Pride and Prejudice (Wright, 2005)
***
I probably wouldn't have even considered watching this movie if I wasn't dating a Jane Austen-afficianado. I mean, honestly -- a romantic comedy set in the rural countryside of Victorian-era England? Are they intentionally trying to alienate every guy in the world with this movie?
All that aside, though, "Pride and Prejudice" isn't half-bad. Aside from the fact that there have nearly dozens of film and television adaptations of Austen's most famous novel, this one comes out on top as probably the most accessible.
I say accessible because I'm a heterosexual male who enjoys car chases and explosions more than I'd like to admit (I come off as an elitist snob, but I like me some stunt ramps -- KABOOM) -- but I found myself really pining for the two lovers to finally get together. Heck, I even got a little misty-eye at the end (lie)!
"Pride and Prejudice" is a fairly formulaic, unimaginative plot -- strong, indepedent young woman meets stubborn, borish guy. Guy pisses woman off with his abrasiveness, girl pisses guy off with her pigheadedness. But eventually, guy realizes he loves girl and girl realizes she loves guy. However, they won't get together until two hours later.
The girl (Elizabeth) is played in this adaptation by Keira Knightley, who, coincidentally, played a strong, idependent young woman named Elizabeth in "Pirates of the Carribbean." Nice job, Keria -- real acting stretch there for you. The mutton-chopped, misty-eyed man (Mr. Darcy. Actually, come to think of it ... I don't think they ever mention the man's first name ... how odd) is played by Matthew Macfadyen, and he does a real nice job of standing around and looking grumpy.
Now, in my desciptions of the characters, you may get the impression that I didn't like the film. Not true. I liked it well enough. It's just that I found myself, during the course of the movie, questioning yy very right to watch it. "Am I even allowed to watch this?" I thought, panicking a bit. "I mean, they're about to kiss during a rainstorm in the ruins of a church ... this is about the lamest thing I've ever seen ... MUST WATCH 'PREDATOR'!"
Despite my hesitance to enjoy the film, I admit it's a well-crafted movie. Not too heavy on the drama, but a little too light on the pacing. The film is laborously long -- almost 45 minutes too long for my taste. But the ending of the film is oddly satisfying, even for a guy like me, and it's worth watching until the end.
So, I suppose for a film that my girlfriend made me watch, "Pride and Prejudice" is a solid flick.
4 comments:
Hm ...
I wouldn't consider my review toned with "manly-manness" (heh heh ... toned, get it?). I would consider it from the perspective of a man -- period. Jess, you have to understand what a film like this means to a guy. Here, I know I don't need to, but here's the sypnosis for you again:
In the rural countryside of Victorian-era England, a strong, indepedent young woman named Elizabeth meets a smug, abrasive man named Mr. Darcy. The two hate each other at first, and Elizabeth comes to learn that Mr. Darcy has taken great lengths to go against her family.
However, Mr. Darcy is not as all how he seems. In the vine-etched ruins of a church, during a rain storm, both of them soaked with rain, Mr. Darcy confesses his passionate love for Elizabeth. Elizabeth realizes that she is madly in love with him as well ... but pair's stubborn ways deny them happiness for several months.
Finally, in the climax of the film, Mr. Darcy finds good husbands for several of Elizabeth's sisters, and Elizabeth accepts his love and the two are united in holy matrimony.
Now, pretend you're a guy. Just a normal guy. Not a beer-guzzlin' football-watchin' guy, but a normal guy -- like me. A guy who enjoys a good cry every now and again, but likes the occasional big gun, catchy one-liner or explosion.
This movie is very hard for a guy to watch, but I did. I wrote how I was feeling. Yes, it's a bit more casual than my usual review, but that shoudl only succeed in bringing out my true feelings of the film.
I think you're just upset that I didn't liek it as much as you did.
Technically good? What, are you sitting there with a printout checklist while you're reading my review? I understand that there is such a thing as a good review and a bad review, and I aknowledge the fact that this review isn't my best.
But technically good? Pah. I scoff at you.
not a very good review, i'm sorry
I'm assuming that you're apologizing for posting anonymously, not elaborating whatsoever and generally throwing intelligent discussion out the window? I don't accept the apology. Do me and a favor and don't comment unless you have something to contribute to this blog.
Post a Comment