Monday, March 12, 2018

Problems I Have With Pride & Prejudice 2005

I am not a negative person by nature, but I would like to present these thoughts of mine for your reading pleasure. Let us see on whether or not we agree!
I did a rather old post kind of like this awhile back, but my opinions have changed a little, so I wanted to update from a fresh perspective. So here you go.

Disclaimer: These are my own personal opinions, they are not meant to bash anyone who might think differently than me. Let's keep this fun, peeps.

To begin.

~It's too short

This story is not one to be taken in a small amount of time. The story requires a good deal of thought and pondering to enjoy it thoroughly. When watching P&P '05, we cannot do that. It's too painfully short. It's so short it hurts my brain to watch it.
I really wish they would've:
1. Made the movie into a miniseries, or at least
2. Made the movie super long.
This would give us much more time to spend with the movie's beautiful aesthetics and appreciate things such as acting talent. *sigh* But alas.

~Elizabeth Bennet's makeup isn't accurate- and it just bugs me in general

This "I love you" rainstorm scene in particular (completely setting aside the fact that this scene in this setting wasn’t supposed to happen anyways) just bugged me because of how dark and sultry Elizabeth’s makeup was. I am not a ‘costume’ expert, but I do know that back in these times, makeup was very faint, natural, and light. The only people who wore makeup enough to see was women of ill repute, or... (dare I say it on this clean blog…) prostitutes, who were essentially outcasts.
Not to mention dark, smudgy eyeliner bugs me in general. But that’s just me.
(Also, this is off the makeup biz, but why is Elizabeth such a ragamuffin in general? Certainly neat hair and ironed clothing were a must, even for someone of her class?) (Help me out, history peeps.)

~The costumes aren’t accurate either

This one I can’t say much about, as I am not a ‘costume’ expert, as I said. But in spite of my thoughts on this movies’ costumes, I have been in the discussion of other people who know much more of the subject who also think the costumes are historically lacking. And who am I to argue with a history person?
Plus, I just don’t understand Caroline Bingley’s dress in this ball scene at all??? In the 19th century, I always figured that women didn't wear night gowns to balls...
But perhaps I'm wrong... anyone?

~Mr. Darcy is the opposite of attractive (*whispers* aka he's ugly)

I know, I know. Some women think otherwise. This is my personal opinion (and no offense to the actor as a person), but I do not care for this Darcy’s looks. He’s supposed to be handsome, right? Isn’t that what the book suggests? Help me here, people. It’s been awhile since I read the book. P&P 05’s Darcy is not how I imagine a handsome-suitor-with-a-gazillion-pounds to look. Also, his hair is weird.

~The Bingleys are weird

Caroline does alright at acting high-and-mighty and all, but her costumes are horrid (again with the nightgown ball dress), but she's not even in the story enough for me to even have an extensive opinion about her.
That scene when Caroline was supposed to have caused her brother to leave town to keep him away from Jane? Like, for real that scene just happened so fast and without very much explanation at all. If I hadn’t read the book already, I would’ve been completely confused, as my mom was because she hadn't read the book. *frustrated groan*

And I haven’t even gotten to Charles Bingley yet. Let me just say this; I think Hollywood/other movie making people are getting confused about what the term ‘handsome’ means. He’s friendly enough (I rather think his personality is on the ‘ok’ side), but he’s just not attractive. At all.

~Mr. Collins isn’t ridiculous enough to make me hardly notice his existence at all

This Mr. Collins is just kind of there. Like, hardly anything happens with him until he proposes to Elizabeth and gets rejected, and even then he’s still not much of anything when it comes to ‘personality’. As I remember it in the book, Mr. Collins was supposed to be somewhat ridiculous and comedic, while he tries his best to be serious. You could take this Mr. Collins out entirely and it would effect the movie very little.

~The Bennet family isn't ridiculous enough either

In the true spirit of Jane Austen's writing, the Bennet family (apart from Jane and Elizabeth) are supposed to be ridiculous enough to make you laugh to yourself, and even out loud. P&P '95 captures the hilarity splendidly, but in 2005... I honestly can't remember laughing once, to myself or otherwise.

Mrs. Bennet is okay. Not funny, but okay. Mr. Bennet I probably like the most. But the rest of them are filled with many non-laughable moments (or perhaps they ARE laughable, but the moment is too short that I can't notice / enjoy it?) that leave me more bored than amused. Sad, but true.


