Pride and Prejudice: The Review

Okay. I've had a while to think it over, to determine just exactly what it was I liked and disliked about this film. It wasn't all dislike. There were plenty of good moments, things that were done well, things it was fun to see on screen that hadn't necessarily been included in P&P2. It is entirely possible that I am simply too picky. There may be something in what my sister said this morning: that being so familiar with the book could be detrimental, because I notice every little detail, can tell when one person's dialogue has been altered, or given to someone else. It could be that any of you (even die-hard Austen fans) would like it very well. But in the end, for me, there was more to dislike than to like.

As an aside, I must say that it was cruel and unusual punishment to play a preview for Colin Firth's upcoming film with Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee. It simply served to remind me of what I wouldn't be getting.

So, lest I become run away with my feelings on the subject, I shall start with the good points. What follows will, of course, be spoilerific.

( The Good )

Okay. Now for a few nitpicks.

( The Bad )

Well, that's enough of the bad. Now for the truly appalling.

( The Ugly )

So, this review has now taken me three days to write. In the course of the writing, I came to a realization. One of my favorite authors is Robin McKinley. A few years ago I picked up Rose Daughter, which is a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." Most of you know that McKinley's first published book was Beauty, which was also a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." I adore that book. So I was a bit wary of another version of it, even by the same author. But I read Rose Daughter. It was okay. I enjoyed it well enough, but not enough to buy it and read it over and over again, as I have done with Beauty. I finally decided that had I read Rose Daughter first, I would have liked it a lot more. But since I had already read and adored Beauty, this new retelling seemed less than perfect.

That's how I feel about this film. I know we should not compare P&P2 and P&P3, that I should take P&P3 on its own merits-- but I can't help it. If there were no P&P2, I would be able to overlook most of the things about this version that bugged me. I probably would have enjoyed it a lot. But since there has already been a film version so nearly perfect as P&P2 is, a version where so many things were done so very right (and there are still some things that bug me about it, make no mistake), it's hard to take a movie where things which could have, with just a little extra effort, been done right-- weren't. I simply cannot love it in the same way I would have, had P&P2 not existed.

Other people may (and do) disagree with me. I would still recommend that every Austen fan see it, because there are some truly good moments, and it's quite possible that you will love what I cannot. But I won't be going to see it again right away, at least not unless someone else pays for me, and I won't be buying it on the day of its DVD release. If I want a shortened version of P&P to watch, I'll stick to my Mormon version. It may have also played fast and loose with the story, but at least it stays true to the characters, and true to the spirit of the novel. For me, that's what's important, and that's where I see P&P3 failing.

Pride and Prejudice: The Review

Okay. I've had a while to think it over, to determine just exactly what it was I liked and disliked about this film. It wasn't all dislike. There were plenty of good moments, things that were done well, things it was fun to see on screen that hadn't necessarily been included in P&P2. It is entirely possible that I am simply too picky. There may be something in what my sister said this morning: that being so familiar with the book could be detrimental, because I notice every little detail, can tell when one person's dialogue has been altered, or given to someone else. It could be that any of you (even die-hard Austen fans) would like it very well. But in the end, for me, there was more to dislike than to like.

As an aside, I must say that it was cruel and unusual punishment to play a preview for Colin Firth's upcoming film with Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee. It simply served to remind me of what I wouldn't be getting.

So, lest I become run away with my feelings on the subject, I shall start with the good points. What follows will, of course, be spoilerific.

( The Good )

Okay. Now for a few nitpicks.

( The Bad )

Well, that's enough of the bad. Now for the truly appalling.

( The Ugly )

So, this review has now taken me three days to write. In the course of the writing, I came to a realization. One of my favorite authors is Robin McKinley. A few years ago I picked up Rose Daughter, which is a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." Most of you know that McKinley's first published book was Beauty, which was also a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." I adore that book. So I was a bit wary of another version of it, even by the same author. But I read Rose Daughter. It was okay. I enjoyed it well enough, but not enough to buy it and read it over and over again, as I have done with Beauty. I finally decided that had I read Rose Daughter first, I would have liked it a lot more. But since I had already read and adored Beauty, this new retelling seemed less than perfect.

