On why I don't like 2005 P&P

Ladies and Gentlemen, today I am here with a very controversial subject. (I will win it, by the way, the debate-to-come in the comments. Just warning ya.)

I have doubted and postponed the writing of this post, because I know I have some followers - who I wuv just as much as the others, of coursey-course (I am not an encourager of favouritism, you see) - who really are excruciatingly fond of this two-thousand-and-five Pride and Prejudice. So please, don't get upset by my little opinion of no real true consequence. I just want to do a rant. Because, I'm dreadfully sorry, I do. not. like. This version. At all.

Now. Allow me to put the record straight. I am NOT one of those people who believe you can only love one version. Nonsense. I can prove people-who-think-that-of-me wrong by pointing out the example of Sense and Sensibility. I love, love both 1995 and 2008 equally. There. See? It's just that that coincidentally is not the case with Pride and Prejudice. I've seriously TRIED to like the 05 version. I promise. I watched it TWICE, for Pete's sake. But I just DON'T GET IT.

But first, because I always encourage positivism (I'm afraid you won't see much in today's post), I will tell you what I DID like.

1. The music. Really. It's SCRUMPTIOUS. I have nothing whatsoever against the music.

2. Jane, if she wouldn't have had such a very MESSY hair-style 90% of the movie, was very good. I love Susannah Harker's Greek, kind, sweet look, but, after the messy-hair-complaint, I have no further complaint about Rosamund Pike's Jane. She was very sweet, very beautiful, so darling. I love both Janes dearly.

3. The scenery was very lovely in some scenes.

That's all I can think of for the time being. Let's go to the real part of the post, shall we? Are you sure you're ready? Okay. I suppose now is as good a time as any.

Let's start with Keira Knightley's Lizzy, shall we? Now, I'm not a Keira Knightley hater or anything, mark that. I just DON'T think she's Lizzy. She just... *splutters helplessly*... ISN'T. Thing is, when I see Keira Knightley, I see something like this, not something like this. I see a kind of fashion-model, a teenager of the 20th century with the side bangs and so-obviously-make-upped-face. She's beautiful, but she just doesn't LOOK Regency.

Also, SHE shouts instead of making discussions in an at-least-tolerably ladylike manner. Also she GOES OUT IN TOWN WITH HER HAIR DOWN. And in the fields in her night garb. Now, for those times, that was positively shocking. Sounds weird? Well, it was. It WAS positively shocking. Times have changed since Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice, dear readers. Society behaved differently. 

And that's the PROBLEM with this P&P! It's so ridiculously... modern. This Elizabeth Bennet continually reminds me of those teenage girls walking along the shops. I can see her pixie cut under her always-messy wig throughout the movie, and I almost expect to see flip-flops when she lifts the hem of her dress. Most of the time she looks like she's just tumbled out of her bed - which, don't get me wrong, could look charming, but which was SO not HOW-IT-WAS-ISH for those times!

Pride and Prejudice 2005 is the least Period Drama-ish Period Drama ever. There I said it.

OH PLEASE. This looks like a Youtube Ad advertising Nivea cream or something like that. Or someone trying out special camera effects. This is just NOT Jane Austen. 

Dear people, do these things come in to your mind when you think of Jane Austen? - Messy Hair? Night-gowns!!? Swings? Pigs? Elbows on the table? Whispering in Church? Shoulders slumping down? Georgian gowns? Well, if those things come to your mind, fine. :-) But personally I don't think of these things and That's also why this P&P bothers me.

It's like everyone is wearing their pyjamas the whole time. I DO beg your pardon, but I must tell you. Our family calls this P&P 'Pride and Pyjamas.' We do. My brothers came up with it, and I have to say I thought it exceedingly fitting and I call it by that myself.

Look. LISTEN TO THIS. Remember that scene where Mr Darcy comes and gives Lizzy the letter? Well, that's supposed to be the one where Mr Darcy gives it to Lizzy during a stroll in the woods, right? Nope, ma'am, NOT in this version. Here it's the most VULGAR thing ever - Mr Darcy just COMES IN the room (without knocking or 'exuse me's or the maid introducing him - he just opens the front door like that), in the late evening, while Lizzy is WEARING HER PYJAMAS (this, for that time, was really - oh, I wish you'd understand - really just not exceptable!) and hands her the letter. WHILE SHE'S WEARING HER PYJAMAS.

And remember that scene where Lady Catherine comes and gives Lizzy a good talk? Yeah, it's supposed to be the stroll in the garden, right? Nope, ma'am, it's in the middle of the night, while everyone is in their night-garb. Lady-Catherine! One of the MOST important, respected people! She goes to the Bennet's in the NIGHT, and faces a family with loose hair and night-gowns?!!! Oh, PLEASE. Like this is accurate. I really can't watch it.

Why is everything in the night? Why can't there be some scenes with TIDY rooms and NEAT hairstyles? 

Look, research has been done and it has been factualized that the Bennet family would have been able to afford eleven servants. And listen to me, the Bennet sisters had no jobs like women have now, so it is only natural for them to have the time to do their hair beautifully everyday! Please! People complain sometimes that the Bennet sisters in 95' Pride and Prejudice look too 'perfect' and coiffed every day. But really, if you had eleven servants in the house and no job, wouldn't you have the time to do your hair every day and to look good and pretty every day? Especially if you went into town?

I am very upset.


It's the last scene that pains me the most. (The pain is real. Dare ye not laugh.)

So this is how it goes, right? Lizzy goes out (not in the daytime, of course, in disastrously messy hair, of course, and in her nightgown, of course, this is nothing new) into the fields (insert misty-ness and sunset-ness for romantic effects) and VIOLA, coincidence everyone, Mr Darcy appears magically, with his messy hair and his unbuttoned-things.

Myself, I can't take that. How did they know they were going to meet in the same place? Like, did they message each other on their phones? (Oh no, this is a Regency movie. Sorry. Forgot for a minute.) (*snort*)

Why did the movie makers make everything so... steamy? Mr Collins, he gets a dull unromantic room with a big roast of beef. Mr Darcy, he gets rain and sunsets. Not fair, right? In the book and in 95 P&P the proposals for both men are in similar places. No suddenly-they-dance-on-their-own-in-an-empty-ballroom. No almost-kisses after the first proposal, either. (Seriously?!! They ALMOST kissed after that angry conversation in the rain! Like, Lizzy EXPECTED one?!!)

And when they dance at the ball in Netherfield, they made it all steamy and slow and staring-in-each-others-eyes-y. That's not how Jane Austen wrote it. It was a curt and so not romantic. In this P&P even Lizzy (who's supposed to be rather monstrously disgusted by Mr Darcy, remember? She doesn't LIKE him, remember?) she GAZES bewitchingly in his eyes.

And talking about the world 'bewitched.' Where does THIS come from?!! This quote: 'You have bewitched me, body and soul?' This is just... I'm not even starting. 

Oh look, Miss Bingley forgot to put on her dress.
And there are millions of other things. I'm so sorry. I won't cover them all, because I can make a huge unhealthy rant out of every little scene. I'm horrific, I know, and I feel very bad on your (that is, if you like P&P'05) on your part. (Seriously, pulease don't get offended.)

