Customer Reviews for

Pride & Prejudice

Average Rating 4.5
( 392 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(294)

4 Star

(57)

3 Star

(14)

2 Star

(10)

1 Star

(17)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

4 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

LOVED IT LOVED IT LOVED IT

What a movie. What a story. What characters. What gifted actors. What wonderful directing. What beautiful muisic. No need to say more except I have seen this movie about 40 times since I rented it when it first came out on DVD when I was in my late 50's. Loved everythin...
What a movie. What a story. What characters. What gifted actors. What wonderful directing. What beautiful muisic. No need to say more except I have seen this movie about 40 times since I rented it when it first came out on DVD when I was in my late 50's. Loved everything about P & P even the extras on the DVD disk. My #1 favorite movie.

posted by bs99 on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

The Cliff's Notes Version

I love Keira Knightley but I didn't like her as Elizabeth Bennet. I am a die-hard fan of the BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle (I've watched it so many times both discs are scratched). I loved the casting of Judy Dench as Lady Catherine in this vers...
I love Keira Knightley but I didn't like her as Elizabeth Bennet. I am a die-hard fan of the BBC version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle (I've watched it so many times both discs are scratched). I loved the casting of Judy Dench as Lady Catherine in this version and found the casting of both Jane and Mr. Bingley better as well, but it felt so condensed. Which is great if you want to know the story but can't sit through the real thing. Also, I was really bugged by the way in which Elizabeth's finding out about Lydia was done. It was treated in a more modern way and became comical instead of the serious even it was intended by Austen. Downplaying an event like that which is so central to the plot of the second half of the story was something that I had a real problem with.

posted by Anonymous on October 1, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 17 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted July 4, 2011

    more from this reviewer

    This is HORRIBLE

    I cannot believe the positve reviews I have read here. I found about a thousand erros in this film from the first minute of watching it. It starts with Lizzy reading a book outside and she looks dressed more like a servant and not a Daughter of a Gentleman. Then the piano is in the dining room and the house looks like something a poverty stricken family lives in (and the Bennets are NOT that poor) I could go on an on about the mistakes made in this film, but I believe there is a limit on how much you can type on here. In conclusion dont bother watching this, buy the A&E series with Collin Firth. This is a great adaption to the book and the most accurate.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted June 17, 2011

    movie is as awful as the book is great

    My friend turned to me and said, "I think Jane Austen has climbed out of her grave and is heading toward this movie theater."

    Watch the Colin Firth BBC tv series instead. Now THAT one is worth seeing.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    Mediocre adaptation

    I should start out by saying that I really wanted to like this version of Pride and Prejudice. And I did find things to like: the music is lovely, the costuming is rather well done, and the photography is beautiful. But the film is a stagy melodrama.

    There is almost nothing of Jane Austen there. The language is parsed and pared, words converted whenever possible to their "modern" counterpart---heaven forfend we use "manner" instead of "way"! And there isn't any proper Regency behavior in sight. Since when are young men allowed in rooms with unmarried young ladies in their nightrail? What on earth is Lady Catherine doing at Longbourn in the middle of the night? And why would an avid walker like Miss Elizabeth go outside barefoot in the damp, early morning? She should know better.

    I felt the entire time that I was supposed to be watching a Great Romance but that I was so aware of its Great Romance-ness that I couldn't actually sit back and enjoy it. It was as though the director and the screenwriters were jumping up and down yelling, "Ooh! Ooh! This is an important part!" Every time I was ready to feel something with these characters, I'd be jolted into awareness that they were merely filmed actors.

    I wanted to wince with Elizabeth at Collins' proposal. Instead, all I could think of was that camera zoom on the wildflower in his hand. Why is the flower important, I wonder? I wanted to feel Elizabeth's horror at Darcy's declaration. I wanted to feel Darcy's nervousness and passion. Instead, it was all I could do to keep a grip on what they were shouting at one another. I wanted to feel Elizabeth's regret and awakening to her own vanity and pride, but instead I was left wondering why she's staring at herself in the dark: she hasn't even received Darcy's letter yet. I laughed when Jane's letter was read! Which was their intention. But I don't know why it was their intention! And when Elizabeth seemed deepest in despair, I rolled my eyes. For is despair limited to the English moors? And must there be mist on those moors? And when they declared their love? I wondered why they were in love. I wondered when it had happened. Did I miss it?

