Pride & Prejudice

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. Aug 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is the best adapted screenplay that i've ever seen, it even surpass the novel, i think. Keira's performance is perfect, every movement shows Elizabeth's archness and thoughtfulness. Just like Atonement, Pride & Prejudice is a typical Joe Wright's film, delicate and creative. Expand
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. NicoleL.
    Jul 15, 2009
    10
    I've watched this movies for countless times. It's perfect.
  11. ElizabethK
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    Fantastic. Beautiful in every aspect, minus perhaps the immature acting of Jena Malone. Sountrack is gorgeous, costumes are simply divine and authentic, acting is superb, just a perfect package. Kept me smiling all throughout the movie. Knightly does fantastically in this film.
  12. Christina
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    Utterly fantastic! Keira played the role of Lizzie excellantly, completely capturing her free-spirited nature and runaway tongue! Darcy was absolutely SMOULDERING! with the right touch of gentlemanliness about him and the connection between the two...OOOH...!!!
  13. AdamF
    May 1, 2006
    10
    Phenomenal.
  14. ErinF.
    Nov 26, 2005
    10
    It was awesome. It was a wonderful adaptation of Austen's characters. They had the same life to them that they had in the book. It was wonderful.
  15. richardb.
    Jan 2, 2006
    8
    Quite exquisite. Best Art Direction & Costumes used in a modest naturalistic way. Wonderful moments of surreal subjectivity. Mr Darcy & Ms Knightly wonderfully morose & captivating, as suits each. Great, but you are constantly thinking of Bridget Jones and Bride & Prejudice and all the other versions of the tale.
  16. HayleyS.
    Feb 22, 2006
    9
    Very good but not as good as the old film. Because nothing can best that one.
  17. EllenM.
    Mar 6, 2006
    7
    A solid Calssic Comics version with much detail and many characters trimmed and scnese moved to more dramatic and less-domestic settings (e.g. the Rosings temple folly in the rain confrontation). Pemberly, too, is inflated beyond belief. However, well-acted, moving and with many period charms. The best version is still the BBC TV serial--6 one-hour episodes (minus commericals it's 4 A solid Calssic Comics version with much detail and many characters trimmed and scnese moved to more dramatic and less-domestic settings (e.g. the Rosings temple folly in the rain confrontation). Pemberly, too, is inflated beyond belief. However, well-acted, moving and with many period charms. The best version is still the BBC TV serial--6 one-hour episodes (minus commericals it's 4 hours on screen!), but this one got me into the book and the other versions. Expand
  18. NicoleL
    Oct 2, 2007
    10
    Brilliant and relatively faithful rendition of one of Jane Austen's most popular titles, not to mention a most endearing soundtrack. Knightely's and Macfayden's portrayal of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy respectively are most memorable and moving.
  19. RebeccaM.
    Nov 21, 2005
    7
    The New Yorker's Anhony Lane reveiw and should be considered, Issue of Nov. 14 Page 101.
  20. LouC.
    Dec 3, 2005
    9
    A lively and earthy rendition of Pride and Prejudice.
  21. SusanB
    Oct 24, 2006
    10
    KK was by far the best Lizzy I have seen. I loved the way MM played Mr. Darcy. I loved Colin Firth's, but I dare say MM's was better. I thought the mini series to be a bit dragged out. I will watch this version again and again!
  22. SueJ.
    Dec 6, 2006
    10
    This movie is amazing! It is a perfect summary of the novel.
  23. BruceM.
    Jan 26, 2006
    9
    An extraordinary telling of a remarkable love story. Only the first few minutes were OTT.
  24. GerronK
    Jan 26, 2006
    10
    Excellent!
  25. ritaj,
    Jan 5, 2006
    10
    Kira Knightly is wonderful in this film. She graces the screen like I have never seen any actress do before. You must see this movie! It is wonderful.
