Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Sharkflei Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

rebekahrox This is an excellent version of Pride and Prejudice second only to the lauded and beloved 1995 production. Elizabeth Garvie's "fine eyes" and bright performance is a standout. She is lovely and likable. I would put it on par with Jennifer Ehle's interpretation. Unfortunately David Rintoul's performance is a real hindrance. He is as stiff and expressionless as a board. He moves through the film as a Zombie. This would have been fine for most of the production, but he almost never unbends to show us his true colors at the end. He only smiles when he is inviting Mr. Gardiner to go fishing, and even then he looks like his face would crack from the effort. Darcy must be shown to have evolved into someone Elizabeth could love and like. Colin Firth revealed Darcy to be shy as well as proud and it was a charming portrayal. For much of his portrayal, I was looking forward to the change when Darcy finally melts. I was very disappointed. What a lost opportunity! It was very vexing! All of the other actors stand up quite well to the classic, especially Jane, and Mr. Collins. Jane is, in this version, much more of the beauty she is described. Susanna Harker in the 1995 version is attractive and interesting looking but she is not really a beauty, in my opinion. I do prefer the more comedic performance of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet. Julia Salwaha killed as Lydia, and unfortunately this one was not up to snuff by comparison.

SimonJack This early BBC mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" is the first production to flesh out most of the significant characters of Jane Austen's novel. Of course, it needed the nearly 4 ½ hours to do that. The production values are very good. The scenery and filming are excellent. The cast is very capable, but only a couple of the performances seem exceptional. Those would be Sabina Franklyn as Jane Bennett and Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Irene Richard also was quite good as Charlotte Lucas. David Rintoul made a striking figure for Fitzwilliam Darcy. But, in his transformation at the end, his character still seemed to be dour. There was no apparent warming and enthusiasm with his love for Elizabeth. Elizabeth Garvie is good as Elizabeth, but I think her character was too uncertain at times. She sometimes seemed wishy-washy. Whether this was from her interpretation of the role, or the director's lead, it seemed to weaken the character. I don't think that's the image of Elizabeth that Austen had in mind. Overall, I just didn't sense much life or enthusiasm in the characters. Before this 1980 mini-series, the BBC had made three other mini-series of P&P — in 1952, 1958 and 1967. But those were all in the 3-hour range, with 30-minute installments. They barely touched on some of the characters. The interest has been there for Jane Austen since at least the last half of the 20th century. So at intervals the BBC would put out a new production. Yet, none seemed to improve on the story. By that I mean, succeeding versions didn't add much more from the story than the earlier ones. And no exceptional stars or role insights emerged. So, the preferred version for many movie buffs over four decades was likely the 1940 film with its cast of big name stars – Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edmund Gwenn, and Edna May Oliver. But, with the 1980 mini-series, we had the first flushing out of characters that were ignored or barely mentioned in the movies and shorter series. While it's not a particularly exciting rendition, the 1980 mini-series production is a good wholesome treatment of Austen's great novel of pride and prejudice. And, it would retain the foremost position of P&P films until 1995 and the last great mini-series on the story. A word to the wise – for those who may want to acquire or watch all the various versions of Pride and Prejudice. Watch this 1980 mini-series version before you watch the 1995 version. The difference will become pleasantly clear when watching the second series. To do it in reverse invites awareness of the differences that will be not so pleasant and may even lead to uneasiness or lack of interest when watching this series last.

bellestrange Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books but this series might just be, not only the worst adaptation of P&P, but one of the worst adaptations of anything. The acting is absolutely horrid. The fact that so much of the dialogue is taken directly from the book is completely ruined by the fact that the actors only seem to be blankly reciting the lines, rather than actually bringing any feeling or nuances to them. In the end, I felt nothing for any of the characters. Mr. Darcy only had one facial expression and tone of voice, and Elizabeth possibly two or three. If the 2005 movie is a poor match to the 1995 miniseries, this is still infinitely worse.

pwebber13 Definitely the worst of the three versions of P&P that I've seen. (The others being the best, the 2005 movie, and in the middle, the Colin Firth TV version.) While it may be somewhat faithful to the book, almost none of the energy, vitality, or even wit of the book comes through here. The production is overcome by too many dull scenes, some bad acting (esp. David Rintoul as Darcy, who provides another answer to the question from Monty Python's Sir Bedivere, "What else is made of wood?"),and way too much inappropriate music. At times I thought I was watching a nature film made in the 60s or 70s.Skip this one. If you want something faithful to the book, try the Firth version. If you want one that captures the feeling, the energy, and the spirit of the book, then definitely try the 2005 Keira Knightly version.