Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.


Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.

This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.

What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.

On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.

Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).

Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.

Reviewer: Jeff Burton


Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley

Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.


Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.

This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.

What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.

On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.

Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).

Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.

Reviewer: Jeff Burton


Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley

Screenwriter: Sharman Macdonald
Director: John Maybury (The Jacket)
Actors: Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), Cillian Murphy (Red Eye) and Sienna Miller (Stardust)

Labels: Cillian Murphy, film, Keira Knightley, movie trailer, Sienna Miller

Short Review: This is a time-travel movie. After watching it, I wanted to travel back in time to when I decided to rent it and kick myself in the shins.


Being upset that this movie isn’t any good is like being upset after not winning the lottery. The odds were rather low from the onset.

All one needs to do is take a gander at the cast list: Adrian Brody (The Pianist, Summer of Sam, The Thin Red Line,) Jennifer Jason Leigh (In The Cut, eXistenZ, The Anniversary Party) and Minnesota native Kelly Lynch (Mr. Magoo, Joe Somebody, Virtousity.) Some actors seem compelled to align themselves with haughty, heady films that are so consumed with being important they wind up being meaningless. These three cover dozens of bad movies like it was specially their job to make these yawn fests.

Brody and Leigh are given respect in the industry as being great “independent” actors. Wha? These two play themselves in every role they touch. There’s no great acting going on here. Brody does his doe eyed, quiet guy thing and Leigh does her “I’m smart but horribly messed up” thing no matter the role. As actors they are neither compelling nor welcoming. Given their track records you’d think they’d have to prove their worth. As it is, after a while actors get a kind of tenure. It doesn’t matter how shoddy and unsuccessful their body of work actually is, it is imaginary aura of importance that gets them by. In my opinion, if you have made five empirically horrible movies, you should have to resign from making them altogether.

To actually talk about this movie directly, it is a boring mess. It has some interesting visual elements but so does my computer’s screen saver. It doesn’t mean I want to spend a hundred minutes staring at it? The storyline about a man who through isolation therapy he receives in a asylum sees his own death in a few days time, is surprisingly without tension or reason. There's some efforts to be creepy but these elements are so obtuse they distract from the floundering dialog and thin characters. Across the board, this movie wants to be more than what it is, a haphazard psychological thriller with no thrills.

I’m sure you haven’t even heard of this movie and you’re best off keeping it that way. If you’ve condemned yourself to seeing this waste of time take efforts to not pay full price, you’d only be hurting yourself.


Related Reviews:
Adrien Brody movies
King Kong (2005)
Hollywoodland (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
Chocking on Popcorn

Labels: Adrien Brody, film, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Keira Knightley, movie review

Labels: film, James McAvoy, Keira Knightley, movie trailer