Is it just me?


As a fan of the book (and well made movies) I thought this movie was shallow and disgracing to the book.
Anyone agree?
-HeartChange

reply

Not in the slightest.

This was a modernization of Austen's story, but the characters in this version remained recognizable, as did the basic plot. Sure, some changes had to be made because it's a 21st century story, but overall, I thought it stuck very close to the original.

I especially like that they hid little references to Jane Austen and to P&P in the movie. I loved "Rosings" the restaurant, or "Gardiner's Books" or the fact that the girls lived on Longbourn Avenue (Street?), etc. My favorite is one I never even noticed until the "pop-up" version (available through the DVD's extras) pointed it out to me -- and that is that the radio station that Lydia has on in the car is 181.3 = 1813, the year P&P was published.

This version also has what I consider to be the single best Collins of any other version.

reply

Completely agree - I felt true awkwardness while watching this "adaptation"...

reply

[deleted]

What are you talking about? This movie takes place in 21st century Utah.

reply

[deleted]

What original? The book, which was published in 1813, is the real original. But something tells me you're not talking about the book.

The first ever filmed version was produced by the BBC in 1938 for the handful of people who had televisions back then. The first theatrical release was in 1940. That's the one with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. After that, the BBC produced versions in 1952, 1958, 1967, 1980 and 1995. Then we have the 2005 theatrical version.

And then there are the "based ons" and "inspired bys" that include Bridget Jones's Diary, Bride & Prejudice and this one, Pride and Prejudice, a Latter-Day Comedy.

Personally, I have seen all but the BBC versions of 1938, 1952, 1958 and 1967.

So, which version are you talking about, and what is your problem with it?

reply

[deleted]

I honestly thought it was a bit of a disgrace as well. Although, seeing as how it was a modern version of P & P, they couldn't have done that well of a job to begin with. I agree with whomever it was that said part of the charm of P&P is the time period. The only good thing about this movie (besides Darcy, I always LOVE Darcy) was getting to see parts of my hometown in the movie. When I watched it, I knew exactly what grocery store they were in when they got the tubs of ice cream. It was kind of cool.

reply

Did you like Bridget Jones's Diary or Clueless?

I think the point of changing the time period of the story is to show that the themes are timeless. And they are.

reply

i agree with you, Julie-30

reply

I don't agree it was a good representation of the book, have into consideration that it's suppose to be a modern version and it's ok if some things don't match the book.

I liked it, mostly because I saw a little bit of my in the main character.

reply

Yup. This film was awful.

Clueless = a brilliant and perfect adaptation, but this was terrible. As a general tweeny film I suppose it was mediochre but even so, the stupid sets where the girls' have lilac and candy coloured flowery wallpaper, the awful acting (not to mention Anna's accent), and the undeveloped characters were just rubbish.

I can't really think of anything that was on the better side of okay in this film.

And their Wickham was terrible.

I suppose Caroline Bingley was alright but that's really about it. Should not have been made.

reply

the stupid sets where the girls' have lilac and candy coloured flowery wallpaper


I thought the color palette was almost identical to the one used in Clueless, especially the Clueless "Whatever!" edition DVD. The menus and screensavers use that same color palette.

not to mention Anna's accent


What's wrong with Honor Bliss's accent? She is English, after all.


You do realize this was a very small budget, non-Hollywood production? In fact, it's an LDS film and at the time it was made it wasn't really expected to be seen by very many non-LDS. I wonder if the filmmakers (mostly college students) thought it would ever be seen outside of Utah? Considering the size and scope of the project, I think they did a decent job of making a fun little film.

Clueless was a studio project with a full budget, by a director/writer who'd already had a hit or two under her belt.

(And I wouldn't ever call Clueless perfect. I LOVE it, but I don't think it's perfect.)

reply

I thought the color palette was almost identical to the one used in Clueless, especially the Clueless "Whatever!" edition DVD. The menus and screensavers use that same color palette.

Yeah it was similar to Clueless but it was carried off convincingly and fitted in with the 90's high school teen LA drama, but I personally don't thinks it fits in here with a bunch of supposed college students post the millenium.

What's wrong with Honor Bliss's accent? She is English, after all.

Maybe she is but that accent was completely fake. I am English and a Londoner and know many people with Herts/Hereford type accents like Darcy had, and I can honestly say that Anna had none of these accents.

She probably has a really rural Yorkshire-y accent or maybe a Northern accent and was trying to do some kind of South-East accent but it definately failed. It was embarrassing to watch her.


And yeah I know it was a small film and probably wasn't going to be widely released, but I just thought it was an abomination. If it has been called something else and loosely based on P&P I wouldn't give it as much trouble, but the fact that they even called this thing Pride and Prejudice is awful in my eyes.

(Also on the Clueless note - it's SO perfect! Seriously, as an Austen adaptation or just as a normal teen movie, it's great.)

reply

I personally don't thinks it fits in here with a bunch of supposed college students post the millenium.


