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.

Darcy would never let Eliza stand there in the pouring rain as they argued. Eliza would never have gone to Netherfield with her hair down- that would be akin to her going there in her underwear. Things like that , I couldn’t get past, even though I loved the cinematography.

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?

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!

Colin Firth, hands down. But I'm glad that so many of you prefer MM, because that will be less competition for me when CF comes to his senses and selects his next bride from DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol at the #privateschool brag. Pride and prejudice isn't exactly high brow, and it's especially not high brow toyou favor passion over Austen's social commentary. It's a totally fine opinion but save the brags for when someone asks you if you've read Faust or something.

Uh…I threw it in there since the poster was throwing shade by saying, “Did you even read the book.”

#lightenup

lol yes I understood what you were trying to do there.

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.

Lol at the #privateschool brag. Pride and prejudice isn't exactly high brow, and it's especially not high brow toyou favor passion over Austen's social commentary. It's a totally fine opinion but save the brags for when someone asks you if you've read Faust or something.

Uh…I threw it in there since the poster was throwing shade by saying, “Did you even read the book.”

#lightenup

Anonymous wrote:I'm 40, and I never imagined in my wildest dreams anyone would prefer the Tom Wombsgambgendorg version over the Colin Firth one. COME ON!!!

CF/JE all the way.

You mean Matthew MacFayden? He’s done a lot more than Succession. Do better.

I'm 40, and I never imagined in my wildest dreams anyone would prefer the Tom Wombsgambgendorg version over the Colin Firth one. COME ON!!!

CF/JE all the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2005. It’s because of the sets/production, Rosamund Pike and Donald Sutherland and the Mrs Bennett. Oh and Judy Dench! And her hair.

I have watched both though more times than I care to admit.

The casting was wonderful.

You’re looking at it through early 21st century eyes. She’d have been the beauty at the time Austen wrote it.

Ehle was prettier, period.

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.

Lol at the #privateschool brag. Pride and prejudice isn't exactly high brow, and it's especially not high brow toyou favor passion over Austen's social commentary. It's a totally fine opinion but save the brags for when someone asks you if you've read Faust or something.

Anonymous wrote:43-year-old here, and I love the 1995 version. I saw the 2005 once and am not interested in seeing it again.

I wonder how often the first version we see is the one we imprint on. I also prefer the 1995 Persuasion with Amanda Root/Ciaran Hinds and the 1995 Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility (I absolutely do not care that she was too old to play Elinor, also ALAN RICKMAN). (‘95 was a good year for Austenites.)

Loved the 1995 Persuasion, 1995 S&S and the 2005 P&P. 1995 P&P not in the same league.

Anonymous wrote:Also—for Austen heads, I strongly recommend the Anya Taylor Joy Emma.

I hated that movie precisely because it did such a good job at revealing how awful Emma's behavior was. Gosh I hated her and I couldn't get behind the redemption.

Anonymous wrote:
2005 P&P is for shallow people who have no understanding or appreciation of the time period in general, or the book in particular.

1995 P&P is for people with IQ in the 3 digits who understand the individual subtleties of each character as well as the social constraints of the era.

Rednecks, shallow…reverting to calling people names for having different opinions is the sign of a bully.

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.

Thisssss

+10000000000000000000000000