Stolz und Vorurteil

Die literarische Vorlage habe ich gelesen, eine andere Adaptation habe ich nicht gesehen. Ich kann also sagen, dass ich sehr zufrieden bin. Der Film ist atemberaubend. Er hat wunderschöne Bilder, ausgezeichnet aufgenommene Szenen (z. B. die beim zweiten Ball), Marianellis eindrucksvolle Musik und natürlich die hervorragenden Schauspieler*innen. Man kann sagen, dass ich mir beim Lesen alle Figuren genau so vorgestellt habe, wie sie in diesem Film dargestellt werden. Es gab nur zwei kleine Unterschiede: Mr. Collins war in der Vorlage nicht so lächerlich und der alte Herr Bennet nicht so sympathisch (Donald Sutherland ist Donald Sutherland). Keira Knightley und der fantastische Matthew Macfadyen waren perfekt. Der einzige Schönheitsfehler sind ein paar Momente im letzten Drittel, die ich ein bisschen langweilig und überflüssig fand. Das habe ich daran gemerkt, dass ich auf einmal nachgeschaut habe, wie lange der Film noch dauern wird. Viereinhalb. (23.07.2011)

The deep and stunning eyes of Miss Keira took me to a place where no road is long enough or too muddy, and where no game is good enough not to have a better one. When, in addition, the enchanting music reaches its strongest twist, you want to be Mr. Darcy, who gets a chance to show himself in the right light, or be Elizabeth and suggest the truth to everyone with her straightforwardness. But what fascinates me the most is that even though Jane Austen's original is charming in its verbosity and lushness, director Wright managed to reduce it so excellently that it clearly surpasses it. (19.02.2006)

Gorgeous. With the very first shot and the first notes of the piano, I was captured and only released with the closing credits, emotionally enriched. It's hard to see a film so well directed, so easily narrated and so wonderfully acted. Artistically, too, it is flawless – thoughtful composition of images, imaginative cinematography, elaborate sets and costumes, here the Oscar nominations are very appropriate. Same with Keira Knightley, she doesn't really appeal to me as a woman (see Tetsuo's comment), but here she was divine, in both her acting and expression. And I can hardly imagine a better Mr Darcy than Matthew Macfadyen's either. In short: for the first time in a long time, a film that struck a chord with me. PS: I'm getting really interested in Jane Austen adaptations, I'm going to look for Lee's Sense and Sensibility. (27.08.2022)

A simple glance at the thickness of the book suggests that the task of cramming a sprawling plot into two hours of film was a daunting one for the director. Wright opts for a rather unfortunate method of occasional abbreviation, which produces a terrible stew of names and family-social ties right from the get-go. This hesitation is unfortunate because if the runtime had been extended by 20 minutes, the beautifully staged emotions would have stood out a hell of a lot better. Thus, all we have left is a promising hint of how catchy of a story the director can tell: the cinematography is charming, the set design is settling, the actors are decent - as befits the English - and the overall composition smacks of the sweetest kitsch. However, this merry-go-round of engagements and weddings is so sensitively, humorously, pleasantly, and above all sincerely filmed that much can be forgiven. At present, the boundaries of the genre could not be better. (11.03.2007)

The folly of the powerful in a British form from the pen of Jane Austen couldn’t have been better. Her world is very far from what I imagine as an ideal bedtime story. Reading her books would be make me totally desperate. The movie is a different case, however. Joe Wright honors the source material and so there is a number of higher-class conceited characters that you would like to shoot with a cannon from a Soviet T-100 tank. But the film is lucky because the dialogues are brilliantly written so there is always somebody to shut them up with a polite, cynical word. That and the very pretty shots prove that it would be a shame to overlook this film. (21.09.2018)