But because I've started, I must finish. Here are a few more mini rants:

1. Mr Darcy. He doesn't look like a man who owns 10000 a year. Nope, ma'am. Why did they make him look all sloppy? He looks like a farmer boy, a bit dressed up, maybe, but that's all. I really can't stand it when men have bad haircuts. He looks scruffy and bored and 'AH-I-don't-care' and 'Poooor-me'-ish the whole time. He doesn't like the slightest bit proud, either. This should be called 'Humble and Pyjamas', not 'Pride and Prejudice.'

2. (Also, Mr Bingley's hair. Not even starting. Mr Bingley was just a weirdo. A puppet of some sort, almost. His 'laugh' HAUNTS me in the night.)

3. Also, they made this P&P look like it was set several years earlier. Some people wear Regency things, but most of the people wear Georgian garb. Even my older brother, who normally NEVER notices anything fashion-wise (he's that kind of chap) commented that this P&P isn't Regency, it's Georgian. It's like they didn't know which one to choose, so they made it a mix. They allowed some girls to wear Regency things but gave Georgian garb to all the rest. Make Up Your Mind, please.

4. Mr Bennet looks like a pirate. Benjamin Whitrow's Mr Bennet is just SO superior.

5. Everyone has messy hairstyles practically all the time. I know I've talked about it already, but I had to mention it again, because that's one of the things I dislike the most. I think they might have forgotten that combs existed in the Regency (Georgian) era. Poor them. One must think the best, after all.

6. Mrs Bennet wasn't funny. My opinion solely then.

7. Same goes for Lydia. I didn't think she was funny. Of course, the girls here LOOKED more like teenagers (also because they acted and looked more like teenagers do now, in 2015) but I didn't get the taste of the brilliant characters.

8. Charlotte Lucas was good, but it made me wince to see her and Elizabeth run and giggle like Lydia and Kitty in the ball room. I doubt very strongly that twenty-seven-year-olds would have done loud giggling and RUNNING in the ballroom. (Oh yes, that's also a reason why I don't like this Lizzy. She behaves like Lydia and Kitty half of the time. And her giggles are weird. (Must have been influenced by Mr Bingley, I suppose.))

9. My one last big point I'm going to cover is this - the movie's, what's the word for that? - setting? - was weird. Sometimes it went REALLY slow, filming the scenery and the grounds at Pemberly, and Elizabeth Bennet's eyes (seriously, we KNOW you have eyes, Elizabeth Bennet) and the swing in the muddy front yard very slowly, veeeerrry slowly. And then SUDDENLY we go back to the story - whoooosh, whoosh, zam, slap. People talk very fast, everything tumbles over each other.

Pride and Prejudice is a super complex story. You can't jolly well squash it into two hours or less. Or maybe you could, but not if you spend quarter of the time filming eyes and romantic effects. I think so strongly, at least.

10. Also, the fact that you can see Keira Knightley's pixie cut in MANY of the scenes drives me a bit crazy.

I'm sorry.

I just don't like this movie.

*runs off*

*edit* Go read this post here if you're a P&P05 lover. I have something to tell you.


  1. I feel a little *guilty* about being the first to comment, but I saw this and with some time on my hands, I HAD to comment. :-P
    To begin with, I do not dislike P&P '05. Nor do I dislike P&P '95. You see, this movie ('05) was the first "period drama" (notice the quotation marks) I ever saw. I loathed it when I was younger and every time my Mum played it I would quickly run away. However, when I was 10, I looked upon it with a new interest. It was then I began to like period dramas and it grew from there, but I'm going on a rabbit trail here - half the reason I like it, is because it was my introduction to Jane Austen. The other reason, is because I like it NOT for the story of Pride and Prejudice, but just for a pretty, nice soundtrack kind of movie to watch. And seriously, 2 hours is more practical than several. JUST SAYING.
    And the music. I'm playing a couple of those songs on the piano at the moment. :-D
    I like '95 because I BELIEVE it is a true-er portrayal of the story, even though I haven't read the book YET.
    I agree about pajamas, costumes, hair dos, strange ending (you made MY point - how did they know they'd find each other there, it was kind of like, "Hey, look, you're here!"), the almost kiss in the first proposal etc. I do actually kind of like Mr. Bingley though, I thought he was rather 'cute' and I didn't mind his hair (I don't really like Mr. Bennet's though) but he did seem a little thick. That little rehearsal of his proposal is absolutely adorable though. :-D I don't mind the portrayal of Mr. Bennet and I liked Mrs. Bennet because she was more realistic and REAL but then I know she's not suppose to be like that. As I said, I like this for a nice story to watch, not for Pride and Prejudice. (I know supporting both sides will make me rather - unliked, hehe, but it's my opinions. And we're entitled to them. :-P)
    I quite like Keira Knightley in other movies, but I do think Jennifer Ehle is more Lizzy Bennet than her.
    I've had a friend say I sounded like Keira once. I was like, "Oh...is that a good thing?" :-P I have similiar eyes to her too. And teeth, because I'm one of those weird people who NOTICE teeth. After all, I did have braces for 3 years. :-)
    Everything you said here didn't surprise me and did not upset or offend me. I have a feeling you rather enjoyed writing this bashing post. ;-)
    ~Miss Meg March

  2. Yes, yes, and yes. :) We watched the 05' version just a few months ago, and I can remember thinking of several of these points in a sort of anguished way.
    I think the biggest thing for me was Darcy. He just had too much of a puppy dog look going on. I don't know quite how to put it, but Colin Firth just added more spirit to the character. The pride and prejudice aspects in 95 were definitely more balanced.
    And as far as scenes...ach, Lady Catherine's visit to the house and the end scene were my least favorite. As golden and spontaneous as it was, I found myself longing for the simpler, and may I say, sweeter 95' ending.
    I suppose it does have a unique take on elements of P&P though so I wouldn't say its a bad movie, but it did fall short in the 'faithful to the book' part, and it just wasn't my style.

    Excellent points you brought up Naomi! This has made me want to see the 95' version all over again. :)

  3. I was going to write a long comment, but then I remember that one of my friends and I once wrote a whole post defending P&P 2005. So I reblogged it. (MUAHAHAHAHAHA.) https://classicsandcraziness.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/defending-pride-prejudice-2005/

  4. Okay, Naomi, old chump. *clears throat and gets down to business* For starters, I will say that I do agree with many of your points. Not all of them, but many of them. However, I still think that P&P 05 is better--and yes, more fundamentally accurate--than P&P 95. And here is why.

    Personally, I believe that in the novel of Pride and Prejudice, Lizzy Bennet is the single most important character. More important than Mr. Darcy. He's really cool and all that, but he's not #1. Lizzy is. We only get to see what's inside his head very occasionally--whereas we're seeing the inside of Lizzy's mind ALL THE TIME.

    Ergo, for my personal taste, ANY adaptation of P&P that gets Lizzy right has merit in my eyes. And conversely, any adaptation which--in my opinion--gets her character wrong can never be "Pride and Prejudice" for me. NEVER. And as far as I'm concerned, Keira Knightley's Lizzy is much closer to what Jane Austen actually wrote than Jennifer Ehle's.