  26. Tim
    Feb 28, 2006
    9
    Watching it the first time through I was blown away by the speed of the story and could hardly catch my breath as I tried to follow along with the story as I know it. But after the initial rush and my second viewing I was impressed and moved and inspired by the richness of the production and especially the lovely Keira. Some very wonderful performances and worth watching. The definitive Watching it the first time through I was blown away by the speed of the story and could hardly catch my breath as I tried to follow along with the story as I know it. But after the initial rush and my second viewing I was impressed and moved and inspired by the richness of the production and especially the lovely Keira. Some very wonderful performances and worth watching. The definitive Pride & Prejudice when you want a quick fix of Austen. Expand
  27. 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.
  28. HollyN.
    Mar 2, 2006
    10
    One of the greatest movies ever made!!!!
  29. SamB.
    Mar 3, 2006
    10
    A masterpiece. The most charming movie of the year, and Keira(whom I usually dislike) swept me off my feet. I'm rooting for her on Sunday even though I know she doesnt have a prayer.
  30. EllenL
    May 14, 2006
    10
    I think that this moving interpretation of the novel is brilliant. Though of course this is different from the BBC adaptionof 95, i do not think that the differences detract from its quality. When i see a couple falling in love throughout a movie, even if they do not see it themselves yet, I have to be able to FEEL the chemistry between the characters. In this adaption the chemistry I think that this moving interpretation of the novel is brilliant. Though of course this is different from the BBC adaptionof 95, i do not think that the differences detract from its quality. When i see a couple falling in love throughout a movie, even if they do not see it themselves yet, I have to be able to FEEL the chemistry between the characters. In this adaption the chemistry literally oozes off the screen. I felt their passion, i felt Lizzy and Darcy's pain. Matthew Macfadyen makes a magnificent Darcy, and his interpretation of the character made me fall in love with him also. Though his faults were evident, his love and passion for Lizzy was even more so. You could see his character evolve on screen, surface and flourish in his love for Lizzy. And because of Kira Knightley's fresh, youthful and witty perfomance you could understand why his character would do so. Altogether a magnificant film. Expand
  31. KathyC.
    Jun 29, 2006
    10
    I absolutely love this movie. I have watched the DVD several times and think Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen are perfect together. I especially liked Matthew's performance because his face shows such yearning for Lizzie. I have also watched the 1995 Colin Firth miniseries and feel the 2005 movie has so much more life and romance. Joe Wright's direction put the emphasis I absolutely love this movie. I have watched the DVD several times and think Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen are perfect together. I especially liked Matthew's performance because his face shows such yearning for Lizzie. I have also watched the 1995 Colin Firth miniseries and feel the 2005 movie has so much more life and romance. Joe Wright's direction put the emphasis where it should be - on the relationship between Lizzie and Darcy. The camera work and cinematography was stunning and really showcased the energy of the balls and the emotions of the characters. Expand
  32. AnastasiaP.
    Jul 24, 2006
    10
    It is an excellent movie! As far as I am concernd, I believe that the last version of Pride and Prejudice is the best! I could say that it is the most interesting movie that I have ever seen! Congratulations! You offered us a movie which is special because it has something that the movies in our era has not, it has quality!
  33. MariaV.
    Jul 28, 2006
    10
    I have watched this twice in theaters and then again when I bought the DVD. It's really a film that I will not hesitate to watch again.
  34. Dave
    Jul 5, 2006
    10
    It seems that all the people that have read the book hate the movie. Remember, this is a movie not a miniseries. I loved the movie because they didn't follow the book. They condensed and modified the story to fit into a movie format. The acting was superb and the sceenplay exceelent as well.
  35. RebekahW.
    Aug 18, 2006
    8
    i thought this was a very good film and that Kiera Knightleys performance was absolutly brilliant, you could not have cast a better Lizzie. I must however say that i was disapponted at best with Mttherw MacFadyen's attempts at the character of Mr. Darcy. All in all however a good film which i have no shame in saying i have watched numerous times!
