User Score
8.8

Universal acclaim- based on 474 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 35 out of 474
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. CarissaB.
    Mar 8, 2008
    1
    This movie could have been so much worse, but it could have been so much better (and is in the BBC version). For thos of you (which amazinly is a lot) obviously the storyline is good (right thats why its a classic). I'm grading this movie based on the acting and casting and scenery and costuming. One aspect of this movie that drove me wild was how fast the charcters talked. For those This movie could have been so much worse, but it could have been so much better (and is in the BBC version). For thos of you (which amazinly is a lot) obviously the storyline is good (right thats why its a classic). I'm grading this movie based on the acting and casting and scenery and costuming. One aspect of this movie that drove me wild was how fast the charcters talked. For those of you with high rating could you really understand half the stuff Elizabeth said?? Another part that was disapointing was the lack of color in the movie. Granted the Bennets are poor when compared to the extremem wealth of Bingley and Darcy but they aren't street rats they own an estate and therefore are much wealther than they are portrayed. Overall those of you that really liked this movie read the book, and watch the BBC version (which is just like the book almost word for word and so well done), and experience what Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice can be. Expand
  2. JDRally
    Jan 1, 2006
    1
    I have been so excited to see this movie and I was utterly appalled by it. Lizzy is played like schoolyard brat who, judging by wardrobe and stature, looks as though she just escaped from a concentration camp. Darcy has the acting skills of a box of hair. Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennett was completely without wit and he sounded, and looked, rather like a wounded hound I have been so excited to see this movie and I was utterly appalled by it. Lizzy is played like schoolyard brat who, judging by wardrobe and stature, looks as though she just escaped from a concentration camp. Darcy has the acting skills of a box of hair. Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennett was completely without wit and he sounded, and looked, rather like a wounded hound dog throughout. All of the supporting characters where totally bizarre. And the giggling... at one point I quite wondered if Knightly's choice was to play Lizzy as though she suffered from Tourets Syndrome. If you haven't, see the BBC version as soon as possible. Expand
  3. DWilly
    Jan 20, 2006
    3
    Oh, my God, this is an overrated movie. It's really pretty awful. Like those tone deaf singers on Star Search, it just flails about for effect; and, judging from the critical numbers, this is successful with most critics who likewise are out of touch with their humanity; and, for them, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck they can't tell it feels like plastic. It's Oh, my God, this is an overrated movie. It's really pretty awful. Like those tone deaf singers on Star Search, it just flails about for effect; and, judging from the critical numbers, this is successful with most critics who likewise are out of touch with their humanity; and, for them, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck they can't tell it feels like plastic. It's especially galling in that it comes from that new, British snobbery that thinks it's real earthy, but actually isolates the hip from the hopelessly unhip, as they move among ciphers (i.e. servants) who don't count as people at all. This movie about class has no class. Expand
  4. Kharma
    Jan 30, 2006
    0
    Nothing compared to the BBC series, you dont know wether to laugh or cry....do yourself a favor and read the book again... just skip this movie.
  5. IstvanB.
    Feb 7, 2006
    2
    This doesn't even come close to the BBC series' quality. Jane Austen's spirit is not present, the thing is unwitty and illustrative. Ewen worse, it's conceived in an eye-pokingly populist manner. The proper costumes of the period were changed from classisict to romantic for a 'better' look, and the story itself was relieved of Austen's socialThis doesn't even come close to the BBC series' quality. Jane Austen's spirit is not present, the thing is unwitty and illustrative. Ewen worse, it's conceived in an eye-pokingly populist manner. The proper costumes of the period were changed from classisict to romantic for a 'better' look, and the story itself was relieved of Austen's social observations, and warped into something imponderous like a short story in a woman's magazine. Through the film I could only think of the 'creative' team behind, brain-storming about how to make just about every aspect and detail 'consumable'. Too bad that so many reviews proved to be unreliable for me. Expand
  6. DanCisek
    Apr 17, 2006
    3
    Not a bad movie per se, but a truly terrible adaption of Jane Austen's rich and nuanced novel. It pales in comparison not only to the book itself, but to the magnificent 1995 BBC production (rent that instead). Of course, a two-hour film cannot accomplish the same thing as a five-hour mini-series. The filmmaker must make difficult choices about what to cut and condense. But in thisNot a bad movie per se, but a truly terrible adaption of Jane Austen's rich and nuanced novel. It pales in comparison not only to the book itself, but to the magnificent 1995 BBC production (rent that instead). Of course, a two-hour film cannot accomplish the same thing as a five-hour mini-series. The filmmaker must make difficult choices about what to cut and condense. But in this case, almost all of the choices are bad, occasionally to the point of incoherence (example: Elizabeth to Darcy during the dancing scene: "I am trying to make out your character. I hear such contradictory accounts of you, I cannot make it out at all." Unfortunately, the film does not include the key scene from the novel in which Elizabeth receives that contradictory information! WIthout it, her statement is completely inane.) The role of Darcy is badly cast. The film is forced to move so quickly that there is little sense Elizabeth's growing realization of the change in both Darcy's behavior and his formerly haughty manner. The encounters between Elizabeth and Darcy are all wrong in the second half of the film. Nowhere is the sense of tension and uncertainty that makes the novel so compelling. All in all, I was horribly disappointed by this film. Some who have never read Jane Austen or seen the BBC adaptation may enjoy it, but they are missing out on the real love story between Elizabeth and Darcy, which is one of the greatest romances ever written in the English language. Expand
