One day when genius strikes us we'll write a glorious lengthy treatise on this subject but since our stated modus operandi here at Films is "five sentences or die" then we'll give you the short version: we CANNOT understand people who complain about faithfulness in film versions of literature, because (here we go) a FILM is JUST NOT A BOOK and SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TRY TO BE (in our humble opinions, of course); we don't dare attempt to tell y'all what you should or shouldn't like but we really hope you're not those people that immediately shun film adaptations of beloved literature (and particularly this movie) simply because they cannot logically capture hundreds of pages of text in two-ish hours, or maybe because they don't portray every character and situation EXACTLY like every individual imagined it in their own minds when they read the original; do we need to explain how this is impossible? A movie adaptation of a book is not yours, not ours, but the DIRECTOR'S and the ACTORS' interpretations of that piece of literature, and it's their prerogative to do whatever they damn well please with the material, which definitely means culling whatever characters (ahem the Hursts) or events (endless dinners at Rosings before the most important one) they find not completely necessary to THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STORY and they are allowed (yes, allowed) to focus on whatever aspects they wish; in the case of fairly newish director Joe Wright, his focus in Pride and Prejudice and basically every other one of his five movies (welp we haven't seen The Soloist okay but) is clearly creating a specific atmosphere and a particular world for his characters to inhabit, and in favor of that, yes, not everything is exactly as it is in the book (or the BBC miniseries version, apparently, but that thing is literally six hours long). ANYWAY now that we've turned you off of film adaptations of books, Films in Five, Joe Wright, the entire culture of film in general whatevs and we clearly have nothing more to lose we're just gonna say we love this movie, as a version of Austen's novel and just as a film; we think the casting was pretty near perfect (you cannot actually think that Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Bennet isn't awesome), Dario Marianelli's score is glorious, appropriate things from the book were taken out in the interest of running time, and Wright absolutely achieved his goal of perfect ambience, because visually this movie is preternaturally stunning. Netherfield, Pemberley, Rosings, Longbourn, the surrounding countryside and villages, are breathtaking; the costuming, especially at the various balls, is gorgeous (is it period appropriate? We neither know nor care, we just want to be able to wear little pearls in our hair nbd); again, the acting is lovely and sure some characters are missing (dumb characters pshh who like the Hursts anyway) and some get lines that were spoken by other characters in the book but we stand by Wright's choices because we think it all flows together beautifully and Lizzie, Darcy, Jane, Lydia, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Lady Catherine, Bingley, Caroline, and so on are pretty fully realized interpretations. Having just read the actual book again we feel like we can make an informed judgment on its relation to this movie; to reiterate, Wright's movie is not exact, but as ONE MAN'S adaptation, it sure as hell is gorgeous, interesting and entertaining.
Overall Score: A. We're pissed that people seem to be so vehemently opposed to any interpretation of literature that isn't exactly what they perceive the author's original one to be. A film isn't a book and that means something. Rant over, haterz to the left. And in the interest of highbrow culture go read Pride and Prejudice because everyone should experience its magnificence, even males.