1 Pride and Prejudice (2005) …review and/or viewer comments • Christian Spotlight on the Movies • ChristianAnswers.Net

Copyright, Focus Features
Prayer Focus
Movie Review

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

MPAA Rating: PG for some mild thematic elements

Reviewed by: Michael Karounos
CONTRIBUTOR

Better than Average
Moviemaking Quality:
Primary Audience:
Teens, Adults, Family
Genre:
Romantic Drama
Length:
2 hr. 07 min.
Year of Release:
2005
Featuring: Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFadyen, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone, Donald Sutherland
Director: Joe Wright
“Atonement” (2007)
Producer: Joe Wright
Distributor: Focus Features
Copyright, Focus Features
Copyright, Focus Features
Copyright, Focus Features
Copyright, Focus Features
Relevant Issues
Jane Austen related films

Mansfield Park” (1999)

“Pride and Prejudice” (2000)

“Pride and Prejudice” (2005)

Bride and Prejudice” (2005)

Persuasion” (1995)

Becoming Jane” (2007)

Bridget Jones’s Diary” (2001)

About love

Couple in love. Photo copyrighted
What is true love and how do you know when you have found it? Answer

Sex, Love and Relationships
Learn how to make your love the best it can be. Discover biblical answers to questions about sex, marriage, sexual addictions, and more.

“Sometimes the last person on earth you want to be with is the one person you can’t be without.”

Three types of people will enjoy this film: those who have not read the book, those who have read the book, and those who are “Janeites”-ardent fans of Jane Austen. For the first two groups, the movie will be enjoyable because it is a good love story, with believable character development, interesting settings, and a brisk pace which makes the film’s length seem shorter than its satisfying 127 minutes. The Janeites will fuss and quibble, but eventually they’ll concede that it’s better than the 1940 Lawrence Olivier/Greer Garson, if not quite as satisfying as the fuzzy-lens romanticism of the 1995 BBC mini-series starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle that is everyone’s favorite. (Warning: small spoilers ahead.)

For those unfamiliar with Pride and Prejudice (1813), its premise begins with one of the most famous first sentences in English literature: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” The problem in the book and movie is a superfluity of potential wives. Mr. and Mrs. Bennett have five daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Lydia, and Kitty. Although Jane and Elizabeth have a fetching mixture of sense and sensibility, Mary, alas, is all sense, while Lydia and Kitty regularly dissolve into paroxysms of laughing, crying, and whiney importuning.

Elizabeth, or Lizzy as she’s called, is played by Kiera Knightley. The whole story revolves around her personality and much depends on casting. Those who know the book know Lizzy Bennett as one of the wittiest and most attractive women in English literature. It’s no small feat for an actress to fill this role convincingly and Kiera Knightley almost succeeds.

The film’s title derives from the faults of the two characters. Lizzy must overcome her tendency to prejudge people on insufficient evidence while Darcy, the romantic love interest played by Matthew McFayden, must overcome his pride. The charm of the story is in showing how this is accomplished, and the movie, to everyone’s relief, accomplishes this in a credible manner. McFayden does a good job of underacting, while Knightley nearly manages to eclipse the disadvantage of her youth in portraying a complex personality.

The real star of the movie is Joe Wright’s direction. While I confess to not liking some of his aesthetic decisions concerning setting, make-up, and dress, he does bring a dynamic quality to the story that is lacking in other period films. He explains the reason for this in an interview with The London Times:

It’s the idea of making it less formal and shooting it in the tradition of British realism.If something is contemporary, people shoot it with zoom lenses and handheld cameras, and if something is period, then they want to shoot it with a static, formal composition. But, actually, zoom lenses are incredibly exciting, because they mean you can move with the moment and improvise. To shoot “Pride and Prejudice” in a so-called contemporary style brings it into fresh relief. The Times: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-1713921,00.html)

Cinematically, there are three distinct qualities to look for in this movie. The most obvious, and to most people, the most negative quality, is the film’s general condition of deshabille in hair, clothing, and interior/exterior shots. Many of the characters have hair that is loosely arranged or greasy, wear clothing that is untidy or dirty, dwell in rooms that are inordinately cluttered, while the house itself looks like a pile of bricks set in the middle of a large pig stye crowded with chickens, geese, cows, dogs, horses, and pigs. This is the aspect of the movie that Janeites will dislike the most. Austen’s interiors were always tidy. Indeed, to show otherwise was to imply a moral judgment against those who live in disorder. Sloveliness would not be an art form until the 20th century.