    Why, you say? Well, here's why. You were saying Keira's Lizzy isn't ladylike--shouting, being unreasonable, all that. (Well, *I* personally don't call what she does "shouting," but that's beside the point. "Talking loudly." Whatever.) BUT LIZZY BENNET IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REASONABLE OR POLITE OR EVEN "LADYLIKE." Sorry, but I had to put that in all caps. She just ISN'T. I mean, sure, she has a good vocabulary and a good accent and she always keeps up a semblance of polite manners, but a whole lot of the things she actually says--in the novel itself, not the movie--are pretty stinkin' rude, when you come right down to it.

    Here's some examples of what I mean. Remember, these are all from the novel:
    "I always delight in overthrowing these kind of schemes, and cheating a person of their premeditated contempt. I have therefore made up my mind to tell you, that I do not want to dance a reel at all--and now despise me if you dare." (He's only trying to be NICE to you, Elizabeth.)
    "Stupid men are the only ones worth knowing, after all." (Come on, Lizzy.)
    "Does your charge give you much trouble? Young ladies of her age, are sometimes a little difficult to manage, and if she has the true Darcy spirit, she may like to have her own way." (Gossiping about a girl she's never met? Seriously???)
    "I give you leave to like him. You have liked many a stupider person." (That's no way to speak to a sister who adores you and would do anything for you.)

    Okay. You don't have to agree with me, but I think Lizzy's character, as illustrated by these quotes and many others like them, is SUPPOSED to be rude and abrupt and hot-tempered. The way I personally think of her is a "rough diamond." She has plenty of great qualities--she's brave, loyal, and strong--but she has a lot of polishing to go through before she can truly be described as a "lady" in the real sense.

    And here's the thing. Keira Knightley's Lizzy, for me, captures this "rough diamond" vibe perfectly. Whereas Jennifer Ehle . . . just doesn't have it. I'm sorry. She doesn't. She's calm and sweet and gentle and WISE--and don't get me wrong, those are awesome things to be, but they don't have anything to do with Lizzy Bennet. Not as I see her, anyway.

    Now, I get what you're saying about the hair and the clothes and all that. I GET it. And I know it bothers a lot of period drama fans when the movie setting isn't perfectly accurate. But for some reason, it DOESN'T bother me. And I'm a history major, and I still don't care. When it comes to Jane Austen, I DON'T REALLY CARE about the setting and the clothes, as long as the characters I care most about are faithfully portrayed. To me, that's the essence of P&P--the characters, specifically Lizzy. That's all I want to see.

  5. Yes, sister! :) Thank you again and again for writing this post! P&P05 (the wanna-be version of P&P :) ) is awful! P&P95 is wonderful! :) I even wrote about how terrible P&Pwannabe is for one of my college journalism classes. :) It is much too "modern," and the characters look greasy/dirty. Ugh. Matthew MacFadden (or however you spell his name - I know it is NOT spelled D-A-R-C-Y :) ), while quite perfectly cast as Arthur Clennam in Little Dorrit, was not at all a good pick for Darcy. Colin Firth may have ruined my opinion of anyone else in the role, but really, Matthew was *not* Darcy.

    Your three points in favor of the movie are good. The music is nice, Rosamund plays Jane well (despite her inability to smooth down her hair), and the scenery is (sometimes) charming.

    Keira Knightley. Not my favorite actress. Perhaps part of my dislike of her "portrayal" of Lizzy is founded upon thinking that I could play the part better. While my opinion of my acting skills is probably higher than it should be, Keira's acting fails miserably in comparison to Jennifer Ehle's. Her tendency to scrunch up her nose whenever she is amused is annoying. And her posture of holding her arms back and pushing her body forward is odd. Oh yes, my most hated enemy and I will gaze adoringly/smolderingly into each other's eyes because that's how we show our enmity. What? The almost-kiss after proposal the first? What?!?! No, no, no!

    Mr. Bennet is in P&P95. Whoever that imposter is in P&Pwannabe that claims to be Lizzy's father is most certainly not. He is kind of creepy. And Mrs. Bennet cannot compare either. Her timid voice has absolutely nothing on the real Mrs. Bennet's "Miss Piggy" voice. :) As irritating as the real Mrs. Bennet would be as a mother, she is most superb in her portrayal of Lizzy's mama.

    Sometimes I want to watch P&Pwannabe. My negative opinion of it may not be well-founded, you know. And after I watch it, I am reminded of just how pathetic it is.

  6. This is one of those movies that causes me to keep up an endless commentary throughout the whole viewing. I'm either laughing, groaning or making extremely sarcastic comments. I grew up on P&P '05, and have read the book many times, so of course I'm probably biased. But aside from that I don't think I would have liked it, anyway. It is very modern and that just kind of throws me out of the story. Also it's so fast paced. I've often thought that someone who didn't know the story would be awfully confused over why Lizzy hates Mr. Darcy so much. (And yeah, if she hated him so much, why DID she almost kiss him?) The whole thing with Wickham's story seems so insignificant and thrown in. The scene where he confides in Lizzy is so short that what he's accusing Mr. Darcy of seems rather vague and unimportant. (At least, that's how it appeared to me.)

    PIGS in the house!!! NO! OH NO! OH NO! That scene made me SO upset! I was like, "That's disgusting!" And it was so pointless and unnecessary!

    You're right about the slowness of some scenes. I noticed that too. They only have so much time to tell the story and they choose to show you long scenes of Lizzy walking around in the beautiful scenery...doing nothing. And those long shots of her face where you're supposed to be feeling her emotions...I never could tell what she was thinking or feeling. Somehow her expressions conveyed nothing to me.

    Spot on with Mr. Bingley. He really bothered me. (Not to be mean, but he struck me as a bit of a chuckle-head. "But I CAN read." *oh groan*)

    "Pride and Pajamas!" That is painfully accurate. Those pajama scenes were so weird. What gentleman would walk into someone's home unannounced--and then seeing a woman in her night dress, just stand there unembarrassed? And Lady Catherine would never have shown up in the middle of the night! Nor would Lizzie have ever gone walking outside in her night dress where someone could see her! (Even I wouldn't do that, and I live in the 21st century!) There's also that scene where Mr. Bingley comes into Jane's room to inquire after her health. I'm POSITIVE that would not have been done. Even today it wouldn't be polite for a guy to go into a girl's bedroom when she's in bed. At least, not where I come from. And anyway, he could have just asked Lizzie how Jane was doing. He didn't have to see Jane himself!

    Another objection I have to this movie is the script. Some of the lines were just painful. "Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy..." I mean, really, can't you think of anything more interesting to say that that? (And what grown people would ever sit outside--in their night clothes--on top of table! Odd that.)

    Okay, I'm done. I can be very picky when it comes to movies, and I can also get pretty heartless in my criticism of them, so sorry if I came across too strong. I totally understand if other people like it...and I can talk nicely about it if I have to. Really. I'm sure I could say something positive about it if I tried hard enough. It's just that, in the end, it's really not my cup of tea.

