sorry, but the acting is horrible!

There is emotion, quite a lot of it, in fact. It's just much less obvious. The 1995 version is far too emotional imo. Some of the performances are too ott: Mrs. Bennet, Lydia, Kitty, Mary, Lady Catherine, Caroline Bingley, and especially Darcy and Lizzy.

The 1980 version is more subtle, more nuanced. The emotions are there, but it requires more work from the audience to experience them than the 1995 version requires.

After many viewings of all versions of P&P, I really feel that the emotion in the 1995 version has more in common with the Screwball Comedy style of the 1940 version than it has with Austen's novel.

I don't agree. i thought the acting was excellent. elizabeth and darcy were much more like how i imagined the characters than any of the more recent versions, and it stuck more clisely to the original, no jumping into lakes etc. i thought Lady catherine was excellent, and the rest of the cast.

I just binge-watched this over the weekend and I was prepared to love it, but even though I liked some parts, overall I thought it was terrible. Even making allowances for the cheap 1980s production values, it was like a third rate stage play.

Lizzy delivered all her lines like she was on Valium or had a mild stroke, there was nothing witty or lively about her and her eyes certainly didn't twinkle. Darcy looked the part but he showed even less emotion than comatose Lizzy.

I liked the very end after they're engaged and talking about feels, but even then Darcy doesn't seem like a man who's carried this grand passion around for a year and finally won the girl. He never seemed to be "overflowing with admiration" even when he was supposed to be madly in love.

Jane was pretty. That's about it.

I thought the acting was fine. The stilted quality to our ears was due to the archaic form of speech of that time. It was more formal than now. Many recent versions try to modernize the language because it sounds so weird to us now.

This production was made at a time when production values were changing in TV.

This version is in between the tele-plays that were popular in style from the 50s to 70s and the big expensive mini-series projects that gained popularity in the 80s.

Anyway I have to say this version didn't hold back funding on the sets or the costuming. So it looks a bit like a soap opera, that didn't bother me at all. The video is warmer than film and allows for more intimacy with the actors.

This is my favorite P & P adaptation--I think the acting is very good. Comparing it to other adaptations, I think you have to make some allowances for this version being on videotape, not film, and so I think it would have been performed more like a play, performing the entire longer scene before cameras that zoomed in and out or cutting between cameras without stopping the action--like daytime soap operas used to be--rather than filmed like a movie, where close-up, long shots, and mid-range shots are filmed separately, with often multiple takes of the same shot, and then edited together. It makes for a less polished look, especially on tape instead of film.

[deleted]