The second most interesting stylistic effect is Wright’s camera work. The ballroom scenes will make Austen fans claustrophobic because Wright crowds so many people into so small a space. The viewer can feel the closeness and almost smell what no amount of hair powder and perfume could completely disguise in 1797 (the year of Austen’s first draft of the novel). But after an initial moment of panic caused by the viewer’s fear that the whole movie would be as frenetic as an MTV video, Wright regains the viewer’s confidence by establishing a cinematic rhythm that is brisk without being nauseous.

There is one especially masterful shot which takes place at Bingley’s ball. Wright has a backward tracking movement that indiscriminately shows much of the crowd while at the same time telling a backstory of the film’s major characters: we see Lizzy provoked, Mary humiliated, Collins disdained, Jane pursued by Bingley, and then Mary again, comforted by her father (a nice touch that isn’t in the novel).

Thirdly, because Wright shoots in a realistic, as opposed to an objectively static style, the camera often acts as a bystander. This is figured by the amount of peeping that takes place in the movie. Wright uses Mrs. Bennet to establish the theme by showing her smiling at something and then tracking across the room to the private parts of a pig that is walking by. It is a shocking moment, but one that Wright nearly pulls off without being offensive because of the general disorder of the place and the portrayal of Mrs. Bennett as an earthy, foolish woman from whom we would not expect more. Lizzy Bennett peeps around doorways, between cracks, through ribbons, and often lets her gaze fall where a polite lady of her time wouldn’t be caught looking. Presumably, no one sees but the camera, but it is still a poor reflection on the iconic idea of Elizabeth Bennett as being above a child-like curiosity of private areas.

Another aspect of this trope is Wright’s interest in hands. On at least three different occasions he frames a character’s hand flexing, hanging in repose, or slyly grasping the back of a woman’s dress. Eyes and hands are the body parts most figured in this interpretation as opposed to the distracting, low-cut empire-style dresses of the Regency period which riveted everyone’s attention on the women’s busts.

For Janeites and for those who have a professional interest in Austen as I do, the movie is mostly satisfying. Certainly, Kiera Knightley was not the best choice for Elizabeth Bennett for a number of reasons. First, her style of acting is in the contemporary mode of the female action hero, the equivalent of casting Bruce Willis as Darcy. Knightley swaggers, smirks, sneers, curls her lips, licks her fingers, and ends nearly every sentence with an open-mouthed Valley Girl expression that diminishes the impression of the character’s intelligence, Elizabeth Bennett’s most striking quality. There is too much of Miss Knightley’s mouth in this movie and not enough of her mind.

In that regard, I would rather have seen an actress like Reese Witherspoon whose work communicates intelligence, regardless of the role she plays. Also, Knightley strikes emotional notes that don’t ring true to the character. She is at times a little too shrill, a little too disdainful, a little too hateful in some of her expressions. It doesn’t help that Deborah Moggach gave her lines that Austen never wrote and Elizabeth Bennett would never say, as when she snaps at her mother: “She may well perish with shame at having such a mother!”

Those quibbles notwithstanding, the movie is an enjoyable experience whose most interesting statement is likewise not in the novel. When Mr. Bennett (Donald Sutherland) states that Lydia must be allowed to go to Brighton else they would never have peace in the house, Lizzy states in a moment of moral clarity: “Peace? Is that all you care about?” The implication here is that the sloveliness of the house is due to the sloveliness of manners that the head of the house has established. For the 18th and 19th centuries, manners were morals. As Lizzy walks out, the film seems to implicate Mr. Bennett’s callousness by showing him twirling a moth specimen that is spitted on a pin, a dark and highly effective moment of characterization. On the other hand, the movie seems to exonerate Mrs. Bennett in the end by having her respond to Lizzy’s comment about marriage: “Wait til you have five daughters and see what you think about.”

Although the movie is too eccentric in its look and Knightley is not quite convincing as Elizabeth Bennett, this version of the novel will do nicely until the right actress comes along to stamp the character with the kind of timelessness that Gwynneth Paltrow imparted to the character of Emma. As a moral tale of the faults of pride and judgment, the film communicates well that none of us are perfect and that we must never judge hastily, or compromise our principles for selfish pleasures or for the expedience of a moral complacency.

