ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Jan Zidek ...even worse than the 2005 version! Holywoodization of the worst kind! I believe the Americans should not have ever touched this novel. The main reasons I did not like it: Out-of-time costumes - to satisfy the popcorn eaters' idea of English nobility?Wannabe "humour" so far from the Jane Austen's, more like a stand-up comedy than the intelligent light irony of the author.All the characters diluted into an indigestible sauce. Only Collins remained himself. Most actors terribly overplay they roles, like if they mistook the film for the theatre.Even the original Austen's happy ending was not happy enough for the movie creators. Yuck! The only reason why you should watch it is if you are a "collector" of Pride & Prejudice adaptations and/or a researcher into the modern pop(corn) culture.

richard-1787 I haven't read Austin's novel of this name since high school, over four decades ago, so I really have no way of knowing how faithful an adaptation this is.Nor, frankly, do I particularly care.If you can divorce the two works and not expect the movie to reproduce the novel, you are left with one really remarkable film.First and foremost, the script, by Aldous Huxley, no mean novelist himself, is brilliant. I don't know how much of it is borrowed or adapted from Austin and how much is Huxley's clever creation, but it's just plain wonderful. Witty without being nasty or supercilious, it's a joy from beginning to end.Second, the script's wonderful dialogue is delivered with zest and nuance by great actors, chief among them Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. They seem to the manner born - which evidently they were.Then there is Edna May Oliver. She did so many different things so well, such as Pross in *A Tale of Two Cities.* She steals every scene in which she appears here, sending even Olivier into the shade. She's just a joy to watch.As, frankly, is this whole movie.

SimonJack I recently watched again this film version of Jane Austin's classic novel. Of course, by now, I have had the opportunity to watch all the later versions as well. This 1940 film and the 2005 film might best be viewed as adaptations of the Austen story, based more on the modern mores and culture of the time each film was made. That excuses the departure from the settings, clothing, manners, and mores of the early 1800s and the landed gentry of England. Those were the substance of Austen's great book, and she beautifully put them under a huge microscope for all to see in her novel. I am most grateful to the BBC for its 1980 and 1995 mini-series that so faithfully and painstakingly transposed the printed pages onto film. Hollywood often alters, revises, rewrites and sometimes completely changes stories or their outcomes. Sometimes it makes for better movies. Sometimes, great reductions are needed just to get a story on film. So, I understand that. And, we movie buffs can take or leave the results. As some of the IMDb reviews indicate on the 2005 movie, there is an audience out there that likes the modern-day adaptation. I too enjoyed the 2005 film. It is truer to the times and culture than this 1940 film. But it omits or drastically condenses significant parts of Austen's story—of necessity, no doubt, to fit the movie length. For the much better and complete telling of the story, viewers should watch either or both of BBC TV minis-series. I'm in the camp of people who really enjoy the wit and humor of clever dialog, accompanied by wonderful expressions to match, and the poking and jabbing at the foibles and follies of cultures. Those things are the essence and value of this story. Through it, Austin explores and exploits those very time-specific mores of English society. She does it with wonderful irony, satire and spoofing. So, when those things are altered significantly, as they are in this cramped version, we are left with something else. A soap opera of sorts, perhaps? Or maybe even a romantic comedy? But it certainly is not the wit, clever story-telling and wisdom of Jane Austen. This 1940 film has a cast of great actors. But many are too old for the roles they play. The costumes are only the start of the failings of this film – from the opening scene. But the script and direction are its biggest failings. One reviewer (vincentlynch-moonoi from the U.S.), on 3 July 2012, wrote: "I confess – I don't get it." I think that honestly reflects the script. For anyone who doesn't know the story, too many things in the movie are left dangling or have just piecemeal references. The plot is too disconnected at times. I won't go into more detail on the many miscues in this adaptation. Two other reviewers nail these very well – Ivan-166 from Australia, 16 August 2006; and Keith-moyes from the U.S., 21 November 2006. So, while some people today may enjoy this 1940 film as a light comedy- romance of sorts, we don't know if they also would be interested in reading Austen's novel or watching the longer accurate depictions on film. What would be interesting to me would be to see how people rated this film in 1940. How would reviewers have posted comments on IMDb if it were around back then? And what would they have to say?My five stars for this film are for Jane Austen, just for the parts of her great novel that are in this film. And for the cast of wonderful actors of the time who gave it a try with a very poor script and far sub-par direction.

atlasmb To those who condemn this film because it is not true to the original book, look elsewhere for an opinion. I believe each work of art should be judged on its own merits. If this film could be improved by being truer to the original, that would be a valid criticism, but I am happy to say that this version of Pride and Prejudice is exceptional.The greatest attribute of this film is the dialogue, followed closely by the plot--both of which are a credit to Jane Austen, of course.I absolutely loved the music which, like the music of the previous year's The Wizard of Oz, is a perfect complement to the action on screen, including delightful themes for some characters.The costuming, though sometimes criticized for not being true to the period, is nevertheless true to the story, adding glamor and comedic emphasis where needed.Although I can imagine other actors playing various roles in this film, all of the casting was enjoyable. Greer Garson, especially, displayed an emotional depth. Olivier, of course, was excellent as the tortured Mr. Darcy. Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine de Bourgh was spot on.All in all, Pride and Prejudice is a satisfying cinematic experience that transports one to a different time and culture. It might have been improved with color film, but we will never know.