    "I fear you have long been desiring my absence. I will leave you now"...and quickly, before this comment becomes a full-blown post. :)

    ~Miss March

  7. You know, Naomi, I do agree with you on a lot of the finer points about hair + clothes that you mentioned:-) But I'm afraid I can't agree that Keira Knightley was so awful. To me, Keira Knightley WAS LIZZY BENNET.
    You said that she wasn't ladylike enough - but really, was Jane Austin's Lizzy ladylike? She was really a VERY RUDE person. Now I think that Keira Knightley was just right, with her temper and wit - like Jessica said, she was the "rough diamond" that Jane Austin created. She was so rude - violent - all that:-)
    See, Jennifer Ehle was so . . . well, GOOD. She was lovely and patient, so calm and gentle. I love that sort of thing - but Jane Austin's Lizzy was none of these things. I'm sorry - but she just wasn't.
    But it is true - that the hair and clothes were messed up. And usually, that really bothers me. Only this time, the great acting, and the whole atmosphere, made up for everything . . .
    Oh well, I won't change your mind, I know. But I thought I'd tell you why I like Keira Knightley :-)

  8. Well, I have never read the book. Or seen any of the movies. (Because I haven't read the book yet and I can't watch the movie without seeing the book. Made a promise to myself I wouldn't watch the movie without reading the book first a long time ago...) so I can't really express opinions on any of this, but I like reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter.

    One thing, though. I, personally, love Georgian era fashion, but you should always choose one era and stick to it. (Regency, in this case).

    ~Lydia~ <3

  9. I LOVE this post! You perfectly expressed my feelings on this movie! Everything you hated I agree strongly with and everything you liked I basically agreed with too. I still don't quite like the Jane.... I think Rosamund Pike was a perfect choice but I still thought she acted too silly at times. But yes! The music is gorgeous!
    Anyways, I can't express how much this expresses my thoughts on the movie... I almost could have written this post. ;)

  10. Oh, boy. Here we go. *coughcoughcough*

    Hahahahaha. Okay, here's what I think: yes, you are absolutely right. Yes, Keira Knightley's Lizzy has issues. Yes, the hair-down thing is ridiculous and historically shameful. Mr. Bennet looks like a pirate. Yes, Caroline Bingley looks like she's wearing her undergarments. There are loooaads of things wrong with this movie ....However, since I'm not a die-hard P&P fan, I just like it for what it is. That's all there is to it; I LIKE the movie. Call me whatever you like, but I can't help it. ;-)

    Not that I don't join in when other people bash it, of course. I wouldn't want to miss all THAT fun.

    'Mr. Bingley's laugh HAUNTS me in the night.' BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Whoa, I actually never noticed Keira Knightley's pixie cut under the wig. Huh. You're right, that is pretty bad.

    BUT WE AGREE ON THE MUSIC. This was one of the first period drama soundtracks I owned and listened to and fawned over. I ADORE it, ardently, and I love playing it on the piano (even though I fudge it up all the time because I don't have small delicate fingers like the Russian dude who plays it on the soundtrack).

    So, very nice rant, my dear. I admire your views. But just let me be silly and enjoy this movie. :-)


  11. This is interesting! I think I like the 2005 version better(I'm actually trying to finish the older one right now), but I hadn't caught all those historical blemishes you mentioned. Very interesting. . .

  12. Great post Naomi! Here are my thoughts:
    P&P '05 was the first Jane Austen movie I saw AND I had just read the book too. Well, my first impression was that '05 Mr. Darcy was like a sad puppy dog, Mr. Bingley, umph no no, he does look like a puppet. And Lizzy well, *sigh* Keira is just not Lizzy. She's a great actress, pretty, and talented but she's just not Lizzy. However, Susanna Harker was a pretty good Jane!

    Now I think the movie was made this way to appeal to a younger and more modern audience. Because let's face the modern romance movies will make more money than a movie about early 19th century life, courting, and marriage.

    The thing that irritated me about P&P '05 was the way it did not follow the book. That just really gets my goat when movies up and change major things from the book. Another reason was the actors. And another reason was that it was too romantic. To me the book is not that romantic. It's about people, but it also has subtle romance. P&P'95 was the same way.
    My favorite is P&P '95, the '05 one was okay I guess. Of course what's even better than both movies is the book. :D

  13. First I would like to thank you for this post. It's great!

    Two years or so ago, my parents thought I might like this movie. So I watched it and liked it. But then I read the book. I guess you could say I have a love/hate relationship with it now.

    I've seen the 1995 miniseries as well, but I will say that Keira Knightley is Lizzy for me. She's more vivacious than Jennifer Ehle is in the miniseries. But I've only seen that version once, so I admit that I could be wrong! :)

    I completely agree with much of this post! There really are a lot of problems with this adaption, I think. The costuming is confusing, because the Bennet sisters wear Regency fashions, but Mrs. Bennet seems stuck in the time period before. And Miss Bingley really just doesn't seem to know the right thing to wear. ;)

    Oh gosh, every time I watch it, I just wish I could tell Lizzy to put her hair up in that town scene...

    But I think what that bothers me most is the proposal scenes. They.Are.So.Wrong.
    The last one is just painful for me to watch. Just no.

    Have you seen the American ending? I think "no" about that too.

    Thank you for letting me rant a bit, I enjoyed reading yours!!

    -Emily F.

  14. No, no, don't run off! I would love to just give you a hug right now. Seriously, you have said just about everything I've wanted to say in a post like this... only you've said it much better than I could have.

    I was 14 when this movie came out. I had read the book twice and had watched the '95 version many, many (many, many, many) times over. I had no true desire to watch any other version because-- what could possibly be better than what I had already seen? My best friend, on the other hand, was really excited to watch it and asked if I'd watch it with her. Being the wonderful friend that I am (and wrongly assuming that it would probably be an enjoyable movie) I agreed to watch it.

    I can describe it in one word: painful. I kid you not, I was in physical pain. Not only was it awful, I knew that my friend was enjoying it and I didn't want to totally ruin her evening by complaining non-stop throughout the entire movie so I had to keep my opinions to myself and endure to the end. When it was over, she grinned at me and said, "Wow, that was great, wasn't it?" We were very close so, of course, I told her the absolute truth. And she promised to never test our friendship in such a way again. ;P

    I'll say no more since you have so accurately expressed my thoughts on the movie already. Love this post!! :D

  15. *rubs hands* Let my answers begin. :-)

    Miss Meg March, True, two hours is definitely more practical than five - but then I like long movies. :-)
    I KNOW! 'Hey look, you're there!' Haha.
    No, I think it's good that you support both sides. I wish I could. :) And I think I would rather like this movie, maybe, if I didn't think of Pride and Prejudice or historical stuff. As I said, I like Keira Knightley (so yup, the fact that someone said you reminded her of Keira is a good thing), but I do not like her at ALL as Elizabeth.
    Haha. I DID enjoy it. How did you guess? :-)

    Mary, I'm jolly glad you agree with me. :-)
    Yeah, Darcy was a big factor for me as well. :-/ Colin Firth - some people say he's too stiff - but Mr Darcy is SUPPOSED to be stiff. He's not supposed to be pitiable.
    Oh, the ending scene was just not okay. I agree with you. :-)

    Eva, We've talked. :-)

    Jessica prescott and Rose McCann,
    I'm going to talk to you two sisters at the same time, because you bought up the same point, which is a very interesting one indeed. But yet, I have my defence ready. (I know? Aren't you SURPRISED?!!! :-D Haha.)
    Lizzy Bennet, I agree, is rude. But she IS also ladylike. Wait. I'll explain. I think Jennifer Ehle's Lizzy is very rude at some bits - but she is rude while yet being a lady in the eyes of society. Did Mr Darcy not say that he thought Lizzy's whole family somewhat 'shameful' (not in those words, haha) BUT Lizzy and Jane. Lizzy was a lady in the eyes of society. She was rude, but she did so in a kind of 'hofty', 'ladylike' way, if you see what I mean. That's what I also get from the book. Keira Knightley's Lizzy did it in a tomboyish, rambunctious way. I think Keira Knightley was too Lydia-and-Kitty-ish. She was giggling and running and raising her voice in a rather almost vulgar way.
    I'm glad you two girls enjoy this version - I don't mind at all. That's fine! Thank you for the lovely comments! :-)