Violence: None / Profanity: None / Sex/Nudity: None

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

DVD cover. Copyrighted.

Year of Release—2005 / USA release: November 11, 2005 (limited); DVD release: February 28, 2006.

Viewer Comments
Comments available:
Positive
Positive—Jane Austin meets Mills and Boon. A pity Austin’s acerbic wit were not more in evidence (and Donald Sutherland is a dull dog), but taken on its own terms, this is a hugely enjoyable adaptation and well worth seeing. Keira Knightly is surprisingly good as Elizabeth—all sharp angles and bags of life. The rest of the cast is never less than solid. But where was the wedding at the end? Surely this of all films must end with the wedding! For the real Jane Austin see the BBC 1995 version. For enjoyment, this will do.
My Ratings: Good / 3½
—D Littlewood, United Kingdom, age 58
Positive—I saw this movie with my husband for our date night. It was a fun night out and very pleasant. However, when Elizabeth is walking around in Mr. Darcy’s home, there is a rather large art display of nude sculptures. I suppose very common in that day nevertheless, be aware of that. Also, one curse word is uttered by Mr. Bingley in his conversation with Jane. He says he made a *fool* of himself. Other than those two incidents, the movie is very good and overall I enjoyed it. The scenery is breathtaking in places, the characters are fitting for the time era, and you will enjoy the wit and light sarcasm between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. To my surprise, there were a lot of teens there who seemed to really enjoy it. I prefer “Sense and Sensibility” better, but this will indeed do just as well.
My Ratings: Good / 4
—Nicole Ray, age 31
Positive—I went to this movie with some friends half expecting to be disappointed by it because I LOVE the book and the BBC/A&E Version so much. However, I was pleasantly surprised by it! The casting director did an excellent job. Even Keira Knightley, who I thought couldn’t handle the role, did a great job. And unlike the previous person who commented on the movie, I thought Donald Sutherland was wonderful as the father. This version of the story gave some different insights than the A&E version which will make it a must in my DVD collection.

My only thought of concern about the movie is that if you haven’t read the book or at least seen the 6 hour A&E version, you might be a bit lost sometimes because, necessarily so, due to only being 2 hours, a lot of details are left out. Don’t make this stop you from seeing the movie, just be sure to read the book or at the very least, see the A&E version before or after you the movie. You’ll love them!
My Ratings: Good / 4½
—Romaine Bosma, age 51
Positive—This was nowhere near as good as the 1995 BBC version, which is much truer to Austen’s book than this version. The many additions to Austen’s excellent dialogue have the effect of “dumbing down” the film for modern viewers and it really isn’t necessary, because Austen’s wit is timeless. I think the PG rating was accurate for a change, and I do not regret bringing my third and fifth grade children to see it. They both enjoyed it very much. However, I strongly object to the vile and inappropriate previews shown before this film. I recommend that parents wait until the movie comes out on DVD…
My Ratings: Good / 4
—Ashley S, age 42
Positive—Until 4 months ago, I was somewhat prejudiced of this film. I thought that there could be no equal to the 1995 BBC version; however I now consider this version as my favorite adaptation of Jane Austen’s beloved novel! The most disappointing and offensive part of going to see this film were the previews that my family had to endure through.

The film was cast perfectly!! They perform with a touch more of reality than the other versions of P&P, like how most people would respond in real-life. Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen perform their roles with a refreshing sense of youthfulness; and therefore truly presenting new insights to both Lizzy and Darcy that we didn’t know existed. The rest of the cast is wonderful in not copying the BBC version with how they perform their parts either. The music is beautiful and crisp and not at all like the other adaptations, in fact it is better!

I fully agree with its PG rating due to some of the sculptures and paintings (thankfully, they are filmed with delicacy so it didn’t bother our family). One of the improvements of this version is that even though the styles of the period are preserved; the dresses are more modest than some of the BBC costumes. It was a relief to my dad and older brother that their eyes did not need to be averted.

I would not drag along young children, for the plot will go right over their heads and you’ll end up wasting at least on them. Also be prepared for the story to move right along. Unlike the 1940 and 1995 version, there is no time left to become bored with; and because of this, minor characters are cut and some settings are condensed into one scene, but the oddest thing is… that it works!