    These characters were supposed to have grown and changed. But Elizabeth doesn't seem aware of her own faults, and Darcy seems just as proud and difficult to like as he was in the beginning. The whole ending scene seems awkward and abrupt because it shows an Elizabeth and Darcy we should've seen all along. I know some of this can be traced to the fact that the film is only two hours long, but I've seen impressively complex and emotional stories told in the same amount of time. This one just fails to impress.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    more from this reviewer

    I Also Recommend:

    I Felt Racked

    I'm a fan of Jane Austen's books and "Pride and Prejudice" is one of my favorite books, but I felt it was ill-served here particularly in comparison to the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle adaptation done by the BBC. I do understand such adaptations cannot and even should not be very faithful. Film is a very different medium as the written word, never mind that some things might need to be changed to make Austen work for a modern audience. I certainly noted several additions and changes between the source and Thompson's script for "Sense and Sensibility"--but even the additions seemed to be in Austen's voice and to be in the spirit of the original novel. The Pride and Prejudice adaptation made notable substitutions to lines that didn't need to be changed for a modern audience and were less witty and moving. Other elements were distorted to ill effect, nothing as much as the relationship between Mr and Mrs Bennet and how they skew the father/daughter relationship. In the book and the miniseries it's clear the Bennet marriage is a mismatch--one that acts as a foil for other relationships and makes Mr Bennet's comment to Lizzie in the miniseries that he hopes she would not choose "a partner in life you can't respect" have poignancy and resonance--except in this film the Bennets are happily married! The scene between Lizzie and Darcy towards the end when they come to an understanding falls far short of the mark compared to either the original book or the BBC production--I remember in the theater it drew hisses. I can't recommend this adaptation.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    Seriously?! Austen must be spinning in her grave!

    I would have believed it impossible to create a version of Pride and Prejudice completely lacking in humor, but I have to hand it to the makers of this film -- they have accomplished the unfathomable!

    I gave it one star ONLY because you are required to give a rating.

    If one is looking for melodrama and historical inaccuracies, this is the perfect film. For Austen fans, it is nauseating and heartbreaking.

    Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Bennet is a giggling school girl who roams the countryside in her nightshirt. That is, when she's not chasing the pigs out of the parlor or spinning round and round on a swing hanging from a tree in the mudpit that passes for a lawn.

    Matthew McFadyen's Darcy seems lost among a group of flat characters and a surprisingly outgoing and girlish younger sister! In his defence, he seems to have been given very little with which to work. And I do rather like the coat her wears. Still, his Darcy would be much more at home in production of Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights.

    I can't forgive the historical inaccuracies or the literary travesties.

    The best advice I can give viewers is to avoid this production and invest in the infinitely superior 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries.

    Some have argued that it the flaws in the film result from trying to tell the story in two hours. See Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility and Ciaran Hindes' Persuasion to see how it can be done.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    Overrated.

    When I watched this movie, the first thought that popped into my head was "What was the point of making this movie, when they have already made a perfect version, with perfect actors, a perfect setting a perfect script?" And of course I am nudging towards the Colin Firth version. I'm 16 and I'm a HUGE Jane Austen fan. This movie made me feel like I was watching Jane Eyre because of the random tempestuous thunderstorm, and Wuthering Heights because of the early morning prowling about the moors because neither Elizabeth or Darcy could "sleep". Not that the whole Bronte thing is bad, but this is Austen, and it didn't feel Austen at all. The acting was not that good; Darcy (MacFayden) looked like a piece of cardboard and it looked awkward and weird when you saw him smile for the first time, not warm and fuzzy and "whoa! he's smiling!" like Colin Firth did; Elizabeth (Knightley) was bad, bad, bad. Because Knightley was playing her, she knew of her great beauty and flaunted it, even though she ISN'T supposed to be one! Darcy thought she was "tolerable"?! And she was so skinny, she looked more like a rich, London girl with her fancy hair and clothes that she wore ALL THE TIME, not the middle-class, country girl who loves to read and take walks and be outside all the time. I went into this movie with an open mind, I honestly did, but I was so bored throughout the whole thing. There was no passion; and one minute Elizabeth seemed to hate Darcy and the next she loved him! The ending scene was awkward and sloppy and I hated how they were suddenly the best of friends after no time at all! I know that it was constrained with the time limit, but doesn't that prove something? The magical quality of the book couldn't be captured. There is too much feelings and passion to be conveyed. If you are a huge fan of the book, than please watch the BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. It's my favorite movie ever.

