Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 37 Critics What's this?

User Score
8.8

Universal acclaim- based on 469 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
  1. 100
    The movie is well cast from top to bottom; like many British films, it benefits from the genius of its supporting players.
  2. 100
    Jane Austen's novel has been rejiggered into a jaunty romantic comedy that leaves us as incandescently happy as its characters.
  3. There's something more REAL about this version, more human, more lived-in; though their words may have been penned 200 years ago, when Austen was a young woman writing about her idealized self, this cast and crew nudge the material into the now.
  4. Reviewed by: Debera Carlton Harrell
    83
    It is historically evocative, visually transporting and an exuberant romantic comedy that adheres to its source while spinning its own artful energy.
  5. Still, the cynosure of all eyes is honest, articulate Elizabeth, her own woman in an era when women belonged to men, and at the same time full of love. Lizzie is the best, and Keira Knightley does right by her.
  6. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    75
    This weekend, forget "Jarhead" - two hours of guys playing grab-ass in the shower and no chicks. If you're lucky, you can con your girlfriend into seeing Pride & Prejudice.
  7. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    50
    The moviemakers are accomplished enough to make something coherent out of this tonal mishmash, but I was left with a "was this trip really necessary" feeling for all that.

See all 37 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 96 out of 128
  2. Negative: 25 out of 128
  1. 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.
  2. 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) 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 isIt'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. Expand
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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
  7. 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 dislikedI'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. Expand

See all 128 User Reviews

Trailers