One last thing, my favorite scene would have to be the one in which Lizzy first spars with Darcy concerning the difference of poetry and dancing. It is priceless and I only wish Jane Austen had written that part in the book. At the end my family walked away perfectly happy with what we had seen, for the ending is beautifully done and will leave you both misty-eyed and smiling with joy… Just as it should leave us feeling! I’m going to read the book again and dream of the day when I can buy this DVD!
My Ratings: Excellent! / 5
—Cara, age 20
Positive—I have been a Jane Austen fan ever since I was twelve years old and saw “Sense and Sensibility”. I loved that one, and looked for every movie from a Jane Austen novel that I could find, and also read the books many times. I first saw the BBC version of “Pride and Prejudice” on A&E a few years back and bought it soon after. I was actually prejudiced against this movie because I’m really not a Keira Knightley fan. But I took my dad to see this movie, as it is my duty as a Jane Austen fan to judge this movie fairly.

I have three favorite aspects to this movie: The soundtrack, the scenery and the chemistry between Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. All were done extremely well, the views of Lizzy travelling over the Lake country with her aunt and uncle were breathtaking, the music, which played softly throughout was a glorious score, and over Lizzy and Darcy, what can I say. I’m a romantic. What “Janeite” isn’t a romantic?

Joe Wright didn’t delve into many of the subplots, but timing restraints kept him from doing so. If you want to watch something instead of reading the book (although, why anyone would want to do that, I’m not sure!) watch the BBC version. For a feast for the eyes and ears, watch this one. Wonderful job!
My Ratings: Excellent! / 4½
—Becky Martin, age 20
Positive—I love period pieces, so when I see one, it has to be really good to compare to all the other ones I’ve seen. I went in to this movie expecting to see only a mediocre representation of the Jane Austen novel. However, I was plesantly surprised by how amazing this film really is. The casting is excellent, and contrary to popular belief, I think Keira Knightley does a great job bringing her character to life. Personally, I think that this movie is much better than the 1995 BBC miniseries. Although it might not be quite as accurate, it is definitely more entertaining. Besides, no one can expect any adaptation to completely live up to the novel it was based on. If you view this film with that in mind, then you should have no problem considering it one of the best period pieces to date.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4½
—Heather, age 18
Positive—If you are a Jane Austen fan, you will like this film. Perhaps you are thinking that we don’t need another version of P and P. I can understand that, I have the 6 hour BBC version on DVD, and it is near perfect. But, I enjoyed this one, too. It’s like going to a play, you see a play that you’ve seen before, but with different actors and a different director, it becomes a new play. This version has its highlights, that’s for sure. For starters, it is beautiful to watch. The scenery is breathtaking! They found some fabulous places to film, and it was quite striking very often. They also had a nice style, with a sunrise coming up just at the most romantic moment, things like that. Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Carribbean) is the lead (Lizzie), and she was a delight. Other actors with smaller parts were especially good: Donald Sutherland, Judi Dench and Brenda Blethyn. Matthew Macfayden plays Darcy. He was also good, though not the kind of Darcy that we usually see. After watching the 6 hour version starring Colin Firth so many times, this version seemed rushed; they had to cut corners to tell the whole story in two hours. But I felt that they told it well. If you like a good romance, the old fashioned kind where everyone is all politeness and proper, and a good British period piece, then this is the movie for you. The only thing objectionable that I can recall would probably be the dresses that the girls wore, as they tended to be a bit low cut. Also, one of the girls behaves badly and gets pregnant, as it is in the book, but nothing obscene is shown. I recommend it, and I would like to see it again. It is rated PG, and I give it an “A”.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4½
—Warren Sager, age 48
Positive—I loved this movie. I thought Keira Knightley was delightful to watch—especially her kinda crooked smile. The rest of the cast was great. This was a great movie. I don’t recall anything being offensive.
My Ratings: Good / 5
—Dana, age 33
Neutral
Neutral—This version of the movie left me wanting something more, in the main characters Elizabeth (Knightly), and Darcy (McFayden). The tension between them was not as intense as the other versions of the novel, nor of that found in the book. I love this story. I am a Jane Austen fanatic, and the shear clutter of ribbons, food, animals, and papers, found at the home, and all around the dining scenes, or the claustrophobic party and street scenes was a little too REAL.