  16. Kerry, I'm so glad you agree with me! Haha, the scenery is (SOMETIMES (mark the sometimes) charming.
    Yes! Matthew MacFayden (I think that's how you spell it, but I'm never sure meself, hee) was PERFECT as Arthur Clenham. I just didn't like him as Darcy. Colin Firth was much more spot-on. :-)
    No, Keira isn't my favourite actress either, but maybe just because of her role as Lizzy. Jennifer Ehle was just SOOO much better. :-) DON'T START ME ON THE ALMOST-KISS. Please. Let's not TALK of it. :-)
    I didn't like this Mrs Bennet. She wasn't over-the-top enough. Mrs Bennet is SUPPOSED to be disastrously irritating. :-)
    Thanks for the great comment!

    Miss March, OH yup, same here. I watched it first with a friend of mine who's a HUGE fan, so I tried not to talk and rant. Then I watched it at home with my siblings, because they wanted to see how bad it was (snort, they heard my rants when I came home) and THEN boy, I gave commentaries the WHOLE way through. :-P
    I know, I think that because so many things were rushed they didn't seem 'important.' I don't get into the story. And then we DON'T need shots of Lizzy's face. It was like they wanted to show off Keira Knightley's beauty. Haha.
    I KNOW. THE PIG. *cringes*
    Heehee, I'm glad you like our title, 'Pride and Pyjamas.' :-) Ohh, I KNOW, the fact that Mr Bingley went IN the room when Jane was ill. Would not have happened. NOPE.
    OH THE LAST SCENE. I didn't mention it because it was TOO MUCH for me. Ugh!
    Thanks for your great comment! Loved it. :-)

    Rosie McCann, I answered your comment together with your sisters. :-)

    Lydia, YOU SHOULD WATCH THE 95 VERSION!!! It's BRILLIANT. Please watch it. :-) It's my favourite movie ever. :-)
    Oh, I like Georgian era fashion too, but not a movie with both fashions mixed together. Make up your mind. Haha.

  17. Lois Johnson, YAY! :-) I agree with you about Jane - she WAS a bit too gigglish sometimes. The 'wise-older-sister'-thing was lacking, if you see what I mean. But still, I really liked Jane in here. :-)
    Haha! I'm so glad you comprehend my feelings. :-)

    Evie, I KNEW you'd agree. :-) Haha.

    Emma, HAHA.
    Oh COURSE you may like this movie! Goodness, WE've talked about this. :-)
    I'm just relieved you think I'm right on a lot of points. Haha. (Yes, Mr Bennet looks like a pirate. Yes, etc.)
    Well, DON'T laugh. Mr Bingley's cockle laugh IS creepy. (Hannah said, when she read that, 'Oh come on, Naomi. You're really exaggerating.' Haha.)
    I KNOW. Her pixie cut! I noticed it so much. You can see it pretty much ALL the time. You don't have that problem with Jennifer Ehle, who had a blonde pixie cut and a wife which would've been much easier to reveal hair with.
    Yup, don't worry. I LOVE THE MUSIC. To bits. (Although it makes me THINK of the movie, which is why I neglect it often.)
    I'll let you be silly. Very well. You have my permission. :-P

    Meredith, Yeah, I get rather fristrated when it comes to historical inaccuracies. It's perfectly fine if you don't! :-) Glad you found it interesting.

    Kristen, I'm glad you agree with me on some points! Yay. :-) I agree though, Susanna Harker's Jane is very good too! As I said, I like both Janes. :-)
    I know, that's why they made it so modern-ish and swoony and romantic, so that teenagers now would appeal to it. But I don't get appealed. :-)
    Oh, I KNOW. They just didn't really follow the book! Annoyed me too. Also, they left out some characters, like Maria and Louisa. Exactly, Pride and Prejudice is NOT a very romantic story. Hear hear. :-)

    Emily, Aww, thanks! You're welcome. I'm glad you agree with me on some points (although not on the Lizzy point, but nevah mind. Haha.)
    I KNOW. The costuming is DARN confusing. Like, even Lady Catherine who's rich and would like to follow allll the latest fashions wears old Georgian clothing. :-) Weird.
    I KNOW. LIZZY'S LOOSE HAIR!!! IN TOWN!!!!! *screams*
    Oh yeah, I saw that ending. Can't talk about it. It's THAT bad.

    Aerykah, Oh, thank you! Let me give you a hug too, then. :-)
    HAHA. I watched this movie first with a friend of mine who was a HUGE fan. Like, not-even-funny-huge. She'd seen it 20 times. She LOVED it. I didn't tell her the absolute truth of MY feelings, I just said, 'Um, it was okay. But I still really prefer the other version' and kept kinda quiet. And then when I came back home, I started my big big rant to my parents and siblings. Heehee. :-)
    I'm so sorry you had to watch it in agony. I can tell you, I can RELATE, my friend. :-)

    Thanks for the comments, dear folks!!

    ~ Naomi

  18. Hahaha. I'm sorry. I gotta say, I just thoroughly enjoyed this post because I don't have very strong feelings one way or the other about this movie, but I loved reading your impassioned ranting about it XD

    I enjoy P&P '05, but I guess I don't think of it as THE P&P. I think of it as...a different story, I suppose:D

    Oh my gosh, girl, the way you put some of this: "Oh look, Miss Bingley forgot to put her dress on"--"Mr. Darcy appears with HIS unbuttoned things"--"his laugh HAUNTS me in the night"... XD XD XD Well put!;)

  19. Naomi,
    Hahaha, of course we have the same idea. We're SISTERS after all :)

    Yes. I do understand what you mean, and I agree that Lizzy in the novel is rude and yet remains "ladylike" in a superficial sense. I get that. But you see, I think that her rudeness is still a fundamental part of her character--or at least, it is until she starts to voluntarily change around the middle of the book. And you see, to me, Jennifer Ehle isn't even really RUDE. She's just playful. You can tell she doesn't truly mean all the unpleasant things she says. And for me, that's a problem, because I think Lizzy--the real Lizzy--actually DID mean them. That's why she was so ashamed of herself afterwards--"How despicably I have acted!" etc. So, for me, Jennifer Ehle can never really BE Lizzy, because she's just not rough and brusque enough. I know you don't agree with me, and that's OK :) But at the same time, I want to make it clear that my love of this movie is based upon its faithfulness to the book AS I SEE IT.

    Now, I know this is off-topic, but yesterday I remembered a quote from G.K. Chesterton that kind of sums up why I'm not too worried about the historical inaccuracies--minor or major--in P&P 05. Basically, to me, Jane Austen's characters are so powerful and so universal that it doesn't really MATTER what time frame you put them in. They will always just be themselves. Even if you brought Lizzy Bennet to our own time, she would still be the same old Lizzy. Not every writer can do that--but Homer can do it, and Dickens can do it, and Jane Austen can do it too.