  36. GlyssaV.
    Jan 11, 2007
    10
    For most fans of the 1995 BBC production of the novel with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, a 2005 feature adaptation (the first in 65 years) was considered mutinous, and many doomed it for a clumsy failure when Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen were cast to respectively play the tall-order roles of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. However, the refreshing cast is genius from top to For most fans of the 1995 BBC production of the novel with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, a 2005 feature adaptation (the first in 65 years) was considered mutinous, and many doomed it for a clumsy failure when Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen were cast to respectively play the tall-order roles of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. However, the refreshing cast is genius from top to bottom, Knightley and MacFadyen highly underestimated and perfect with each other, with director Joe Wright making a spectacular onscreen debut. Expand
  37. MartinJ.
    Sep 21, 2007
    8
    The U.S. ending is just awful - I liked much more the European one.
  38. JaciS.
    Sep 4, 2007
    10
    I love this movie so much, whenever I'm in a bad mood i put this movie on and it makes me feel better. its got amazing plots and the acting is flawless. i love it.
  39. KassieB.
    Oct 9, 2008
    10
    I think this is one of my favorite movies of all time. The cinematography is brilliant and the casting is spot on. I think Kiera Knightley is the perfect Elizabeth Bennett and Matthew Macfadyen is soo dreamy as Darcy. I also think the sound track is absolutely amazing. Basically I just love everything about this movie.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. MegD
    Mar 2, 2009
    10
    As faithful as a movie can be to a book, the conversations were very true to the novel and as much fit in as possible. Keira did a fantastic job as did Macfadyen. The subtleties of his affections for Lizzy are perfect. Gorgeous cinematography. I've never loved a movie more.
  43. Nouki
    Jun 8, 2009
    10
    I think it was absolutely fantastic.I read the book years ago and also seen the adaptations and this one has totally enchanted me. I know that the one from 1995 is more a book like version, but I certainly like this one better and to think the time they took to make such a great accomplishment. Knightley and Macfadyen did a perfect job leading it and the rest of the cast did a astounding I think it was absolutely fantastic.I read the book years ago and also seen the adaptations and this one has totally enchanted me. I know that the one from 1995 is more a book like version, but I certainly like this one better and to think the time they took to make such a great accomplishment. Knightley and Macfadyen did a perfect job leading it and the rest of the cast did a astounding job as well! Though I must say I like the US ending! Soo romantic!. I laughed,cried and regained hope with this movie! Congratulations! Expand
  44. 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.
  45. MaryS.
    Nov 15, 2005
    10
    It was awesome! MUCH BETTER than the BBC version. Kiera Knightly and Matthew MacFayden have a great chemistry in this version and you can feel their individual torments as they each realize they misjudged each other at first. Will see it again.
  46. 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.
  47. GregS.
    Nov 18, 2005
    8
    Wonderful movie, full of life and love, greed and pride, hostility and forgiveness. Photography excellent but tends to overshadow the story and leads to gaps in dialogue. Strange that some much of the lesser character details were left out. Great show.
  48. 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
  49. CelineC.
    Nov 22, 2005
    10
    A job well done! This 2005 version is way better than the 1940 one: closer to Austen's novel and much more entertaining.
  50. JimK.
    Nov 26, 2005
    9
    Not one for period dramas and screen adaptations of novels, I was skeptical before I went to see this film. But Keira Knightley's stunning performance and superb cinematography - along with a healthy dose of wit and humor - combined to make this a truly satisfying cinematic experience. I highly recommend this film to the most cynical period-drama haters.
  51. LaurenH.
    Nov 28, 2005
    9
    I loved it. I thought it an extremely good adaptation.
  52. NancyM.
    Nov 30, 2005
    10
    Best movie in a long time.
  53. BuckL.
    Nov 30, 2005
    9
    Darcie is less aristocratic, and more shy. Lizzie is more cute than beautiful; and more forward.
  54. 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.
  55. CriticsRmad
    Dec 1, 2005
    9
    Great romantic movie. Haven't seen a period piece that didn't put me to sleep in quite a while. Story hits upon the main points in the book and was great. The ballroom scene makes you want to dance. Nice characterization and beautifully filmed. Good times for those looking for a bit of humor and romance.
