Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

In watching this version of Jane Austen's classic novel of love, marriage, and class distinctions of Regency England, all I could think of was that, while pleasing to the eye, Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen were less playing Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet than versions of Heathcliff and Catherine in Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights". Knightley's Elizabeth struck me as self important, dramatic, and smug rather than intelligent and full of life. Why was she always snarling, smiling, or generally baring her teeth? MacFadyen's Darcy, rather than proud, alternating between shyness and simply looking like he wanted to cry. Where was the pomposity? The disdain for others around him? I saw none of that. This is not even touching the appalling additions of such things as pigs in the living room and the generally unkempt appearance of the Bennets and their living situation. Mr. Bennet was a bookkeeper, a gentleman. The book states that the Bennets were "not too poor" and still managed to appear well mannered and well groomed despite the lack of funds. So the dirt and the farm animals were unneeded and had no point relevant to the "Pride and Prejudice" I have read. If they were that poor, what would be the point of the fuss made over Lizzie getting her skirt inches in mud on the way to visit Jane? There'd be nothing to remark on, because it would be the norm. And it is not. But back to "Pride and Prejudice" meets "Wuthering Heights". I get the idea was likely to appeal to the greater masses. But the Harlequinesque declarations and outright lack of propriety shown in the film - the flowing hair, the over the top emotion, the schmaltz - is counterproductive to the novel. I could buy the sap in "Wuthering Heights" because Heathcliff and Catherine were both so dramatic on their own that their romance and doom were highlighted by such actions. Mr. Darcy and Lizzie were more circumspect. No less passionate, but their passion lay in their mannerisms and their verbal sparring, not walking around in bare feet, nightgowns, or half-done shirts. No, no, no. Leave that to Emily Bronte, not Jane Austen. As for the rest, no way would single men visit sick single women when they are alone. Reputation, as was one point of the novel, meant everything. Such an action would be scandalous back in the day. A woman would NOT be seen with her hair down. Lizzie would not giggle endlessly and lick her fingers and act as silly as Lydia. No way would Mr. Darcy EVER deliver that letter in the way he did. And the first proposal: the book mentioned Charlotte's parlor. It should have been left at that. The rain was, again, more dramatic, but it did not fit for these characters, especially not at that juncture of their acquaintance. And no way would Lady Catherine go to Longbourn in the dead of night to have it out with Lizzie over her intentions for her nephew. It's all wrong. I am glad for those who enjoy this version, but if the filmmaker wanted over the top romance, he should have left Jane Austen alone and gone with the more lushly romantic aforementioned Emily Bronte. The Bronte-ization of "Pride and Prejudice" left me cold and diluted Jane Austen's observations about love, marriage, society, and money and turned the story into just another romance flick. Give me the A&E miniseries, please.