  7. SammyP.
    May 25, 2006
    3
    Nothing compared to the book or the mini seies. Keira Knightly is completely out of place in austens world, and the beautiful story is completely lost amongst rushed dialog and poor acting.
  8. EmmyS.
    Mar 30, 2008
    2
    I much preferred the version made in 1995. I understand some prefer a shorter version, but I do not like the way they shortened it. I also think Keira Knightley was a terrible pick for Elizabeth, she totally missed it. She made Elizabeth much too snobby and irritating. I also thought the way she revealled her letter from Jane about Lydia was so stupid. They also seemed to be running I much preferred the version made in 1995. I understand some prefer a shorter version, but I do not like the way they shortened it. I also think Keira Knightley was a terrible pick for Elizabeth, she totally missed it. She made Elizabeth much too snobby and irritating. I also thought the way she revealled her letter from Jane about Lydia was so stupid. They also seemed to be running everywhere. I did like some of the cast. But when there has been two very wonderful versiongs to Pride and Prejudice, if you can't make a version that at least competes with the other two than don't make one at all. I think the only reason there was anyone that liked it was because they either had never seen the previous films or they love Keira, although I personnally find her very annoying and the only thing I really liked her in was Pirates. But it is only my opinion. Expand
  9. chrisD
    Nov 10, 2005
    2
    This movie was a huge disappointment for me. It pales in comparison to the BBC version. You just can't replace Colin Firth.
  10. MarcTorny
    Nov 17, 2005
    0
    I'm curious why the New Yorker review is not listed here. Could it be because it isn't clear whether Anthony Lane liked or disliked the film? He finishes his review by saying something to the effect that 'any resemblence to the Jane Austen novel is purely coincidental'. I'm not sure what that means, frankly.
  11. ChristinaJ.
    Jan 18, 2006
    2
    A complete disappointment for any Jane Austen fan, or anyone looking for a good period story or romance. I am baffled by the positive reviews that Kiera Knightley received from some critics. She is the worst part of the film (which is saying something, as it is all horrifying). She looks like an emaciated runway model, not like Austen's Lizzie Bennett, who is supposed to be a bold, A complete disappointment for any Jane Austen fan, or anyone looking for a good period story or romance. I am baffled by the positive reviews that Kiera Knightley received from some critics. She is the worst part of the film (which is saying something, as it is all horrifying). She looks like an emaciated runway model, not like Austen's Lizzie Bennett, who is supposed to be a bold, bookish tomboy. Knightley could not carry any picture, much less one as clever and nuanced as this story should be. There are many shots in the film that seem to be there only to show the beauty of her face. Okay, the first time you think, "Wow, she really has a beautiful face." But by the 10th time it seems like a never-ending Revlon mascara advertisement--and is about as exciting. For the last hour, the film felt like it was never going to be over. And the last 20 minutes were positively excruciating. We actually laughed out loud in parts. Oh, and Darcy? Who is this actor, and why, why did they cast him in this role? I have never seen an actor in an Austen adaptation with so little charisma. Give me Jeremy Northam in Emma or Colin Firth in the far superior BBC adaptation of P&P. In fact, I swear, the first thing I did when I got home was put in the BBC version in an attempt to erase this one from my mind. I don't think I can ever watch another film with Knightley in more than a supporting role--that toothy grin and that giggle she used to replace any real emotion have prejudiced me against her forever! Expand
  12. V.Miller
    Mar 10, 2006
    1
    The movie doesn't compare with the BBC Version. This movie was boring, slow-paced as well as poorly acted by Keira Knightly. The younger sisters acted better than she did. The music was dull. Overall, the movie isn't worth watching.