If that was the effect they were going for. It was almost annoying, but could be overlooked, as a touch of realism, if one could really get into the proud, mysteriousness of this Darcy, and the feeling of Elizabeth’s being the intelligent favorite of her father. Keira Knightly doesn’t seem all that “intellectual.” I was also almost offended by the comment made about the girls not having a governess, left unchallenged by a showing of at least Elizabeth’s home schooled intelligence, juxtaposed with her silly sisters and equally silly mother.

I love Donald Sutherland, and felt he could actually have been Elizabeth’s dad. His consoling Mary, and lying next to his wife in bed talking, add another human dimension to this version of Mr. Bennett. He’s a doting father and husband, and likeable. I even like, and always love anything that Dame Judy Dench plays. She’s always a likable villain, aunt, mother, queen, whatever. She’s regal and it always works for her. Although her waking up the family in the middle of the night to as the angry rich aunt of Mr. Darcy, was a strange directors license with this encounter.

I couldn’t help thinking all the way through the movie, that if I’d never seen the other versions, or loved reading the book as a child or adult, then I would’ve like the neat little modernized, period dressed, clean entertainment, love story. But I couldn’t separate my former impressions from past film versions, closer to the writing of the book, or at least in the b/w version, the feeling of the book.

What I did like is the beauty of the clean, grand, beautiful spaces found in the outdoor love scenes with Elizabeth and Darcy, whether in the rain, sunshine, or moonlight. It was quite a contrast to the clutter of the country gentry life of Elizabeth’s home, which looked like a tall pile of stones, made in to lots of small cozy rooms, with dirty windows, and servants around.

I know this is a little long, but the one thing that intrigues me about all of Jane Austen’s work is her portrayal of clergy as a calling, of those who might want a comfortable life, trying to improve the manners and morals of the parish where they’re assigned. Mr. Collins is usually an extremely annoying and laughable character, but this portraying of him isn’t as funny. The younger sister reads sermons, and seems to have a little crush on him. They show him making sermons, and highlight a nice display of “class” segregation in the church pews. Rich in front; poor in back. The commentary or criticism of the ministry being a Godly or Secular vocation is found all over the works of Jane Austen, who had many ministers in her family.

If one wanted to do further study on Jane Austen and the church, there are some good books out there on why she discusses the ministers of the time as some with a clear calling to change the world for Christ, and the others, as a family or default calling to live a comfortable life, give boring sermons, defer to the rich, get a free home, and be able to move above class distinctions, by moving in circles of rich and poor. Austen’s family ministers seem to be kept around as a mascots of manners and morals, as does Lady Catherine, graciously condescending to Mr. Collins and his wife. Yet maybe the elephant in the room is the clergyman, whom no one listens to, but everyone holds in high regard and contempt at the same time. Jane Austen may have hit on something, as seeing Christianity, and it’s professionals, as mascots of western society; ever present, but sadly enough not taken too seriously.