    Here's the quote. Chesterton was talking about Dickens here, but I think it can be applied to Jane Austen as well:
    "Let us have no antiquarianism about Dickens, for Dickens is not an antiquity. Dickens looks not backward, but forward; he might look at our modern mobs with satire, or with fury, but he would love to look at them. . . . Wherever humanity is he would have us face it and make something of it, swallow it with a holy cannibalism, and assimilate it with the digestion of a giant. We must take these trippers as he would have taken them, and tear out of them their tragedy and their farce."

  20. Brava! *clap clap* I would congratulate your opinion except that in my eyes it's the only one that actually makes sense. :P

    I agree with you; the first time I watched this I actually expected to like it because I'd heard a good report from one of my sisters. And then I was just kind of like, um wut. :P And when Amy and I watched it together, we went into it going "okay maybe it's not going to be as bad as we make it out to be, maybe we can enjoy some stuff about it." Heh, heh, heh. Welllllll... no. Honestly, when it was over, I was glad we could snark about it together, but it felt a bit like a waste of time. :P

    I disagree about one thing in the comments (although I only skimmed them)-- I do not think Lizzy is "rude". She's snarky. She takes after her authoress. (Wow, if you think Lizzy is rude... you must think Jane Austen was the meanest person alive. :P) If she was REALLY being rude, her sister Jane wouldn't just laugh. But she knows that Lizzy is just teasing and means well. Similarly, I say things to Amy all the time that COULD be considered rude if someone who doesn't know me was reading it-- but I know that she'll understand where I'm coming from and know that I'm kidding, or else agree and not take offense. Haha.

    Lizzy isn't rude. Caroline Bingley is rude. And Mr. Darcy is sometimes rude. And both those kinds of rudeness are appalling to Elizabeth. And obviously, since she's so embarrassed by her younger sisters' behaviour, she herself is much more ladylike. Mr. Darcy didn't really think there was a reason to criticize her or Jane, besides for the rest of their family. He might have thought she was a bit of a country girl to begin with, but that was prejudice. Haha. In the end he realized that she social graces she lacked were only the superficial ones that didn't matter.

    Also, I'm thinking of a situation where Lizzy was very decidedly NOT rude-- when Charlotte married Mr. Collins. I mean yes, she said what she thought to Jane (so we can actually know what she's thinking-- and it proves once again that Jane is her best friend, not Charlotte :P), but she tried very hard NOT to offend Charlotte, and the only time they discussed Elizabeth's disapproval was when Charlotte was all "I know what you're thinking." Haha. And although she disagreed with Charlotte's reasoning, she still respected her and didn't just drop her friendship and support.


    Pride and Pajamas, ahahahahahaha. Yussss. I am adopting that.

  21. Melody--yes. I agree with you that Elizabeth's character in the novel probably has a lot in common with what Jane Austen was like as a young woman. Elizabeth is pretty snarky, and Jane Austen can be kind of snarky too. But that's exactly my point--their "shared snarkiness" is precisely what bothers me, because I DO consider it rude and unkind. To paraphrase the Ordinary Princess, "For two pins, I'd give her [Lizzy] a good hard SPANKING!"

    Now, I completely understand that it doesn't come across this way for everybody. But it really rubs me the wrong way. I should perhaps explain that I'm the kind of person who's always had an extremely low tolerance for teasing. That's why I don't want to be close friends with Lizzy Bennet--because I know that, sooner or later, she WOULD say something to hurt me.

    Give me Fanny Price every time. Or Anne Elliot. Or Colonel Brandon. And don't even TALK to me about Henry Tilney :)

  22. You know, it's phrases like this:

    Dear people, do these things come in to your mind when you think of Jane Austen? - Messy Hair? Night-gowns!!? Swings? Pigs? Elbows on the table? Whispering in Church? Shoulders slumping down? Georgian gowns? Well, if those things come to your mind, perhaps you should do a bit of research. Or read the books.

    that make me unable to take P&P05 haters seriously.

    Because I've read Jane Austen's books. I've read P&P itself 4 times, Persuasion more, and the others at least twice. I minored in history in college. I've researched the period a bit -- just within the last couple years, I've read Jane Austen's England and What Jane Austen Read and Charles Dickens Knew and other similar books about the history of the era. Do you know what I learned from them? That life in those times, even for the gentility, was unkempt, to put it mildly. That in all probability, the Bennets were a bit shabby, since Mr. Bennet didn't see any need to be thrifty until it was clear there would be no male heir. That gentlemen farmers in those days could be intimately involved in their farm's workings without being frowned upon. And that, much as we like to glorify those days as being perfectly elegant, even the wealthy owned fewer changes of clothes than you and I today.

    I think a great deal of this movie's staging and costuming was done purposely to provoke people, to get them to think about passion and how hard it is to contain it. How close anger and arousal are to each other. How similar people then are to us now. And how unusual Elizabeth and Darcy are, that they were willing to flout convention to be together.

    I must admit that, after the aforementioned passage, I only skimmed this post because I don't want to become fed up with you and stop enjoying your blog or getting along well with you. So please, I know you were trying to be terribly funny and clever, but do be aware that when you make statements like that, you are merely showing off your pride in your own ideas and your prejudices against anyone who does not share them. And certain as you are that you are so totally correct, so perfectly in tune with the mind of Jane Austen... really, you're just stating your own opinions and preferences. And, in the end, P&P05 does not satisfy those, but that does not mean it is wrong. It simply means you do not like it.

  23. Olivia, Hee - I'm glad you liked this. :-) Yes, P&P05 I MIGHT enjoy if I thought of it as a different story and not Pride and Prejudice.
    Thanks! :-)

    Melody, Thank you a lot! I KNEW you would agree with me on this point! Y'see, I had read yours and Amy's post on the P&P95forever club. Which was excellent, by the way. :-)
    I agree. 'Rude' is not exactly the right word. Snarky. That's better. (Exactly. Jane Austen was Very MUCH worse. But yet she has millions of fans. Strange how THAT works, huh?)
    Yeah, I made that point you pointed out earlier on in the comments. About Mr Darcy not being able to criticize her and Jane but being able to criticize the rest of the family.
    I love how you gave the friendship example! Lizzy is indeed very refined. I wuv her. :-)

    Jessica, Thanks for all your comments. I enjoy reading them. :-)

    Dear Hamlette, I'm so sorry. Of COURSE I'm just stating my own opinions! I'm not saying everyone should agree with me! (I pointed that out in the beginning.)
    Please don't let this post offended you! - I can see that it has, and that hurts me. This is just my opinion on one of the millions of movies in the world - there are millions of opinions; this is just mine. I won't deny that I meant every word I said (minus the fact the Mr Bingley's laugh HAUNTS me - which, I admit, was slightly exaggerated. Heehee. :-P) but please don't let that affect our blogging relationship.
    I don't think of those things when it comes to Jane Austen. You may. That's fine! :-) I don't think it's wrong to state my hectic opinions in blog posts, either. Again, I'm very sorry if this post offended you. I was hoping it wouldn't!

    Thank for commenting, anyhow!

    ~ Naomi

  24. Popping in with my opinion where it wasn't asked for. :D

    Though I'm definitely biased in favor of Naomi's side since I agree with her, I think it's a bit out of line for anyone to comment on Naomi's post and tell her she doesn't have a right to state her own opinions. Because they ARE just that-- her opinions. Anyone who reads the entire post will see that. If you like P&P2005 so much, perhaps reading a post that clearly states that it's going to bash said movie isn't the best idea.