Well, that's about it. 
Let's end this barrage of negativity with some positive notes:

A Few Things I Do Like:
~Jane Bennet (I love Rosamund Pike in this role)
~The soundtrack (I live and breathe the music from this movie no joke)
~The sets and props and aesthetics (such a beautiful movie really)

There you have it. My true thoughts on a movie controversial among period drama lovers around the world. I did re-watch this right before I wrote this so that I can remember all of my thoughts (gotta be accurate, you know?), and was not entirely bored, because in spite of it's flaws, I do enjoy watching it.
It's not terrible by any means.

On another subject, I feel like I've been posting a lot of period-drama related posts lately? Or is that just me? I certainly enjoyed the period drama tag all the bloggers did awhile back. :)
But if I'm not careful, I might end up one of 'those' period drama-obsessed blogs.
Let me know which of these sentiments you agree or disagree with. :)

See ya.


  1. I have my own beefs with this film (as much as I do enjoy it), the biggest one being that stupid DIRECTOR!

    It was his idea to put Elizabeth as a ragamuffin (to use your word), setting in about 20 years before the original (which is why the costumes are wrong - he hated the Empire silhouette). And he put in scenes in night clothes that should not have been (the letter and Lady Catherine's argument). It was marketed as a more "sexy" version, and I believe they are correct - much to their detriment.

    If the film had had a different director, half of the flaws probably wouldn't have been there. A lot of things, like the casting were fairly good (though I agree with you on Mr. Collins, he was much more of an "ew, gross" person than a ridiculous one.)

    Excellent post, Amaris!


    1. Catherine,
      Ah, the director. I didn't realize those things, but that makes a whole lot of sense.
      I kind of like the idea of Elizabeth as a clean and prim, even while poor, character. The Bennets weren't peasants, as I recall! They were just ridiculous, and 'not rich'. *shrug*

      Ah yes, a 'sexy' version of Pride & Prejudice. Well, ok. That doesn't surprise me.

      I do not hate this movie, and I like 1995 well enough, but I am still waiting for the 'perfect' film version of P&P. But I daresay they can't make one that would please everyone.
      Ah well.

      Thank you!


  2. You're just prejudiced against it and you're too proud to admit it.

  3. I personally adore this movie, but I agree it could have been much longer, I don't like Caroline Bingly or her costumes, and I also agree that Darcy is not that good looking! Honestly, the actor is okay looking but why did they do his hair like that?? He also rather bores me. But I don't like Darcy in the old mini-series either. They just need to find the perfect Darcy! And in my opinion, he has not been found.
    But besides those things I mostly disagree with you, but that's totally fine. It's good to read opinions I don't agree with haha.

    1. Lissa:
      It is a very enjoyable movie, to be sure, in spite of what I deem to be its flaws. :)
      I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks this Darcy does not look that great! '95 Darcy wasn't PERFECT, but he was BETTER, in my opinion.
      Lol, I'm glad you enjoyed! :D


  4. I agree with Elisabeth's lack of "decorum" with her hair. At the ball her hair was lovely! I like Mr. Bingley, though I admit after thinking about it, they do seem to portray him as a bit awkward or bumbly I'll say. If I had to choose one Mr. Bingley between the 1995 version and this one, I'd definitely choose the 1995's Mr. Bingley. It also is kind of disappointing to me that they chose the spot they did for the proposal. (If you look it up it is actually a temple) I do love, I confess, how they orchestrated this scene where it's raining and they are both drenched. romantic.....Anyway, there's my two cents on this. :)

    1. Katherine:
      I also liked Elizabeth's ball hair. :) It was quite nice.
      Yes, I would say 'bumbly' is the word for Mr. Bingley.
      I do love romantic rainy scenes, but this one just annoyed me too much for me to enjoy it. Ah well.
      Thanks for your two cents!!

    2. My sister and I recently started a blog; perhaps you would care to check it out. Here is the link:

    3. Ah, cool! *hops over to blog to check it out*

  5. Sigh. This movie.... I just can't stand it. I agree with you all the way. They things that are likeable (i.e. Jane, music, aesthetics) are amazing! But the rest of it just drove me crazy. Good post!

    1. I totally agree!
      It's not the best movie... but there are a few little things that are not annoying.
      Thank you!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...