  56. LucyP.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Obsessively addictive! Can't seem to get MacFayden's beauteous eyes out of my consciousness.
  57. EmilyM
    Dec 4, 2005
    10
    It brought out all of the beautiful parts of the book without imposing on the emotions created by reading it.
  58. SHFB
    Dec 5, 2005
    10
    The best of the Austen movies to date! The acting is wonderful and engaging. But the real feat is in the abundance of details and the interesting camera work (I love the scene in which Darcy and his friend's sister are sitting at the table when Lizzie is introduced - the whole scene is shot from behind their backs). I really can't say enough good things about this movie. The best of the Austen movies to date! The acting is wonderful and engaging. But the real feat is in the abundance of details and the interesting camera work (I love the scene in which Darcy and his friend's sister are sitting at the table when Lizzie is introduced - the whole scene is shot from behind their backs). I really can't say enough good things about this movie. I've already seen it twice and will probably see it again. Collapse
  59. TiffanyY.
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Wonderful! Romantic and funny... a great combination.
  60. Dotty
    Jan 10, 2006
    10
    Everything is perfect.
  61. 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
  62. CoriL.
    Nov 9, 2006
    10
    I couldn't take my eyes from the screen, when I read the book I have my own idea's on what it would be like, and I am pleased to say that the movie delivered just that. Kiera Knightley did amazing and Matthew MacFadyen was just as I imagined Mr. Darcy to be. I watched over about three times before taking a break, it nice to finally have a good romance to watch again.
  63. NathalieB.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    Great movie, loved it so much i saw it a second time. :)
  64. PatrickD
    Dec 13, 2006
    7
    I enjoyed this film with the cinematography being the major highlight. My problem with most period pieces adapted from novels is that usually fims are rather stuffy and drawn out. Here the plot moves fairly quickly and makes it entertaining for some with me included. It is evident that Keira Knightley is very comely, but cannot carry a movie by herself. I would recommend this movie toI enjoyed this film with the cinematography being the major highlight. My problem with most period pieces adapted from novels is that usually fims are rather stuffy and drawn out. Here the plot moves fairly quickly and makes it entertaining for some with me included. It is evident that Keira Knightley is very comely, but cannot carry a movie by herself. I would recommend this movie to anyone wanting to see a deftly shot film with quicki pacing. One more note I watched the American version which is worth mentioning because it adds a happier ending. Expand
  65. JarrettF.
    Jan 20, 2006
    8
    I would say that I walked away from this movie satisfied, pleased with the gentle pull and outcome of the storyline. I was certainly left with a thorough feeling of happiness. Addressing the negative reviews of Kiera Knightley, I will say that she was somewhat lacking in the vulnerability department for her character. However, for me, her smile, her knowing look, her wit, all essentially I would say that I walked away from this movie satisfied, pleased with the gentle pull and outcome of the storyline. I was certainly left with a thorough feeling of happiness. Addressing the negative reviews of Kiera Knightley, I will say that she was somewhat lacking in the vulnerability department for her character. However, for me, her smile, her knowing look, her wit, all essentially made the movie for me. I was entranced by her, and sense a rather clear sense of jealousy by those who spurned her. Young as she is, she is outstanding in her character work and diversity, brilliantly able to tackle strong female roles, and even a certain piece of my heart. Expand
  66. AnonymousMC
    Jan 24, 2006
    9
    It's ashame the award groupies are not giving this superbly excellent film more noms. Cinematography, adaptation, direction and acting is completely on the mark. This one will be in my collection. I went twice to see it as well...as much as I try not to like Kiera Knightley...it can't be done.
  67. MelissaM.
    Jan 27, 2006
    10
    this was by far the best movie ive seen all year and i would recomend it to my friends and watch it myself over and over agian.