    That's what blogging is about-- stating your opinions. If Naomi doesn't like P&P05, she has a perfect right to say so. Conversely, Eva has every right to state why she DOES like P&P05 (as she has, on her blog!) It would be wrong for any of us to put forth our opinions as absolute fact and say that anyone who disagrees is stupid-- in short, to rudely condemn those who don't agree. Naomi hasn't done any of those things in this post, however. She wrote a tongue-in-cheek, slightly snarky satire of a movie that she feels is an inadequate adaptation of a book she loves (or at least that's how I interpret it). I agree with her, so again, I'm probably biased... but I still think she has just as much a right to say what she pleases about this movie, just as much as Hamlette or Eva or anyone else has to say what THEY please... on THEIR blogs.

    And a little side note-- if you can't handle snark and satire, maybe Jane Austen isn't the best author to be arguing about. (Not that any of us can even hope to be as snarkily witty as she was, obviously. Not trying to compare any of us to her. Haha.) Though of course that doesn't give any of us leave to be rude to anyone else personally. I like Naomi's message above her comment box-- we may all jolly well write what we think, but in a CIVIL way. :D

    Anyways, to anyone who read all the way to the end of this very long comment-- thanks for listening to my unasked-for two cents on the matter. Since that's what this is all about. Opinions and all that rot. :D

  25. Amy, I can't tell you how much your comment meant to me. Thank you so much. :-)

    Exactly! Blogging is all about stating ones opinions - letting your tiny voice get heard. That's why people HAVE blogs. :-) HAHA. I wonder what Jane Austen's blog post would've been like. :-)
    Thank you for your very good opinion. It means a TON. *hugs*

    ~ Naomi

  26. Naomi--please don't worry, your post didn't offend me personally. I'm actually glad you wrote it because it gives folks like Rosie McCann and myself a chance to state our OWN opinions :-)

    Just to be clear, the fact that I think Lizzy and Jane Austen are kinda snarky and rude (and yes, I WILL continue to use the word "rude," because I think it fits) doesn't mean I don't like Pride and Prejudice or Jane Austen's work in general. I do like it an awful lot, because she was a brilliant writer who created a TON of characters whom I love and admire :) It just means, I wouldn't necessarily want to be close friends with Jane Austen in real life. But that's OK with me--I've had that experience with plenty of authors before. Like, Laura Ingalls Wilder--I ADORE her books, but I don't think we would've gotten along well at all. Parts of her personality just Get. On. My. Nerves.

  27. Yes, I appreciated that you started out by prefacing your opinion with the fact that it is just your opinion, and that you knew people weren't going to agree with you. And I'm perfectly okay with you not liking this adaptation. Not a problem! Everyone has the right to express their opinion about a movie, especially on their own blog.

    What I am less okay with is your implication that anyone who likes this movie, who accepts its interpretation, is clearly unfamiliar with Jane Austen's novels, or has never learned about that era. The "perhaps you should do a bit of research. Or read the books" came across precisely that way -- that anyone who is fine with swings, night-gowns, messy hair, pigs, elbows on the table, whispering in church, slumped shoulders, and Georgian gowns could not possibly know anything about history or Jane Austen. That goes beyond stating your opinions about a movie and becomes an opinion about anyone who disagrees with you.

    When the fact is that Jane Austen spends very little time in her novels discussing clothing, almost never describes anyone's hairstyle, and tells us next to nothing about appearances in general other than in the vaguest terms. It's one of the things I like best about her as a writer -- she's not concerned with the way people look, but with how they feel and think and what they do.

    I'm not angry, Naomi, or even peeved. Like I said in my original comment, I get that you were trying to be funny. I just want you to realize that for a while in this post, you stopped criticizing a movie and started criticizing people, and that can be hurtful. However, you did not declare that "anyone who likes this movie is not a true Jane Austen fan," and for that I thank you :-) Because I have read that exact statement on other blogs concerning this movie, and have consequently lost all regard for those bloggers, since they seem to think they are Jane Austen reincarnate and worthy of deciding who can and cannot enjoy her stories. When really, we should be celebrating that we all love her stories so much, and have been given many different adaptations of them to enjoy.

  28. I heartily agree with you, m'dear. Just not P&P. :)

  29. Yes, like Amy Dashwood, I feel I really must interject *cough*

    Now, I have no especially strong feelings about this movie as opposed to the '95 version either way. Nor am I remotely well-educated on the period, or whether or not this adaptation is historically accurate. But I do feel that perhaps everyone may be taking this post a bit too seriously? I'm not against us all discussing our differing opinions, but let's try to all keep it as kind and humble as we can, yes?

    After all, Naomi repeatedly stated in this post that by giving vent to several frustrations she has with this movie, she was in no way trying to offend ANYONE. She was just telling WHY she personally doesn't care for the '05 P&P. And I understand that both sides can raise objections to the other side's way of approaching this topic...but wait, isn't this slightly ridiculous? My using the word "side"? This is a movie, peeps. It's the interpretation of a certain group of people of a beloved story. Is that really worth getting offended (on either hand) about?

    '05 defenders, Naomi was just illustrating her points with a little bit of humor. That surely doesn't mean she was trying to showcase her knowledge of a certain time period or belittle those who don't share her opinions, does it? And staunch '95 lovers, it's really all right if some people passionately prefer this version to the '95, is it not? I guess what this rambling, unasked-for comment is trying to say is, let's ALL put this back in perspective. Different opinions, different pet peeves, different likes--those all make the world as colorfully unique as it is, no? I know that's a very overused cliche, but it's true. So let's by all means keep discussing our opinions, but do so while remaining always respectful to other views.

  30. Oh, Naomi! I love this post & you are excellent. I laughed aloud at the picture of Keira's pixie cut sticking out. I never noticed that! :) & I laughed aloud again at the last words in this post. (In asterisks.) xx

    Don't you dare stop being hilarious. You were obviously joking above. I'm also a history minor & agree with a lot of her points, but I disagree that you were doing anything here but being jovial and outspoken. I say keep shouting out about what you think. It would probably make Jane Austen laugh. She certainly didn't mince words when she had an opinion. And also, I find your remarks on fashion piping interesting. I am oblivious about which hat is proper for which century. I know the bustle came in after the hoop, but that's about it! My history minor focuses on dates & wars and other such gritty history. Not so much dresses. There should be a class on fashion. (Maybe there is!!)

