I don't really have anything to say about most of Lys' list. I didn't even notice the butt-checking-out scene, but I did think Darcy was nice-ified. Really Elizabeth comes across as having the worse attitude in the movie when Darcy's flaws were every bit as bad in the book.

I saw most of Pride And Predjudice and I didn't like it at all! every single bit of conversation was devoted to talking about love and weddings and marriage and kissing and falling in love and arguing over what guy is the cutest..... it really grossed me out. my dad was like, "wow. that was boring."
I just don't like romance movies - especially not old fashioned ones!

I agree with most of your list, lys, the only difference being that I DO love the movie despite everything that's wrong with it

I'm sure I read somewhere that the costume designer for the movie thought the typical "Regency era" styles were incredibly unflattering (aka the really high waistlines) so he/she "bumped" the time period back a decade or two so the waistlines could be lower...

As for Bingley, I love him! He's completely dorky but completely adorable at the same time.

I should also mention I'm not really an Austen fan, I've read the P&P book but it was ages ago and I wasn't obsessed with it or anything. So that probably effects how I like the movies

edit: While the "pig scene" is unnecessary/random I wouldn't call it "innuendo" Mr Collin's sermon slip is actually amusing, I certainly don't find it offensive. And I STILL have yet to see the "Lizzie-checking-out-Wickham" scene. I don't think it can be much of a scene if I still haven't seen it with my 8+ watchings of it...and I usually notice this stuff right off!

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....)

yes she cute alot of stuff *including*

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.

I guess the dress is true, but I didn't notice shabbiness or anything wrong with Lizzie's hair, but then again, I'm not a historical expert on the clothing etc of that time period .

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.

I can't remember any lines. But I find it odd that she screams modern to you when she's in so many period movies . I thought she was the perfect Elizabeth.

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 don't really mind. I found him more lovable in the movie than he was in the book. And I found his "slowness" adorable and endearing . But I suppose his hair could be influencing my opinion (I'm in love with red hair, especially all wavy-like. And his was ).

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.

well I suppose that's true, but it doesn't bother me that much. At least Lizzie wasn't wearing a low slip like she does in other scenes.

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.

never say never

Val: I'm glad someone agrees with me

Liberty Hoffman: that is not true AT ALL. And you were biased before you even saw the movie. You didn't want to watch it in the first place and weren't even giving it a chance. You don't like romance so you decided you wouldn't like P&P before you even saw it. So it's not fair to say it was boring and all they talked about was guys and kissing (which they never did) when you already had a preconceived notion that it was horrible before even watching it.

Liberty Hoffman: that is not true AT ALL. And you were biased before you even saw the movie. You didn't want to watch it in the first place and weren't even giving it a chance. You don't like romance so you decided you wouldn't like P&P before you even saw it. So it's not fair to say it was boring and all they talked about was guys and kissing (which they never did) when you already had a preconceived notion that it was horrible before even watching it.

my parents didn't like it either! and they do talk about love and romance through the whole movie! every conversation is about who's the cutest guy! and the mom runs the house! she doesn't let the dad have a say in anything concerning their daughters! ugh! *venting*

every conversation is about who's the cutest guy!

Liberty, it's perfectly within your rights not to like P&P, Jane Austen, or anything at all "romantic" ... but please, you're exaggerating. Far from every conversation being about who's "the cutest guy," physical attractiveness is never even mentioned. Maybe Kitty and Lydia fawn over Willoughby now and again, but they're supposed to be silly. Actually, while love emotions may be a huge part of the storyline, they're rarely discussed.

Feel free to dislike it, but stay with "I don't like romance movies, and I found it boring," instead of making up nonsense like this.

I think both of you need to take a deep breath.

Liberty Hoffman: It is obvious that you suffer from a lack of understanding of the story, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. If you had read the book you'd realize the reasons behind why they are always talking about marrying (not how cute a guy is, btw); it's because that's all woman had in those days. They didn't have the option of having a career like women today do so they had to get married in order to secure their future. You're (nearly) right about the mother running the house, but it was quite clear in the book (and I dare say in the movie) that it was looked down upon and not considered appropriate. It perfectly fine if you don't like the movie, but perhaps you should be less harsh in criticizing it without trying to understand it.

Glenstorm: I don't think there is any reason to go accusing Liberty of things. Perhaps she is not entirely correct in her appraisal of the movie, but she doesn't like the movie, regardless, and that's fine; We all have different opinions.

As to my opinions on the criticisms raised on the film, It seems the major complaint is on the side of historical inaccuracy. I suppose for me, not being a huge history buff, such things don't bother me much, although part of me thinks they should. The main thing I look for in a movie adaption is a capturing of the spirit of the story and I felt 2005 P&P, despite having some inaccuracies, managed to do that. However, I can see why more hard-core history buffs or Jane Austen fans might think otherwise and it's interesting to see their opinions.