    1 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 1, 2010

    I Also Recommend:

    Disappointed

    While there are parts in this movie that I do like overall it was a disappointment. It strays too far from the book. Keira Knightley looked like a ragamuffin not a gentleman's daughter. Her hair and costumes were atrocious. Some of the scenes were ridiculous. It didn't portray 19th century society as it was. The only time a remake should be done is if something worthwhile can be added to the original and this definitely didn't. While the 1995 version may have been a little stiffer it stayed closer to the book than this one did.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    horrible interpritation

    When I rented this movie I thought this would be something i would enjoy. I mean Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book after all. But Kiera Knightly's portrayal of the immortal character of Elizabeth Bennett is appalling. The script is ridiclous not at all like the book. The speech is mediocre at best. It takes away from the story Jane Austen has written. Kiera Knightly looks constipated throughout the whole movie. And everytime she talks to Mr. Darcy she looks like a deer in the headlights. If you want to see an excellent portrayal of all of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice characters buy the Pride and Prejudice with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth made in 2001. This adaptation is fantastic. You will never watch the other one again. And I believe you will concur that the version with miss Knightly is rubbish.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    A reviewer

    This is nothing like the wonderful Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennefer Ehle. This adaptation does not follow the story in Jane Austen's format. Where is Mr and Mrs Hurst? They do not exist in the story. I personally cannot stand the insipid smile of Keira Knigthley and wonder WHY she was chosen to be Elizabeth. She is so unconvincing in the role. And Mr. Bingley seems like an idiot. WHO would want to marry him? Is the character of Jane stupid?

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    I don't fancy this one

    As a huge Jane Austen fan, I went into this film expecting something a bit more authentic to the novel. Alas it turned out to be a miserable failure that happens to bear the same name as my favorite novel. I am a hopeless lover of the Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle version of Pride and Prejudice and I felt that this version just tried to utilize any small portion of the novel that the A&E version left out. The strong sisterly relationship between Elizabeth and Jane was completely lost, there were countless mistakes concerning modesty that I found *the impropriety of certain dresses, Mr. Bingley entering Jane’s room without being invited in…*, but worst of all, Elizabeth’s spirited wittiness was distorted by Knightley’s heinously dismal performance... -----There are a few things about the film that drive me crazy like that wretched spinning swing scene----- Despite the fact that this film was nowhere near the caliber of the A&E version, it did have a few good points like the beautiful cinematography, Matthew MacFadyen, Simon Woods, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander and Judi Dench’s performances. All in all, I just can’t seem to watch this film without feeling that essential parts of Jane Austen’s wit and humor have been utterly forgotten.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Not worth it

    I fell in love with P&P after watching the Cyril Coke 1980 version as a teenager. Since then, I've read the book many times. Naturally, I was estatic to hear there would be yet another retelling of my favorite... hmmm... I'd have loved this movie if it weren't for that one little fact-- alas,I've read the book. If you love detail and you've read P&P more than once, you may somewhat loathe this movie. Personally, I prefer watching Bride and Prejudice, or the cute Mormon (no, I'm not Mormon) retelling. At least they don't pretend to be Jane Austen's. Or, even better, watch A&E's version with Colin Firth. It really sets the bar. If you love period films and haven't read the book yet, go ahead and watch this movie. Just don't ruin it for yourself by reading the book too closely. This movie just doesn't seem to understand the England of Jane Austen's Day, and the main characters, sadly, reflect that.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Pathetic and disappointing.

    This is the most UNROMANTIC film I have ever seen. Elizabeth (Knightly), a giggly immature girl from a dirty slovenly household, gains the affections of wealthy Mr. Darcy (Macfadyen), an ill looking man with a grand mansion and not much else. Elizabeth's sister Jane marries Mr. Bingly, a childish effeminate man with nothing to recommend him but his friendliness and wealth. Wow. This one belongs in the vault. I beg you, read the book or watch the BBC/A&E version, and see a real man and a true lady.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Awful

    I thought this version was AWFUL! I cannot believe that Keira Knightley was the leading actress as Lizzie. That giggle of hers has to go, plus her awful acting. I adored the 1995 BBC version. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth did an excellent job, plus the miniseries was faithful to the book. I read an article that Keira was afraid that she would mess it up if she starred in this movie, well, she did a darn good job messing it up. All I can say, the movie doesn't deserve one star.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    An utter disappointment

    I thought I was going to see an adaptation that was fresh, but added something to our point of view. Unfortunately, so much was cut from the original plot that the story suffers.
    Sorry, but Ms. Knightley fails to do much for the role. Mr. MacFadyen is good, but doesn't have enough time to show how he changes.
    See the 1995 version.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 1, 2010

    Horrible rendition of this classic story

    This was a horrible rendition of the book. It didn't follow the story accurately and the characters were poorly portrayed - they lacked that depth and personality that clearly defines them. The movie was rather dry and boring, with little emotion displayed. I do not recommend this film... especially not as an accurate depiction of this timeless story. If you a true Jane Austin fan, or just enjoy the book, the best representation of this classic story is the BBC one.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted February 1, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted May 11, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 17 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1