    BIG BIG HUGS!! You're my favorite period drama blogger!! Your personality is sparkly! xxx

    PS: I always read your posts with my own American accent. Food for contemplation. Do you read mine with a British accent? That would be funny. :D

  31. Thank you for the darling comments everyone. :-)

    Jessica, I think you and your sister are excellent in stating your opinions in such nice ways. I enjoy your comments a lot. :-)
    (And yeah - I love Laura, but I think she'd get on my nerves too. Get what you mean. :-))

    Hamlette, I'm glad you're not cross or peeved. :-) (I had that impression with your first comment, to be honest with you, but I'm glad it was just 'first impressions.' (heehee!))
    I get your points - they are very interesting! I apologise for writing that about 'read the books.' I see how that is Slightly Far. I still ask you please not to change your opinions on people just because of their opinions on this particular movie. It's not THAT important, is it?
    Thank you for your comment! :-)

    Emily, Haha. Yaysies. :-)

    Olivia, Your comment was VERY much 'preciated. So THANKS, old thing. :-) I agree with you completely! It's just One Particular Movie. :-)

    Jillian, You're such a dear! Of course I won't stop trying to be funny. :-) I think historical fashion is VERY interesting - and I've studied it a lot, so I'm proud to say I'm a bit of a small expert. The annoying thing about knowing a lot about the historical fashion is that I notice the inaccuracies and get annoyed. Heehee.
    I want to hug you back. :-) Here. *Hugs* Thank you so much.
    Heehee, I DO read your posts in British. That is to say, I read everything in my own voice, most of the time. :-)

    ~ Naomi

  32. Ha, I never knew you could see your wig! I totally agree with everything you said- weird!!!x
    (Sorry, if you're wondering why this random comment, I was looking for a picture of the Railway children and Google led me to you and then I got engrossed in this!
    Hello by the way!

    1. Hello! I love random comments - thanks, Kezzie! I'm glad you agree with me. :-)

  33. Yesyesyesyesyesyesyes...yes. Everything. I completely agree (yeah, I just saw this post when you linked to it in your recent post). If I had read this post before I would have linked to it as well as the P&P'95 Forever Club's post in my comparison of the '95 and the '05. (http://raesdropofgoldensun.blogspot.com/2016/01/pride-and-prejudice-bbc-1995-vs-pride_12.html) This is great. Love. This movie was simply dreadful and scandalous. SERIOUSLY, the pajamas!!! And the not-daytime hours! Positively ridiculous and sacrilegious. NOT Jane Austen. AT ALL. (Isn't it horrid when you see things like, " 'You have bewitched me body and soul....I love, I love...[&c.]' -Jane Austen"?! Ahghahahagha NO. Please. Jane Austen was more sophisticated than that, for pity's sake! Anyway. Yeah. Great post.

  34. I loved this post! It was hilarious.
    I completely agree, the music was amazzinnngg, and I loved this version's Jane, (actually even a little more than the 1995 Jane), and the scenery was gorgeous.
    They all needed a comb in this movie! Pretty much everyone. Their hair was just so bad. And Caroline's 'dress', the moment I saw it, (and I wasn't very informed on Regency dresses) I thought it was ridiculous.
    All the pyjama scenes were not necessary, and not proper. I must say, I thought with Catherine De Bourg, it made the scene seem more urgent, like she couldn't wait for anything. But, it wasn't very Austen-like.
    I hated Mr. Bingley in this version. He was awful. A complete dimwit. With awful hair.
    I must say, that I kind of like Charlotte and Elizabeth's friendship... I thought they seemed more like friends than the 1995 version. I don't know, that's just my opinion.
    Mr. Darcy was less proud. He was more shy, and more vulnerable. But, I kind of like that better. He wasn't as true to the book, but dare I say I like him better than the real Darcy. That's just my preference, but I can't pick and choose and change Darcy to make him more likeable to me.
    Also like yeah, why are they staring at each other all the time? They are supposed to hate each other! When she rejects his proposal the almost kiss things was sooo dumb. No, no, no, it's not supposed to be like that!
    The pig in the house scene, and the front yard that was mud was also a big no-no.
    A lot of scenes were made to go slow, I agree they could have sped them up to make the movie have more scenes in it, but I'm a sucker for creative things and I kind of thought it was pretty.
    Anyways, thought I'd share my thoughts on it. I agree with like 99% of this post. I like the 1995 version best, and I totally see why you hate it. But I kind of like it, as a artistic movie.

  35. First off, I have to say that this post made me LAUGH SO HARD.

    *whispers* You see, I ADOOORE this movie.

    Adore it.

    But I recognize that aaaaaaaalll your points were COMPLETELY valid!!!

    They got it all wrong. It's NOT Jane Austen. The hair is wrong, the dresses are wrong, the customs are WRONG.


    But I still love this movie. And ji begin to wonder if some of the cultural inaccuracies were, dare I say it, intentional??? Maybe they were going for a kind of jarring back-then-meets-right-now kind of a thing???

    Like how you said the sisters actually acted like teenagers instead of adults. Well maybe they WANTED you to be able to relate to them, so they kind of "updated" them. See???

    And you pointed out that it is rather steamy. I agree. Obviously they WANTED it to be, right? So... that kind of explains all the nightgowns and early morning run-ins and near-miss kisses during angry proposals in the rain. Right?


    I don't want to argue. I'm not going to be persuaded out of loving it and you're not going to be persuaded out of hating it.

    I told myself I wasn't even going to comment! :)

    But the post WAS so funny! I loved it.

    Like Bingley's laugh??? HA!!! I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY! :)

    And Darcy FOES look like a farmer, come to think of it...

    And Mr. Bennet DOES look rather like a pirate...

    And I guffawed at "Mr. Darcy's unbuttoned things." Oh, dear! :)

  36. Haha! Thoroughly enjoyed this post! Thank you!

  37. Who the hell did you like? Elizabeth Ehle as Lizzy? Because Ehle was garbage with her constant rude line delivery and eye rolling. Colin Firth was good but his expressions (or lack of) made him look like he's constipated. And mind you, this is coming from someone who practically worships Colin Firth. The 1980's version is superior to the 95 one and the 05.

    Also, aside from picking apart their clothes, stop crapping on the actors. They all added something to their characters. What's the point of seeing the same kind of character interpretation in every version? Just stick with the one version you like and you'll be happy (if that's the case). There was nothing wrong Knightley's Lizzy. Lizzy is supposed to be somewhat immature and her character progresses as time goes on. Your post was a struggle to read. You're not funny or witty. You're just a chronic whiner. Not liking this version is one thing. Ripping it apart is another. Good thing the actors of this version and the director didn't come to you for approval. Thank god people don't exist to impress you.

    1. Thank you for your comment, but I do have a right to my opinion. I have nothing against the actors; I simply don't like this movie.
      Not liking my review is one thing, but ripping me apart is another.

      Honestly please let's be kind to each other. I'm sorry if my review annoyed you. I wrote it when I was sixteen back when I had a lot of time on my hands. I didn't mean any harm.

      I hope you have a lovely day. :-)

    2. Anonymous (nice job hiding behind cowardly anonymity), people like you are the reason I hate the Internet sometimes. You are being rude and obnoxious, and if you can't see the blatant hypocrisy in your comment lambasting Naomi for having an opinion that didn't impress you, I pity you deeply. Don't be mean to someone who doesn't have a mean bone in her body. Go be miserable somewhere else, where people may (hopefully not) appreciate that kind of inanity.

    3. Thank you Amy. 💗 Really appreciate this!

      (Hate comments make me laugh though. Like honestly, me and my sister laughed so much over this one. We even quote it from time to time. :-))

  38. HAHAHAHA quoting it from time to time... this is why I like you, Naomi. :D

    1. You're such a chronic whiner, Melody... :-)

  39. Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You! I cannot like this version either... Pigs in the house? I don't think so. Everything is so dirty and grimy. The Country dance looks like some kind of filthy pub.


Spam comments are lame. I got SO many of them I had to disable Anonymous comments. (Sorry nice Anonymites)

Anyway. Other comments = I LOVE YOU. :-)