  68. NikkiD.
    Feb 1, 2006
    10
    This movie was completly amazing! Kiera Knightley was stunning and Matthew MacFadyen superb! It is by far, as some are saying, the best movie of the year!! I saw it three times and each time it just gets better. You will fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet's beautiful, strong, daring personality and the mysterious hearthrob, Mr Darcy, who shows his true colors as the movie builds and This movie was completly amazing! Kiera Knightley was stunning and Matthew MacFadyen superb! It is by far, as some are saying, the best movie of the year!! I saw it three times and each time it just gets better. You will fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet's beautiful, strong, daring personality and the mysterious hearthrob, Mr Darcy, who shows his true colors as the movie builds and develops into a heartwarming, funny, engrossing tale of romance. The worst part of it all was that it had to end! Expand
  69. 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.
  70. ElizabethP.
    Mar 23, 2006
    7
    Cute, fun and pretty (a lot like Keira Knightley herself). For the real thing, properly acted and paced, see the 1995 TV series with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. Elizabeth Bennett should be calm and reserved, not PERKY, the mother should be shrill, the father should have more to say. And Colin Firth is just, well, Colin Firth.
  71. SaraR.
    Mar 26, 2006
    9
    I loved this movie but give it a 9 rather than a 10 because I love the book too, and it did take some outrageous liberties with the book. If I was Jane Austen, I would be hammering on my coffin lid in fury at the omission of Mrs. Hurst, and some of the priceless exchanges between Mr. Darcy and Caroline Bingley about Lizzy's "Fine eyes" and what a wonderful mother-in-law Darcy would I loved this movie but give it a 9 rather than a 10 because I love the book too, and it did take some outrageous liberties with the book. If I was Jane Austen, I would be hammering on my coffin lid in fury at the omission of Mrs. Hurst, and some of the priceless exchanges between Mr. Darcy and Caroline Bingley about Lizzy's "Fine eyes" and what a wonderful mother-in-law Darcy would end up having. And of course now I have the DVD, I have seen the USA ending and agree that the script of that is diabolical. Barbara Cartland could have written a better version. There was a beautiful ready-made conversation in the book, about how Darcy fell in love with Lizzy, which would have been better and the kisses still added... ....Having said that - this movie was beautiful visually, the music was superb and Matthew Macfadyen is the best Mr. Darcy I have seen of the three versions of Pride & Prejudice I have watched. He gave an exquisitely layered, sensitive pperformance, melting the proud Darcy into Darcy the lover by exciting degrees until you just have to fall for him as Lizzy does. Kiera Knightley was surprisingly good as Lizzy and Tom Hollander was a hilarious Mr. Collins. Judy Dench was as magnificent as she was frightening, as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Watch this movie with an open mind and you'll love it as much as I did. Expand
  72. 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
  73. SusanJ.
    Apr 7, 2006
    10
    This wonderful movie, gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. With all the violence going on in the world today, this movie brings peace and enjoyment.
  74. Monagh
    Apr 7, 2006
    9
    I think Keira was not the only powerfull player(what if nobody can ignore her talent)who made the movie lovely and romantic....,Except Sutherland & Dench as somehow supporters,it seems most of the people has forgotten about MacFadyen,he has done his best too;after reading articles and watching interviews i just thought he is not clearly noticed as Keira Knightley,what if i'm not his I think Keira was not the only powerfull player(what if nobody can ignore her talent)who made the movie lovely and romantic....,Except Sutherland & Dench as somehow supporters,it seems most of the people has forgotten about MacFadyen,he has done his best too;after reading articles and watching interviews i just thought he is not clearly noticed as Keira Knightley,what if i'm not his fan i think it is not fair,he deserves more....to be mentioned.....Don't u think so? Expand
  75. 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
  76. 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.
  77. EileenW.
    May 18, 2007
    10
    I absolutely love this version. It is very romantic. I own a copy and rewatch it frequently. Everyone was great and music and editing top-notch.
  78. 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
  79. LisaS.
    Jul 25, 2007
    1
    Romance yes, but to make it more suitable for modern audiences the main themes are diluted or lost.
  80. 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.
  81. 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
  82. 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.
  83. Lynn
    Nov 11, 2005
    10
    VERY different from the BBC version, but very good. It truly brings new things to this story, and the director uses the cinematic possiblities at his disposal.
