It’s distracting having Jane not be beautiful since everyone is always commenting on her beauty.
+ a million
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love Colin Firth.
+1! I also love Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth. She played Elizabeth in a way that indicated Elizabeth understood her place in the world/her future as an unmarried woman. Knightley didn't capture that at all, IMO. I actually think McFadyen was good as Darcy. I just like Colin Firth much better in the role.
Anonymous wrote:I'm 49, new poster, and I vote Firth/Ehle.
BUT - I have watched and will watch 2005 again and again, too.
Anonymous wrote:In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love Colin Firth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op again.
Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.
I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.
The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.
I'm the ardent admirer of Firth. Also 49. I think there are heaps of chemistry.
That’s because Firth exudes something romantic in every film. But she just comes across as stiff.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The “pretty” sister in the Firth version really isn’t pretty.
She's pretty for 1813!