49 yr old. Love both but the 2005 version wins by a hair. Love the energy and essence depicted in the 2005 version. For on screen chemistry, few pairings rival KK and MM.

Regarding the faithfulness to the period depicted, here's what 2005's costume designer said: We were all approaching it as a difficult thing to tackle, because it had already been done on TV, and we wanted this version to be different. Joe [Wright, the director] felt that the high waistline was really unflattering. In the 18th century, you had a corseted waist that was more or less the natural waistline, and after the 1790s it started moving up towards empire line. Joe found out that the book (published in 1813) was actually written in 1796, and thought ‘Anything to get us back earlier!’ So that’s what we did.

I definitely like 2005's costumes better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.

I find her off-putting in everything tbh.

You two are clearly biased against Kiera. We get it.

Yes that’s what happens when you don’t care for an actor. You generally don’t like them in anything. Not hard to understand or get.

+1. I'll own it. I loved Kiera in Bend it like Beckham but in serious, actressy roles she just seems full of herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

I agree with you.

+1 agree with this too. Will always prefer the 95 version.

For P&P fans... this John Mulaney + 2005 P&P is a delight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU_Gh0LIG64&pp=ygUgam9obiBtdWxhbmV5IHByaWRlIGFuZCBwcmVqdWRpY2U%3D

Anonymous wrote:Firth forever!
I've read the book twice, have seen 4 versions and have watched the Kiera one many times (with kids) but nobody can compete with the 90s version.

I'll add that I actually love Kiera/Keira in most of her roles but she isn't very Elizabeth Bennet

Firth forever!
I've read the book twice, have seen 4 versions and have watched the Kiera one many times (with kids) but nobody can compete with the 90s version.

Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth for me hands down.

Interestingly, Jennifer Ehle played the horribly abusive older nun in 1923. I had no idea until I finished the series!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.

I find her off-putting in everything tbh.

You two are clearly biased against Kiera. We get it.

Yes that’s what happens when you don’t care for an actor. You generally don’t like them in anything. Not hard to understand or get.

Keira. Come on, people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.

I find her off-putting in everything tbh.

You two are clearly biased against Kiera. We get it.

Yes that’s what happens when you don’t care for an actor. You generally don’t like them in anything. Not hard to understand or get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

You think 1995 Lydia was bland and boring?? I couldn’t even keep track of which girl was Lydia vs Kitty in 2005.

Are you serious? Maybe you should rewatch it.

I was exaggerating because I know the actress, but, Lydia is supposed to be over the top and kitty is supposed to be sort of bland, following and copying Lydia lamely. The 2005 version ignored that dynamic IMO

I thought that dynamic was definitely present. You really should rewatch it.

Fair enough, it’s been a few years. Maybe i will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.

I find her off-putting in everything tbh.

You two are clearly biased against Kiera. We get it.

Firth appears to be constipated throughout the entire series.

Ehle appears medicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firth/Ehle. The clothing and hair are in the right period (rare and delightful!) which I love, but I suspect the heart of why I love it is that I grew up with it and it was the first one I saw (35 here). But if I’m going to get specific about why the vibe works for me — Jane Austen isn’t about passion imo; it’s about laughter and joy and social commentary. The 1995 version really got that. The 2005 one feels like Brontë interprets Jane Austen. But I have friends who adore it and I’m very glad they have the movie of their dreams!

Where’s the laughter and joy in the Firth version?

The whole thing was hilarious, if you understood it. All of the dialogue (austens original dialogue) is so funny, such a perfect social commentary. Charlotte talking placidly about how she encourages Collins to spend time in his garden because it’s good for his health? Jane running up to Collins when he is at the Bennets, bothering Elizabeth out in the yard, and saying he needs to go help Mary with some sermons, and he tries to deflect and she goes “sir I believe it to be of great doctrinal import!” So much of it is just so, so funny and the 2005 doesn’t trust us to understand the hilarity of the original lines so they change it all.

Sigh.

Yes, I understand the humor in the writing.

I’m criticizing the delivery by the actors in the bbc version. It’s sooooo bbc: bland boring corny. The acting is stiff and stilted. There’s very little emotion or joy or humor.

My 8th grade class did a better job reading it aloud.

You think 1995 Lydia was bland and boring?? I couldn’t even keep track of which girl was Lydia vs Kitty in 2005.

Are you serious? Maybe you should rewatch it.

I was exaggerating because I know the actress, but, Lydia is supposed to be over the top and kitty is supposed to be sort of bland, following and copying Lydia lamely. The 2005 version ignored that dynamic IMO

I thought that dynamic was definitely present. You really should rewatch it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The overwrought melodrama of the Keira Knightley version is more suitable for a Charlotte Brontë novel than Pride and Prejudice. She was more measured. More genteel. Like the 1995 BBC version.

Lizzie in the Firth version was cold, flat, boring, and unlikeable. Zero passion.

Firth was uncharacteristically flat, too.

Have you actually read the book?

Yes.

#privateschool

Listen: books are open to interpretation—particularly when adapted to the screen.

I’m baffled by everyone commenting that the bbc one is better because it’s essentially a bland reading of the book.

Did you read the book? Were you looking for any hint of passion? Most people want to see human emotion and passion. The Firth version seems very transactional. Heck, Ehle says she fell in love once she saw his estate.

I've read the book 5 times. I love the language most of all - she is a wordsmith. I love the sharp eye on society at that time. I love the inner life of the main character and thinking about what life was like back then for women and what they had to navigate the rules imposed on them. I love all the character delineations.

Elizabeth Bennet fell in love when she realized that Darcy was not a cad after all and had gone out of his way to help her family. I love that both she and he learn more about themselves and their blind spots.

And yes, there is passion. It's in the silent looks. Holy cow.

I’d argue it’s more sexual
Tension than passion, and more on firths side than hers, but it’s so much better I think!!

Anonymous wrote:NP. I couldn't get past Kiera playing cute Kiera, she just didn't disappear into the role.

I find her off-putting in everything tbh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The overwrought melodrama of the Keira Knightley version is more suitable for a Charlotte Brontë novel than Pride and Prejudice. She was more measured. More genteel. Like the 1995 BBC version.

Lizzie in the Firth version was cold, flat, boring, and unlikeable. Zero passion.

Firth was uncharacteristically flat, too.

Have you actually read the book?

Yes.

#privateschool

Listen: books are open to interpretation—particularly when adapted to the screen.

I’m baffled by everyone commenting that the bbc one is better because it’s essentially a bland reading of the book.

Did you read the book? Were you looking for any hint of passion? Most people want to see human emotion and passion. The Firth version seems very transactional. Heck, Ehle says she fell in love once she saw his estate.

I've read the book 5 times. I love the language most of all - she is a wordsmith. I love the sharp eye on society at that time. I love the inner life of the main character and thinking about what life was like back then for women and what they had to navigate the rules imposed on them. I love all the character delineations.

Elizabeth Bennet fell in love when she realized that Darcy was not a cad after all and had gone out of his way to help her family. I love that both she and he learn more about themselves and their blind spots.

And yes, there is passion. It's in the silent looks. Holy cow.