  13. KimbaW.
    May 12, 2006
    1
    Despite being a huge Jane Austen fan, I found this version pathetic. I wanted to like it. I really did. However, not only is Kiera Knightly anything but an Elizabeth Bennett with her incessant giggling, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy comes across as nothing but angry. The costuming is dreadful (this is the era of the empire waistline...so why then are none of the ladies' dresses made Despite being a huge Jane Austen fan, I found this version pathetic. I wanted to like it. I really did. However, not only is Kiera Knightly anything but an Elizabeth Bennett with her incessant giggling, Matthew MacFadyen's Darcy comes across as nothing but angry. The costuming is dreadful (this is the era of the empire waistline...so why then are none of the ladies' dresses made that way?), no one (apparently) even considered brushing anyone's hair (people did not run around looking disheveled), and the Bennetts, while certainly not the upper crust, were not poor & nearly destitute as this version seems to portray them. Don't waste your time. Expand
  14. Nancy
    May 26, 2006
    1
    This movie made me want to vomit in my mouth. The praise and accolades it received from critics and viewers made me lose all faith in people (except those few who are TRUE Jane Austen fans and have seen the 1995 BBC version). Terrible casting, terrible acting, terrible adaptation. Just plain terrible.
  15. JennH.
    May 21, 2007
    2
    Keira Knightly is possibly the worst choice for Elizabeth. Most of the characters do not come close to achieving their purpose as in the BBC version. To a person who didn't know the story they would be lost as many key moments have simply been left out or rushed along. The ending was completely unsatisfying and left me confused as to the point of the last scene as it seemed nothing Keira Knightly is possibly the worst choice for Elizabeth. Most of the characters do not come close to achieving their purpose as in the BBC version. To a person who didn't know the story they would be lost as many key moments have simply been left out or rushed along. The ending was completely unsatisfying and left me confused as to the point of the last scene as it seemed nothing more than a sappy bit of drivel. Perhaps the only good to come out of this movie is the discovery of Matthew as Darcy and even he is sorely underused int he film. And amazingly under the circumstances and the poor excuse of a love interest in this film manages to give a moving performance. And all that's left is to thank God Austen will never see this catastrophe that I'm sure she would have sincerely regretted having inspired. Expand
  16. LisaS.
    Jul 25, 2007
    1
    Romance yes, but to make it more suitable for modern audiences the main themes are diluted or lost.
  17. LizzyB
    Mar 16, 2009
    1
    This adaptation only deals for entertaining the viewer, but misquots Jane Austen's brilliant novel. The best adaptation I've seen was the BBC-version of 1995. The characters are very true to the original, just like all the dialogues and properties.
  18. LunaL.
    Feb 16, 2010
    2
    2 points given for the great visual beauty of the film, and the obvious care taken by the director in composing the shots, as well as the visual artists in designing the sets. 8 points taken away for turning the Bennets and their home into a muddy wreck; casting such young-looking younger Bennet sisters that I was very uncomfortable during the scenes when Lydia returns after marrying 2 points given for the great visual beauty of the film, and the obvious care taken by the director in composing the shots, as well as the visual artists in designing the sets. 8 points taken away for turning the Bennets and their home into a muddy wreck; casting such young-looking younger Bennet sisters that I was very uncomfortable during the scenes when Lydia returns after marrying Wickham; turning Mr. Darcy into a puppy dog and Mr. Bingley into a dolt; wasting Judi Dench on the role of Lady Catherine; making me feel sorry for Mr. Collins; and the several times I was completely brought out of the world of Pride and Prejudice because I could clearly see Keira Knightley's short hair jutting out from under the bottom of her wig! Expand
  19. MIkeR.
    Nov 21, 2005
    1
    This movie is a man's worst nightmare. Run for your lives.