Go see “Pride and Prejudice” 2005, but see the others to get a well-rounded perspective. Then go see “Mansfield Park”, and “Sense and Sensibility”.
My Ratings: Good / 3½
—Camille Banks, age 36
Comments from young people
Positive—I saw this movie with my friend, and we both had a great time. It was good, though a little slow in some parts. We were treated to a few shots of naked artwork, but other than that, it was clean. I liked how Mr. Darcy falls in love with Elizabeth without ever having sex, kissing, holding hands, etc. — much different than a lot of modern romances! Kiera Knightly was a great choice for the main role. Overall, it was a good movie, with a great message about real love.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 3
—Brittney, age 15
Positive—This was an amazing movie!! Although not as good as the original it was really well done. The end was different from the 1995 BBC one but very satisfying. It showed the love in a different way than the book. Some of the characters played a smaller role than they do in the 1995 one such as Mr Wickam, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Lydia. The movie as a whole was very well done (although the dancing scenes are a little claustrophobic), satisfying, and will leave you with a happy feeling as you leave the theater.
My Ratings: Excellent! / 4½
—Shannon, age 16
Positive—I loved this movie because it showed the generous love someone can have for another. I thought that Mr. Darcy’s love for Miss Bennett (Kiera Knightley) was one that showed true respect. The things he did for Elizabeth are an example of how God wants us to treat each other. I think this was a great movie that illustrated the value of love, and how it can change you.
My Ratings: Good / 2½
—Kylie, age 15
Positive—I went with my friends to see this movie! It was probably one of the best movies that I have seen this year. There aren’t really that many things that were offensive. I think that Keira Knightley did a really good job in this movie. It was an innocent love movie without the main characters have sex every two seconds to make sure that they were really in love with each other. I would recommend this!
My Ratings: Good / 5
—Angela Smith, age 15
Positive—For those of you not wanting to sit through six hours of period-correctness, (i.e., “Pride and Prejudice”, the old one) this is a good option. The biggest problem I had was that the costumes and hair were awful. The actors looked cheesy. Oh well. The acting was good, and some parts of it were quite funny. It’s also “scrunched” to fit it into the 2 and ½ hours instead of the previous 6. But that was fine with me. At first I kept comparing it to the older “P and P”, but I had to force myself to stop. This is a more modern version, so I think it’s more suited to most teens. It was worth the money!
My Ratings: Better than Average / 2
—Stephanie, age 14
Positive—My two friends and I saw this movie and we absolutely loved it! It was a little boring toward the end and a couple beside us left but I would recommend you stay for the whole thing. I would recommend this for ages 11 and up because the accent may be hard to follow for younger children. I would go back and see it again. Believe me it is worth the money.
My Ratings: Good / 4½
—Kim, age 13
Positive—…an excellent film. I was expecting it to be bad because some of my friends had said it was not as good as the old version, but actually I thought that this version was much better! There was no swearing or anything that was bad. I would really recommend this film to everyone, but I have to say though that I think older kids should go to it rather than younger kids—because some of the language is a little bit hard to understand. Also if you’re older you can fully appreciate this film. Overall, this film is excellent and everyone should go see it!!
My Ratings: Excellent! / 4½
—Naomi, United Kingdom, age 12
Positive—I really enjoyed this movie! I still cannot be convinced that anything could be better than the A&E version, but this one was so beautiful!! I don’t think that there’s any “nice” way to say this but, while the clothes were considered fairly immodest, the actresses were so bone thin there was really not much to show! They only cussed once, I can’t remember them taking the Lord’s name in vain, there was only one minor scene that suggested sex (the guy that falls in love with Jane grabs her dress ever so slightly with two fingers where her bottom was and they zoomed way in for that). This movie was fun and entertaining, and I really thought they wouldn’t do it much justice considering it was under the time limit of 3 ½ hours!! They portrayed everything beautifully! And, where I typically consider Kira Knightly a bit of an “over actor,” she really did quite well in this one in my opinion. I think it’s appropriate for all ages, I mean, me, my mother, father, and 7 year old sister went and all enjoyed it. The only other objectionable thing was that they did a tour of Darcy’s house and he had a bunch of nude statues and paintings everywhere. But, to be honest, I’ve heard and seen worse… I would encourage everyone to go and see this sheer CLASSIC!! Two thumbs up!! Oh!!! And how could I forget the music?! It was really really pretty!! Go see this movie!!
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4½
—Kitty, age 13
Positive—I went to go see this movie with my mom, and I thought it was the best movie I’ve ever seen. I’m not usually someone who goes to see romantic movies, but this one was an exception. The main star’s sisters were extremely annoying because they laughed all the time but in a way they were hilarious! There wasn’t so many kissing scenes that you felt like you were going to pass out, but there was a good long one at the very end. I loved it!!
My Ratings: Good / 5
—Steelfoot, age 13
Positive—I simply do not understand why people believe the 1995 version of “Pride and Prejudice” (with Colin Firth) is so much better than the 2005 version of “Pride and Prejudice”. Keira Knightley was outstanding in the role of Lizzy. Although the movie did not completely line up with the book, I found the way the director did it to be quite tasteful and entertaining. I agree with the reviewer—the camera angles were superb. The scene of the dance between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy was passionate and well-done. Lydia and Kitty (played by Jenna Malone and Carey Mulligan) were hilarious to watch, as was Mrs. Bennet. Mr. Bennet, in my opinion, was not a “dud” at all. He was perfectly intercepted into the plotline. And Mr. Darcy—oh! Mr. Darcy!—he was perfect. Much more tall and handsome and convincing than Colin Firth, I must say.

The only Biblically offensive materials would be when Mr. Bingley tells Jane that he has been an “a*s,” and some of the low-cut attire worn by the women in this film. I cannot think of anything else. All-in-all, I HIGHLY recommend this film. It is one of the best I have seen up-to-date, and one I watch again and again.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
—Alexxus, age 13 (USA)