Catherine, Mrs. Bennett, and Mr. Collins respectively.

- The film focuses on the love story, losing some of the funnier and more socially relevant aspects of the novel.

- It is rushed, and at times, difficult to follow.

maybe true, but the film was shorter so you can't have everything in two hours.

- Many of the costumes, sets, hairdos etc., are historically inaccurate.

- The women go around bareheaded! Put your bonnets on, girls. Scandalous stuff!

what's historically inaccuacurate besides no bonnets?

- The Bennetts' home, clothes, etc., look like they should belong to people of a much lower class. They certainly wouldn't have had pigs wandering around the house. And Mr. and Mrs. Bennett would not have been in the kitchen. Also, the dancing is more rustic than would be appropriate for the best families of the county - to say nothing of the Bingleys! - to participate in.

I agree with that pretty much, but the dancing doesn't bother me. We actually do a few of those dances at our church sometimes (we occasionally have period balls there )

- Keira Knightley's Elizabeth is perhaps a little too self-consciously a "modern woman."

modern how?

- MacFayden's Darcy is not at all prideful, more shy and sensitive.

- Elizabeth and Darcy seem to fancy each other from their first meeting, which is not as it is in the book.

not true. Neither of those thoughts ever crossed my mind while watching the movie.

- Many of the comic characters, such as Mrs. Bennett, Mr. Collins, and Lady Catherine deBourgh, were softened and "humanized."

humanized how? I thought Lady Catherine deBourgh was perfectly despicable. And in the book you aren't really supposed to dislike either Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Collins.

- On the other hand, Bingley was made into a total dimwit

*gasp* LIES ! Bingley was perfect! I love him so much in this movie!

- There is a shocking lack of propriety throughout. Lady Catherine shows up at the Bennets' in the middle of the night, at which point Mr. Bennett answers his own door in his nightgown. (It would have been a servant.) Bingley and Darcy at different points enter Jane and Elizabeth's rooms respectively (the first while she was in bed!). Darcy and Elizabeth meet for the second proposal dressed in next to nothing. It simply wasn't done.

I agree with that too, minus the dressed in next to nothing. They both had at least two layers of "nothing" on.

There's a bunch of innuendo, including a close-up of pig genitalia, Lizzie checking out Wickham's behind, and a Freudian slip by Mr. Collins during one of his sermons.

I didn't even notice the part with "Wickham's behind". The other two don't bother me really, and I don't recall any other innuendo.

Sorry, just trying to defend my beloved movie .

yeah, Pride and Prejudice 2005,
I have yet to notice any innuendo in it, maybe two things, but not half as bad as what I read on the board, no offense meant to anyone. I just don't see it.

*jumps into the fray (not the band) *

Well, if it makes you feel any better Lys, I agree with most of what you posted about P&P '05. I also disliked how most of the secondary characters have no character development. They seem to enter, say their lines and leave.

Yes, I know it's only slightly over 2 hours long, but look at Batman Begins. Even the "minor" characters got enough screen time to have some character development.

About the innuendo: Honestly, I only noticed two things that could fall under that title, the useless pig scene and the time that Mr. Collins slips-up in his sermon. There were nude statues and paintings in the film, but none of them looked like anything "racy", just classic painting and sculptures.

I still have no idea what people are talking about when they mention the "pig scene" in the '05 P&P! Seriously, I never noticed any innuendo except for Collins's slip (that's kinda hard to miss) and Lizzie checking out Wickham.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

I'm going to be quote Glenstorm the whole way, just t' let y' know.

maybe true, but the film was shorter so you can't have everything in two hours.

I understand that. But they could have moved from one event/location to another more smoothly. Look at the Emma Thompson Sense & Sensibility ... it was no longer than P&P but it never felt rushed. (Of course, Thompson outright cut some of the minor characters, so it could be argued that she had less material to get through. Then again, she invented some material as well....)

what's historically inaccuacurate besides no bonnets?

Miss Bingley's sleeveless gown. Lizzie's hair throughout much of the movie. The general shabbiness and untidiness of everyone's clothes. The list goes on.

modern how?

Mostly in her deportment and attitude. To be fair, we can't be sure exactly how a Regency woman would carry herself, but Knightly just screams "modern movie star!" to me. I was impressed she did as well as she did with the role, but I'm not really a fan. And the screenwriter gave her some ridiculously feminist lines; one in particular bugged me, although I can't remember it now.

not true. Neither of those thoughts ever crossed my mind while watching the movie.

Just because you never noticed them doesn't mean they're not there. Of course, just because I did doesn't necessarily mean they are. But these are widespread criticisms of the film.

humanized how? I thought Lady Catherine deBourgh was perfectly despicable. And in the book you aren't really supposed to dislike either Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Collins.

I don't think I explained myself clearly. I meant that the film has been criticized for turning Austen's "caricatures" into "more human" characters. This is one of the points that I took from elsewhere that I don't really agree with. I'm not sure Mrs. Bennett is supposed to be quite as hysterical all the time as she is the '95 miniseries. Brenda Blethyn's Mrs. Bennett was underplayed but still very silly. I liked her in the role, as I did Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins and Judi Dench as Lady Catharine.

*gasp* LIES ! Bingley was perfect! I love him so much in this movie!

There was something charming about him in his stupidity, but still, he wasn't Bingley ... or at least not Austen's Bingley. In the book, he is high-spirited, but never awkward or slow. And he admits to not being bright in the movie.

I agree with that too, minus the dressed in next to nothing. They both had at least two layers of "nothing" on.

I was being silly. But they were pretty much wearing their nightclothes with one extra, loose layer on top. Neither of them would have gone outside in such a state. Again, not Austen.

To be honest, I probably shouldn't even be engaging in this debate. It's been forever since I watched the movie and it's been a rollercoaster ride since day 1 in terms of my opinion of it. Maybe next time I see it I'll like it better. I doubt it, though.

^I don't think of it as a scene. A pig just walks by and the camera shot is close to it's rear end. That's about it. What I never noticed was Lizzie looking at Wickham's rear.

PrinceCor: well I haven't seen Batman Begins. But I think that version of P&P squished everything in well. And I didn't notice any minor characters that didn't get the amount of screen time I thought they should get.

Edit; Lysander I'll answer you later I have to go to bed.

Inspired by my recent rereading of Jim Lovell's book Lost Moon, I watched Apollo 13 again over the weekend. Despite some liberties taken with the actual events (some were omitted, probably to simplify things and for running time), it's one of my favorite movies. Good casting and soundtrack. And look for a cameo by the real Jim Lovell near the end of the movie.

I love that movie! it was indeed casted really well! a fantastic movie!

I've seen the movie a number of times and read the book. Definately one of the better book to movie adaptations (not to mention they had the real story to go with as well). Apollo 13 was one of the first movies I saw to my memory in the theater and it was really good.

As for Batman Begins, also very good for the superhero genre. Christian Bale was super and I haven't seen Liam Neeson go wrong yet. (his worst role I've seen was Qui-Gon Jinn and mostly due to the script, not him). Great cast, great use of minor characters, and overall simply well done.