  20. AliceM.
    Jul 27, 2006
    2
    A really poor adaptation of Jane Austen's brilliance. Keira Knightly looks out of place in Austen's world, and her acting in the role was poor. [***SPOILERS***] The Bennet's are not hugely rich but they are not as poor as this film makes them out to be. Elizabeth should certainly not be dressed in near-rags. Darcy was ok at best. Really, there is no comparasion betwee this A really poor adaptation of Jane Austen's brilliance. Keira Knightly looks out of place in Austen's world, and her acting in the role was poor. [***SPOILERS***] The Bennet's are not hugely rich but they are not as poor as this film makes them out to be. Elizabeth should certainly not be dressed in near-rags. Darcy was ok at best. Really, there is no comparasion betwee this and the 1995 BBC version. No comparasion at all. I own the BBC version, I will not be owning this one. Ifyou were to see this movie before reading the book you would be doing it a great injustice. No proper feeling of the time it was set and far too much time listening to Lizzys stupid giggling (since when did Lizzy giggle?) and close-ups of her face purely to show us how pretty she is. *yawn* boring. Go see the BBC version and stay away from this Hollywood/American rubbish. Expand
  21. AlanT.
    Oct 24, 2008
    0
    A film that has been thought in terms of ingredients : how much grinning or greenery should be put into into it to do the trick. Utterly artificial and boring.Elisabeth constant knowing smirk is unbereable and her diction is abominable.
  22. JoJoBeans
    Mar 25, 2009
    1
    Didn't like it, didn't like it, didn't like it. No one else holds a candle to an Andrew Davies adaptation.
  23. [Anonymous]
    Nov 24, 2005
    1
    No one go see Pride & Prejudice. It is the most wretched, boring, miserable movie I have seen all year. Keira Knightley does not look or act the part (note how she chooses to act with her chin every time she gets emphatic) and I've sold lumber more charismatic and interesting than the man who plays Mr. Darcy. There are so many clichéd shots (if I ever have to see someone stare No one go see Pride & Prejudice. It is the most wretched, boring, miserable movie I have seen all year. Keira Knightley does not look or act the part (note how she chooses to act with her chin every time she gets emphatic) and I've sold lumber more charismatic and interesting than the man who plays Mr. Darcy. There are so many clichéd shots (if I ever have to see someone stare at a candle in the foreground for an entire shot while having a conversation, and then blow it out for the scene change, or a door slamming shut with a dull, resounding crash directly into the camera, I may scream.) Darcy is boring; Collins is boring; Bingley looks like a woman; Mrs. Bennett is not funny as she is in the BBC version, she is merely irritating. And oh the giggling. The horrid, horrid giggling. I think a good 15 minutes of this movie is comprised of giggling. Another 15 goes to "moving" shots of the beautiful landscape, while Lizzie stares pensively into the distance. I offer this as an especial warning to anyone who has not read the novel, who would be doing themselves a horrible disservice by seeing the movie before reading the book and watching the delightful Colin Firth BBC version - which is in every imaginable way a superior film to this sack of sugary rubbish. Thank you. It felt good to get that out of my system. Please take my advice. For your sakes. Expand
  24. bobr
    Nov 26, 2005
    0
    Yawn, boooooooooooriiiinng.
  25. YvetteG.
    Nov 29, 2006
    1
    I absolutely agree with Alice M (who gave it a 2)! Keira Knightly could not play Lizzy's witty and intelligent character and the expressions seemed to be recited rather than naturally out of Lizzy. Keira could not reflect any of the strong and intelligent character through her eyes. Her eyes lack any intelligence or vividness. The BBC Series of 1995 is at least 100 times better, with I absolutely agree with Alice M (who gave it a 2)! Keira Knightly could not play Lizzy's witty and intelligent character and the expressions seemed to be recited rather than naturally out of Lizzy. Keira could not reflect any of the strong and intelligent character through her eyes. Her eyes lack any intelligence or vividness. The BBC Series of 1995 is at least 100 times better, with Lizzy's eyes speaking her character. I do not think justice is done to Jane Austin or Elizabeth Bennet. Mr Darcy was so so ordinary in the film and it ruined the legacy of him. The mere attempt at making another "pride a prejudice" is beyond comprehension and should not be encouraged lightly. Expand
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
  1. 75
    Romantic yearning hasn't looked this sexy onscreen in years.
  2. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    80
    A movie for the age, and a keeper for the ages, Pride & Prejudice brings Jane Austen's best-loved novel to vivid, widescreen life, as well as making an undisputed star of 20-year-old Keira Knightley.
  3. If only Knightley had a co-star equal to her here: The 1995 edition of Colin Firth, come to think of it, would have been perfect.