  84. LeanneC.
    Nov 18, 2005
    10
    Thankfully, a movie that does not assume the audience is stupid. Allowing the script to flow without extraordinary historical explanation and decidedly exploring and interpreting the novel makes the film brilliant. I don't believe this film to be for those who prefer less intelligent films or those who were looking for an exact interpretation, page by page, of the novel. Reading Thankfully, a movie that does not assume the audience is stupid. Allowing the script to flow without extraordinary historical explanation and decidedly exploring and interpreting the novel makes the film brilliant. I don't believe this film to be for those who prefer less intelligent films or those who were looking for an exact interpretation, page by page, of the novel. Reading other reviews on this page makes me wonder if they understood this picture at all. From Ms. Knightly to Ms. Malone, I thought the acting excellent and the film wonderfully executed. I loved it. Expand
  85. GerronK
    Nov 19, 2005
    8
    Excellent!
  86. MIkeR.
    Nov 21, 2005
    1
    This movie is a man's worst nightmare. Run for your lives.
  87. FrankN.
    Nov 24, 2005
    8
    Wonderful film editing, direction, story, and good acting... Enjoyed the entire experience.
  88. DanielP.
    Nov 25, 2005
    8
    Mike R is wrong. I am a man and i thought it was excellent.
  89. JenineL.
    Nov 27, 2005
    10
    Besides the immensely appealing cast of characters delivering outstanding performances, the script was beautifully written in language that was both eloquent and piercingly poignant. The classics, like" P & P" and "Much Ado About Nothing",for example, remind us of the wonderful richness of the English language without being condescending or boring.. Bravo!
  90. JosephS
    Nov 30, 2005
    10
    For a short brief movie comparing to the completed movie in the 90's, I will see it again, full of divertion,amusement,and terrific scenes.
  91. 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
  92. KristenW.
    Dec 1, 2005
    10
    I loved this movie. After reading the book over the summer for school, I was so excited that it was being redone and my friend and I just had to see it when she was home for thanksgiving.
  93. russl.
    Dec 15, 2005
    7
    In a competitive field this production lacks the qualities that made the 1995 production with Jennefer Ehle and Colin Firth so remarkable. Darcy is unappealing; the camera lingers so long on Keira Knightley that it begins to look feel more like a promotional vehicle than a film, and the atmosphere of Austen, writing about 18th century morals and manners, can't survive the hectic In a competitive field this production lacks the qualities that made the 1995 production with Jennefer Ehle and Colin Firth so remarkable. Darcy is unappealing; the camera lingers so long on Keira Knightley that it begins to look feel more like a promotional vehicle than a film, and the atmosphere of Austen, writing about 18th century morals and manners, can't survive the hectic pace, noticeable immediately during the first ball where the music is reminiscent of the New York Philharmonic strutting its stuff rather than a small eighteenth century orchestra recruited for a country ball. In this production the book is a excuse to mount an extravagant Hollywood romance. If that suits your taste, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're more interested in these interesting characters and the class complexties of 200 years ago, you'll probably feel shortchanged. Expand
  94. RhettW.
    Dec 28, 2005
    7
    Kiera Knightly is this generation's Audrey Hepburn. I admired movie more than enjoyed it.
  95. GailK.
    Dec 19, 2006
    10
    Pride & Prejudice never made it to the local theaters in my home town, so I had to wait for the DVD. This is without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen, and even with seeing it over and over, the pleasure doesn't pale with repetition.
  96. IsabelF.
    Jan 22, 2006
    7
    Although I rather prefer the BBC series, I was quite 'flabbergasted' with the movie.
  97. 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.
  98. K
    Apr 28, 2006
    10
    I love this movie. I have become obsessed with it. I dont know why but Kiera Knightley just entralls me in this movie and makes me feel like I am in it. I did not read the book until after I saw it and I think the movie did the book justice.
  99. 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
  100. MikeC.
    Jan 15, 2007
    10
    This is one of the best romantic movies ever made. Completely enchanting.
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.