In a lot of ways, Utah is like another world, in another time. I think it fit perfectly with the wholesomeness and modesty of the Utah Mormon scene. The typical post-millenium college student also drinks alcohol and coffee, but you won't find any alcohol or caffeine in the film because that's accurate for a Mormon campus.

At the time that film was made, the bare midriff was pratically a uniform on college campuses in the US (with the ultra low-rise jeans and cropped tops). But you'll hardly see any midrff skin in P&P 2003 except on Lydia (and a bit of Jane's, whose character comes from a different country). Did you notice how long their tops are? You couldn't find tops that long in regular mall stores in the US back when this film was made. Note that Lydia's the only one with her decolletage on display.

Also note the scene when the roomies are tubing on the river: none of them is dressed in a bikini. If the film had been set in practically any other location in the US (and developed by a non-Mormon company), they surely would have been wearing bikinis.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/modesty/modest_swimwear.html

http://www.modestclothes.com/LDS.html

]I am English and a Londoner and know many people with Herts/Hereford type accents like Darcy had, and I can honestly say that Anna had none of these accents.


I don't think they were supposed to be from Hertfordshire? In the film, Darcy says he's from Derby but spends a lot of time in London now. Perhaps the filmmakers just had the actors use their own accents, assuming that the Mormon audience wouldn't realize that the sibs had different accents?

I believe the film wasn't called Pride and Prejudice; it's complete title was Pride & Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy. The distributor removed the reference to Latter Day Saints (LDS, aka Mormonism) because they didn't want non-mormons to think it was only about Mormonism.


Cheers!

reply

Oh man, okay, you win, I'm too tired to continue. Agree to disagree about this film?

reply

Come on guys, this film was so bad that I gave up on it within the first 10 minutes, it was too embarrassing. The acting was awful, the characters were hugely miscast, and the plot was paper thin. It was an insult to the original text and I actually would go so far as to say that there wasn't even an attempt to update the story, just steal themes within it and situate it in a 21st century setting. The point is that Jane Austen wrote about rural life in early 19th century England, and no one should assume that those themes would work in any setting; this film proves that they do not! Oh and as a final moan, the actor that placed 'Mr Darcy' didn't seem to appreciate how subtle and understated the character should be, I would probably blame the director in this instance but the acting still was very poor.

reply

[deleted]

The point is that Jane Austen wrote about rural life in early 19th century England, and no one should assume that those themes would work in any setting


Hmmmm....I guess you're right. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112697/

reply

Hold on! Clueless is based on Emma, it is NOT an adaptation of it.

reply

At the time that film was made, the bare midriff was pratically a uniform on college campuses in the US (with the ultra low-rise jeans and cropped tops). But you'll hardly see any midrff skin in P&P 2003 except on Lydia (and a bit of Jane's, whose character comes from a different country). Did you notice how long their tops are? You couldn't find tops that long in regular mall stores in the US back when this film was made. Note that Lydia's the only one with her decolletage on display.


To be honest, I really liked some of the outfits in the movie! Sure, they were modest by a lot of people's standards, but they were still designed well enough so that the girls looked stylish.

LDS or not, a lot of women in their 20s and 30s have a hard time trying to find clothes like that. They don't want to dress like they're 15 when they're going to work and trying to be taken seriously, but they also don't want to dress like their mother, either.

reply

Try being a woman in her late 40s/early 50s who can't find anything to wear. Even my "old reliable," Talbots, is trending younger and younger. And no, I still don't want to dress like my 70-something mother.

I'm too thin and too short for Emme's plus-sized line, but I love her clothes. I'm going to have to learn to sew.

reply

I'm a huge Jane Austen fan, especially Pride & Prejudice. I've seen the 1940 Greer Garson, the 19080 Elisabeth Garvie Version, the famous 1995 series, the Keira Knightley 2005. Even the Bollywood Pride & Prejudice. Every time I watch a version, I judge it according to the actress portraying Elizabeth, (of course, female fans are looking to Darcy) and I have to say that the actress in this verion, Kam Haskin, does a good job, given the low budget nature of the production. Is is shallow? Maybe, to a degree (there are, after all, rather a lot of shallow characters in Pride & Prejudice.) A disgrace to the novel? I can't agree with that.

The spirit of the book is definitely alive and well. Both Elizabeth and Darcy are recognisible, as is Mr. Collins. The setting in a Mormon community works because it allows for the pressure of a proper marriage to be part of the equation for the characters. If there is a lack, it's in the scriptwriting department. Not enough was done to update the language to the modern setting. Also the removal of Elisabeth's parents robs the story of a lot of the impetus to marriage that the original has.

I wish I knew more about the Mormon religion so that I could pick up more of the in-jokes - I think I managed to detect a few.

Kam Heskin as Elizabeth and Orlando Seale as Will Darcy did a good job and I enjoyed their interaction. This film is not in the league of the classic Pride & Prejudice adaptations, but I wouldn't condemn it out of hand either. It is a pleasant adaption.

reply