That's how I feel about this film. I know we should not compare P&P2 and P&P3, that I should take P&P3 on its own merits-- but I can't help it. If there were no P&P2, I would be able to overlook most of the things about this version that bugged me. I probably would have enjoyed it a lot. But since there has already been a film version so nearly perfect as P&P2 is, a version where so many things were done so very right (and there are still some things that bug me about it, make no mistake), it's hard to take a movie where things which could have, with just a little extra effort, been done right-- weren't. I simply cannot love it in the same way I would have, had P&P2 not existed.

Other people may (and do) disagree with me. I would still recommend that every Austen fan see it, because there are some truly good moments, and it's quite possible that you will love what I cannot. But I won't be going to see it again right away, at least not unless someone else pays for me, and I won't be buying it on the day of its DVD release. If I want a shortened version of P&P to watch, I'll stick to my Mormon version. It may have also played fast and loose with the story, but at least it stays true to the characters, and true to the spirit of the novel. For me, that's what's important, and that's where I see P&P3 failing.

Pride and Prejudice: The Review

Okay. I've had a while to think it over, to determine just exactly what it was I liked and disliked about this film. It wasn't all dislike. There were plenty of good moments, things that were done well, things it was fun to see on screen that hadn't necessarily been included in P&P2. It is entirely possible that I am simply too picky. There may be something in what my sister said this morning: that being so familiar with the book could be detrimental, because I notice every little detail, can tell when one person's dialogue has been altered, or given to someone else. It could be that any of you (even die-hard Austen fans) would like it very well. But in the end, for me, there was more to dislike than to like.

As an aside, I must say that it was cruel and unusual punishment to play a preview for Colin Firth's upcoming film with Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee. It simply served to remind me of what I wouldn't be getting.

So, lest I become run away with my feelings on the subject, I shall start with the good points. What follows will, of course, be spoilerific.

( The Good )

Okay. Now for a few nitpicks.

( The Bad )

Well, that's enough of the bad. Now for the truly appalling.

( The Ugly )

So, this review has now taken me three days to write. In the course of the writing, I came to a realization. One of my favorite authors is Robin McKinley. A few years ago I picked up Rose Daughter, which is a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." Most of you know that McKinley's first published book was Beauty, which was also a retelling of "Beauty and the Beast." I adore that book. So I was a bit wary of another version of it, even by the same author. But I read Rose Daughter. It was okay. I enjoyed it well enough, but not enough to buy it and read it over and over again, as I have done with Beauty. I finally decided that had I read Rose Daughter first, I would have liked it a lot more. But since I had already read and adored Beauty, this new retelling seemed less than perfect.

That's how I feel about this film. I know we should not compare P&P2 and P&P3, that I should take P&P3 on its own merits-- but I can't help it. If there were no P&P2, I would be able to overlook most of the things about this version that bugged me. I probably would have enjoyed it a lot. But since there has already been a film version so nearly perfect as P&P2 is, a version where so many things were done so very right (and there are still some things that bug me about it, make no mistake), it's hard to take a movie where things which could have, with just a little extra effort, been done right-- weren't. I simply cannot love it in the same way I would have, had P&P2 not existed.

Other people may (and do) disagree with me. I would still recommend that every Austen fan see it, because there are some truly good moments, and it's quite possible that you will love what I cannot. But I won't be going to see it again right away, at least not unless someone else pays for me, and I won't be buying it on the day of its DVD release. If I want a shortened version of P&P to watch, I'll stick to my Mormon version. It may have also played fast and loose with the story, but at least it stays true to the characters, and true to the spirit of the novel. For me, that's what's important, and that's where I see P&P3 failing.