Haha...great question! I saw all three. Bride and Prejudice was fun but a bit too campy and cheesy for my taste. I LOVED Keira as Elizabeth and thought that they did a great job on the film. But how can anyone touch the great A&E classic with the perfect Darcy Mr. Colin Firth? :)
ive seen all three...love all three....but you CANNOT beat A&E version!!!(ok whats that??? i call it the BBC version!) the whole jumping in the lake thing...oooh!!!
is it me or did everyones hair look really bad in the keira k version...and if anyone has the dvd have they seen the alternative US ending...its crap!!!! y would they ever end it so badly!?!
It has to be the A&E/BBC version. The Keira Knightly film is good if you want a P&P fix but don't have the 6hours to spare :)
Also the film seemed to try to make it real....that the charaters wouldn't have washed and that there was dirt everywhere...Jane Austan is not about dirt...she was about love and yummy men!
The alternative ending is a bit weird but i would have been happy if they had added on only hour or two!!!
Well I own all three and for me it's got to be the Keira Knightly version. I know I pretty much have to stand alone on this one but I just had to say it and for the alternative ending I thought it a cute look into Darcy and Elizabeth's life at Pemberly.
Oh and I think we all know Bride and Prejudice can't touch the other two but it still holds a speical place in my heart and DVD case. lol
there are actually 4 versions. there is one that is like a mormom version that is actually not bad. it changes things quite a bit though which i don't like. to me the best version is the A & E version. anyone who likes the book more than likely would like the A&E version because it tells the story in the best and most complete way. the kiera knightly i liked but to me they made elizabeth to be a bit to immature. and yeah, everyone looks dirty to me too. i don't know why they did that i guess maybe to make you realize that they did live in the country. but some times you couldn't tell the difference between the servants and people with money. but i loved the last scene with his coat flying in the wind. awesome. i don't know why but the long coat gets me.
Bride and Prejudice is nothing compared to the other two. The 1995 film is amazing but as much as I love it and as many times as I have watched it, I always thought that there was something missing, something subtle that it needed to make it just right. The 2005 version is definitely my favorite, it had what all other versions lacked and I just can't place my finger on it. Really helpful, I know ;)
The 1995 miniseries is a classic and is in a class of its own! The 2005 movie with Keira was good but just can't cover the depth in 2 hours that the 6 hour version does. As for Bride and Prejudice, I love Indian films and couldn't wait to see a movie that combined this genre with P&P but sadly I was disappointed in the outcome.
By the way, for all the people voting on their favourite version in the polls, has everyone seen both versions? I somehow feel that younger viewers are choosing the Keira Knightley film just because it's current.
Well I also have to choose the 2005 version.(To charleybrown) I don't prefer it because it's the current version, but for me the movie was simply indescribable and in a class of it's own. Of course I've already seen the BBC series but I really didn't like it that much. Collin Firth was superb as Mr.Darcy but somehow the whole thing just didn't get to me that much .Besides in my opinion Jennifer looked ugly as sin and gave such a stiffness to Lizzy's character it was just not enjoyable.
I'm surprised that you felt that way. I thought Jennifer was both sensitive and dignified as Elizabeth. As much as I like Keira Knightley, I thought that Jennifer Ehle gave much more credibility to the beauty of Elizabeth.
I do agree with you that the cinematography of the 2005 version was exceptional but I felt with only 2 hours, they needed to spend more time on developing the characters.
Before I get to comparing the BBC mini and the 2005 version, which everyone tends to do, let me say something about the other versions.
Bride and Prejudice -- I love this movie :D. I hate the casting of Mr. Darcy, but everything else it fantastic and Aishwarya Rai is one of my favorite Lizzys.
The Mormon version -- I don't know about this one, but there was this one P&P movie/series thing that I saw, and it was old and cheap-looking, and very bad besides. I turned it off. I think it was this one, but I'm not sure, it might have been a different one.
The 1945 version -- I haven't seen it, and I really want to. I've heard that the acting is excellent, especially Olivier, and I know a lot of people who say it is their favorite version. Although, I've also heard that the sets and costumes are not historically correct, and they change things from the original story. Anyway, I really need to see this movie.
Okay, so here is a comparison of the 2005 and the 1995. Wow I am writing too much.
Mr. Darcy -- Both are very good, but I tend to lean towards Colin Firth, just because he's so brilliant at it.
Lizzy -- I much prefer Keira Knightley, although she didn't completely fulfill my expectations either. Jennifer Ehle disppointed me, mostly because I hardly felt any chemistry between her and Firth. And I think it's her fault. CF would say one line and look at her in a way that made me start fanning myself, and then she'd reply in flat, bored, almost pissed off tone, and kill the mood completely. Also, I know she and KK have different body types and they're both very beautiful, but to me it was much more believable that KK was an outdoorsy, playful woman. The scenes where JE was going for a walk outside or playing with a dog seemed stuck-in and forced.
Lydia and Wickham -- I much prefer the BBC version for both these characters. I hated the 2005 Wickham, he was a copy of Orlando Bloom that hardly bothered trying to act. The BBC Wickham and Lydia were both perfect, exactly as I envisioned them.
Lady Catherine -- Love the 2005 version. It's Dame Judy Dench. Enough said.
