matthewsmommy Wrote:Anyone seen this? (I don't expect any of you tough manly men to answer, but you can ask your sappy female friends ) I've read the book about 20 times and this movie looks like it would be a good one.

Ken Valentine Wrote:I have heard that there was a remake in the works, but having seen the 1995 five hour production starring Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, I won't even bother seeing the remake. I can't imagine how it could possibly be anywhere near as good . . . not to mention better.


http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/

I can't recommend this highly enough.

Ken V.

matthewsmommy Wrote:Thanks, Ken! I'll have to check that one out. It may take me a month to watch a 5 hour production, but if it's true to the book, I'd love it.

jimbow8 Wrote:Word already has it that Keira Knightley will get a Best Actress nomination.

Ken Valentine Wrote:So?

Quote:Does anybody imagine that a two hour movie can do justice to the book as well as a five hour movie?

Ken V.

Maggers Wrote:So? I think Jim was just letting us know that some reviewers who saw the film thought Kiera Knightley's performance was a good one. Knowing who might be up for Oscars is a fun pass time for some of us. I haven't seen the film so I couldn't say what kind of job she did.



Actually, I can imagine that. In my experience, no movie surpasses the experience of reading a book. Now I am not saying this is the case with the version of "Pride and Predjudice" that you like so much, Ken, but I'd much prefer a 2 hour adaptation with a great screenplay, terrific acting and outstanding direction to a five hour adaptation with lesser talent all around. It all depends on the direction, the adapation, and the acting, which varies from film to film. So, yes, I can imagine that a 2 hour film could be better under winning circumstances.

Ken Valentine Wrote:Mathewsmommy absolutely loves the book, and hopes to see something that closely follows the book. The five hour BBC production does just that.

I saw the trailer for the production with Kiera Knightly. I am NOT going to waste my money on the movie.

Ken V.

Maggers Wrote:So? I think Jim was just letting us know that some reviewers who saw the film thought Kiera Knightley's performance was a good one. Knowing who might be up for Oscars is a fun pass time for some of us. I haven't seen the film so I couldn't say what kind of job she did.

Maggers Wrote:Actually, I can imagine that. In my experience, no movie surpasses the experience of reading a book. Now I am not saying this is the case with the version of "Pride and Predjudice" that you like so much, Ken, but I'd much prefer a 2 hour adaptation with a great screenplay, terrific acting and outstanding direction to a five hour adaptation with lesser talent all around. It all depends on the direction, the adapation, and the acting, which varies from film to film. So, yes, I can imagine that a 2 hour film could be better under winning circumstances.

Ken Valentine Wrote:So?

Does anybody imagine that a two hour movie can do justice to the book as well as a five hour movie?

Ken V.