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. Laura
    Dec 8, 2005
    5
    My expectations were probably too high when I went to go see this (after all, the 1995 version was so superbly done). I was pleasantly surprised by Keira Knightly's performance, although she seemed a little rougher than Elizabeth Bennet should have been. It was unfortunate that so many characters and scenes had to be removed from the book in order to make the movie two hours long. My expectations were probably too high when I went to go see this (after all, the 1995 version was so superbly done). I was pleasantly surprised by Keira Knightly's performance, although she seemed a little rougher than Elizabeth Bennet should have been. It was unfortunate that so many characters and scenes had to be removed from the book in order to make the movie two hours long. Also, the casting of some roles (Mr. Bingley, Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins) could have been better. Overall, the acting was average, the writing was a little weird, and the interpretation from the book wasn't quite true to the story-but I would have to say it's a good "Cliff's Notes" version of the book. Expand
  2. Steve
    Feb 4, 2006
    4
    The British Heritage industry strikes again. Lovely and insubstantial, just like Keira Knightley. No wonder she's up for an Oscar.
  3. JaneA.
    Jan 25, 2009
    4
    If you want to see a brilliant adaptation of this book, watch the BBC version. It has an unparalleled cast where Elizabeth and her father are actually witty, Mr. Dary actually comes off as arrogant, and Mrs. Bennet is actually the obnoxious woman Austen intended her to be. Unfortunately this film, though of course not able to touch on everything the five hour BBC version or three volume If you want to see a brilliant adaptation of this book, watch the BBC version. It has an unparalleled cast where Elizabeth and her father are actually witty, Mr. Dary actually comes off as arrogant, and Mrs. Bennet is actually the obnoxious woman Austen intended her to be. Unfortunately this film, though of course not able to touch on everything the five hour BBC version or three volume novel encompassed, hardly reflected one theme. Austen titled her book Pride and Prejudice, yet the movie failed to even include Mary's insight on the difference between pride and vanity, or Elizabeth's self-realization at the vanity that caused her own prejudice against Mr. Darcy. This was nothing more than a shortened plot summary of a novel that deserves so much more and should not have been made if it could not have painted a more beautiful character portrayal of Lizzy and society than the BBC series--most definitely not worthy of Academy recognition. Expand
  4. ChristineL.
    Nov 22, 2005
    4
    I have no idea how people can praise Kiera Knightley in this performance - unfortunately she was the glarring flaw in an otherwise well-cast film. Several times in the movie, the director leaves us staring at her face, which is supposed to be showing us some kind of depth or emotion, but actually just has a blank, weird smirk that someone must have told her looks "enigmatic" or something. I have no idea how people can praise Kiera Knightley in this performance - unfortunately she was the glarring flaw in an otherwise well-cast film. Several times in the movie, the director leaves us staring at her face, which is supposed to be showing us some kind of depth or emotion, but actually just has a blank, weird smirk that someone must have told her looks "enigmatic" or something. She was simply awful, giving us no sense of any personality at all, much less that of Lizzie Bennet. And why does she always talk like she has a mouthful of marbles? The director also seemed to confuse Jane Auten with one of the Bronte sisters - no Austen heroine stands on a cliff in the mist or stares for hours at herself in a mirror. The climax of Darcy walking out of the mist (Heathcliff!) while Lizzie stands in her underwear and an overcoat is just ridiculous. If you've read the novel at all, you're aware this is all blatantly out of character with the tone of the book and the characters Austen creates. A few interesting scenes and the refreshing "non-coiffed" look to the actors saved this from getting an even lower score. Expand
  5. WillH.
    Nov 4, 2005
    5
    I saw this in Switzerland two weeks ago, and it was weak. Keria Knightley was really miscast in this role, and to boot, she overacts it. Her toothy grin was annoying. There was no passion, no subtle undercurrent of feeling between her and Darcy. Watch the TV BBC version instead. It's a far better rendition.
  6. JenW.
    Mar 4, 2006
    6
    It was good for what it was a hopped up hollywood version of a beautful classic. knightly was what made it good but no one could beat jennifer and colin in the 1995 version. it must be hard for the actors to know that their movie will never ever come close to the a&e production the plot was undeveloped and the costumes were drab. ball gowns were supposed to be beautiful and flattering notIt was good for what it was a hopped up hollywood version of a beautful classic. knightly was what made it good but no one could beat jennifer and colin in the 1995 version. it must be hard for the actors to know that their movie will never ever come close to the a&e production the plot was undeveloped and the costumes were drab. ball gowns were supposed to be beautiful and flattering not pinched and dull. the lack of colour and taste was disappointing. the novel described the estate(longbourn) to be that an estate not a cottrey cottage. the countrside however was brilkiant. althought the a&e production had a good ending although it wasnt romantic the kiss scene made it worthwhile mr darcy was written for colin firth i think he plays it brilliantly but then again they dont make them like that anywhere else but England do they? Expand
  7. RobertA.
    Nov 11, 2005
    6
    P and P "Lite" - It felt like it was made for the WB network. Not much dialogue, lots of swirling camera movements. The teenage girls were having a good time, laughing and screaming at the potential love scenes.
  8. chelsea
    Dec 1, 2005
    5
    Pride & prejudice had some lovely moments, beautiful scenery and some very good actors but keira knightley was so wrong for the part of elizabeth bennett!!!!! i was vastly dissapointed, as she is the main character. she was too smirky, forward, gangly and looked like a street urchin. her hair looked greasy and unwashed for most of the film which brought to my notice the fact it Pride & prejudice had some lovely moments, beautiful scenery and some very good actors but keira knightley was so wrong for the part of elizabeth bennett!!!!! i was vastly dissapointed, as she is the main character. she was too smirky, forward, gangly and looked like a street urchin. her hair looked greasy and unwashed for most of the film which brought to my notice the fact it wasn't even her hair but a wig. and would lizzie ever have worn a piece of rag in her hair? -- especially when her sisters were dressed prettily in soft coloured gowns and ringleted hairstyles!!were they trying to make lizzie a tomboy rebel? i did like d'arcy. i thought he was handsome and did a good job showing the change from d'arcy's cold/proud/shy demeanor to the turmoil that we find in him as he exposes his love for miss bennett. oh, i went in with such expectations...but for God's sake does keira knightley have to take every major englishwoman's role even if she is completely not the actress for the part just because her name might herd in the viewers?!!! Expand
  9. JuliaL.
    Jan 25, 2006
    4
    the worst part about this movie was that it could have been so much better. it suffered terribly from lack of proper editing. certain scenes took far too long (i had time to get the point ... wonder if i got the point ... then realize, oh, yes, i got it! .... several times...); other scenes showed baffling period choices that just seemed silly.
  10. SusanneR.
    Nov 18, 2005
    6
    Better than I thought given the two parameter. The A&E mini-series still rules.
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.