I'll always be a,
NL101

I am sorry if I was harsh about P&P.....I think I vented a little there! I'm sorry. I just don't like historical romance. I saw it with GTG.

Maybe Kitty and Lydia fawn over Willoughby now and again

*cough* Wickham.

I won't say anything to you Libby b/c lysander and narnialover101 have already cleared some things up, but...

As to my opinions on the criticisms raised on the film, It seems the major complaint is on the side of historical inaccuracy. I suppose for me, not being a huge history buff, such things don't bother me much, although part of me thinks they should. The main thing I look for in a movie adaption is a capturing of the spirit of the story and I felt 2005 P&P, despite having some inaccuracies, managed to do that. However, I can see why more hard-core history buffs or Jane Austen fans might think otherwise and it's interesting to see their opinions.

I completely agree. Although I LOVE history, the inaccuracies don't bother me so much. I felt the characters played their parts well, the story was told excellently, and the spirit of the book was there. That's why I love it.

^^ um, GTG.....it's okay. I was venting worse than you. glad we cleared that up! sorry!

Well, what I'm about to say will probably make Shadow's and GB's day.....

Anyway, yesterday I had the chance to finally watch James Cameron's 1986 film Aliens on SyFy (I'm guessing the version I watched was the Theatrical cut since there were no scenes on the colonists prior to the "incident"). Previously I had only been able to catch bits and pieces of the film, so this was the first time I was actually able to watch it from start to finish.

My opinion? One of the only R-rated films that I would say is a great film and deserves all the praise it gets. As Shadow has mentioned before, all aspects of the film are great. From acting to special effects (the Queen is one cool yet freaky creature! )

I really liked the fact that the action and monster fights seemed to be second to the human story, which was actually very compelling for once. I was also glad to see that there was only limited gore. There are a few gory scenes, but they are well placed and deliver more of a shock than a sickening reaction. Only real complaint: the ton of F-words. Granted, it is the military, but it just felt overdone in my opinion. Fortunately, most of the cursing was edited out for TV which helped in the enjoyment of the film.

Edit: Can't believe I almost forgot the music!!! The score by James Horner works perfectly in the film, even if it was butchered to death by Cameron. Having heard the original score as it was suppose to be used, I wonder how much it would have improved certain sequences.... Still, the chopped up version in the film works well. I did get amused at how many times Cameron used the beginning of "Queen to Bishop" throughout the film. It's the most used single piece of music in the film.

Overall, I highly enjoyed the film and wouldn't mind revisiting it later. I was so happy that the 4 main characters survived at the end. After watching this great film, you really wish they had left it at two movies instead of making the abominable 3rd and 4th entries.

"Games over, man! Game over!"

--------------------------

4 and a 1/2 out of 5

Rated-R: Sci-fi action and gore, strong language.

Well, what I'm about to say will probably make Shadow's and GB's day.....

PC, you on an Awesome Movie kick recently? First Predator and now Aliens! W4J is also a big fan of this film, so we can't leave him out . Aliens is just a finely crafted film from start to finish. And the acting and action are in almost perfect concert with each other. It is, simply put, my favorite film of all time. My only suggestion (and I'm sure both W4J and GB will back me up on this) is to check out the Extended Edition. It adds a lot of fun to an already great film.

Pvt. Hudson: "Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?"
Pvt. Vasquez: "No. Have you?"

Alien 3, while terrible, is at least watchable, if not tossing out much of what makes the first two films enjoyable (and meaningful, especially with regards to Aliens). Alien Ressurection though is an abomination, a cheap and sleazy take on the series which almost totally removes the human element from its predecessors and instead replaces it with needless gore and cheap, unfunny humor. Human beings, while flawed, are still treated as valuable in the first two films...you care about the characters on screen and sympathize with thier plight. A.R. has no characters I care about...I'm not entirely sure you're supposed to. The only ones I cared about (the soldier that tags along with the group of "heroes" and the kidnapped/impregnated miner) are killed off for no other reason than to push the plot forward. And don't even get me started on the Ripley/Xenomorph mosh pit scene (and it's implied sexual antics). Despicable. And totally unneeded in a series of this caliber.

No need to rehash old debates . But regardless, I certainly concur that Alien and Aliens are vastly superior to the following sequels . Aliens is definitely more Action Film, and Alien more Gothic Horror in almost documentary (and gory) style.

I did think the other sequels had their own merits though, despite being increasingly lesser entries.

GB

What merit did Alien Ressurrection have besides cool Aliens swimming underwater scenes? I have to know, my friend.

On the extended edition of Alien I might have to separate slightly with W4J. I found the scene where...

I actually liked the humour in it . Alien Resurrection's cartooniness was entertaining in its own right. I admit it was a self-parody, but it worked on that level for me. Though the scene where Ripley finds a room full of clones briefly "resurrected" a modicum of pathos before reverting to spoof.

But the kicker was the final scene... Utter Hilarity .

GB