All the other characters are equally good in their own way (I can't pick one Mr. Collins over the other, they are both hilarious).
The Setting and Costumes -- Each version takes a different approach to it, but they are both historically correct and they both fit with the story imo. I liked the realistic feeling to the 2005 one -- it feels like real life, whereas in the 1995 one, it feels a little as though they are in their own little world, cut off from the rest of society. Which is also a true interpretation. I like them both, they are just different.
The Music -- The score in the 2005 film is amazing, I think we can all agree. I went through a phase where I was listening to the soundtrack every night.
I must say that I resent the fact that people think that some only like the 2005 version more because its current.
My reasoning, in more detail:
I loved both of the Darcys as well, but I tend to lean more towards Matthew because I have seen Colin Firth in so many more roles and it is difficult for me to think of him actually being Mr. Darcy, not his other memorable roles. Plus Matthew was brilliant.
I prefer Keira simply because I feel she did a better job portraying the role as I saw it when I read the book. She may have been a bit too over the top at times, but that was 10x better than Jennifer Ehle's (at times) underacting.
Second, the two "Cs" just exploded in the 2005 version: Chemistry and Cinematography. Both were breathtaking, twice as much at least when compared to the 1995 version.
Also, I liked the casting overall better in the 2005 movie. Not that I like *all* of their roles better (There were a good number that I prefer in the 1995 movie) but majority and their importance to the overall story rules.
The A&E version was the best.
It was longer and able to tell more of the story.
Not only that, but Colin Firth is amazing.
I just liked it more - not that I didn't enjoy the new one too.
Join this Spot
Invite friend 
login or join fanpop to reply
is it me or did everyones hair look really bad in the keira k version...and if anyone has the dvd have they seen the alternative US ending...its crap!!!! y would they ever end it so badly!?!
Also the film seemed to try to make it real....that the charaters wouldn't have washed and that there was dirt everywhere...Jane Austan is not about dirt...she was about love and yummy men!
The alternative ending is a bit weird but i would have been happy if they had added on only hour or two!!!
Oh and I think we all know Bride and Prejudice can't touch the other two but it still holds a speical place in my heart and DVD case. lol
By the way, for all the people voting on their favourite version in the polls, has everyone seen both versions? I somehow feel that younger viewers are choosing the Keira Knightley film just because it's current.
I do agree with you that the cinematography of the 2005 version was exceptional but I felt with only 2 hours, they needed to spend more time on developing the characters.
Bride and Prejudice -- I love this movie :D. I hate the casting of Mr. Darcy, but everything else it fantastic and Aishwarya Rai is one of my favorite Lizzys.
The Mormon version -- I don't know about this one, but there was this one P&P movie/series thing that I saw, and it was old and cheap-looking, and very bad besides. I turned it off. I think it was this one, but I'm not sure, it might have been a different one.
The 1945 version -- I haven't seen it, and I really want to. I've heard that the acting is excellent, especially Olivier, and I know a lot of people who say it is their favorite version. Although, I've also heard that the sets and costumes are not historically correct, and they change things from the original story. Anyway, I really need to see this movie.
Mr. Darcy -- Both are very good, but I tend to lean towards Colin Firth, just because he's so brilliant at it.
Lizzy -- I much prefer Keira Knightley, although she didn't completely fulfill my expectations either. Jennifer Ehle disppointed me, mostly because I hardly felt any chemistry between her and Firth. And I think it's her fault. CF would say one line and look at her in a way that made me start fanning myself, and then she'd reply in flat, bored, almost pissed off tone, and kill the mood completely. Also, I know she and KK have different body types and they're both very beautiful, but to me it was much more believable that KK was an outdoorsy, playful woman. The scenes where JE was going for a walk outside or playing with a dog seemed stuck-in and forced.
Lydia and Wickham -- I much prefer the BBC version for both these characters. I hated the 2005 Wickham, he was a copy of Orlando Bloom that hardly bothered trying to act. The BBC Wickham and Lydia were both perfect, exactly as I envisioned them.
Lady Catherine -- Love the 2005 version. It's Dame Judy Dench. Enough said.
All the other characters are equally good in their own way (I can't pick one Mr. Collins over the other, they are both hilarious).
The Setting and Costumes -- Each version takes a different approach to it, but they are both historically correct and they both fit with the story imo. I liked the realistic feeling to the 2005 one -- it feels like real life, whereas in the 1995 one, it feels a little as though they are in their own little world, cut off from the rest of society. Which is also a true interpretation. I like them both, they are just different.
The Music -- The score in the 2005 film is amazing, I think we can all agree. I went through a phase where I was listening to the soundtrack every night.
My reasoning, in more detail:
I loved both of the Darcys as well, but I tend to lean more towards Matthew because I have seen Colin Firth in so many more roles and it is difficult for me to think of him actually being Mr. Darcy, not his other memorable roles. Plus Matthew was brilliant.
I prefer Keira simply because I feel she did a better job portraying the role as I saw it when I read the book. She may have been a bit too over the top at times, but that was 10x better than Jennifer Ehle's (at times) underacting.
Second, the two "Cs" just exploded in the 2005 version: Chemistry and Cinematography. Both were breathtaking, twice as much at least when compared to the 1995 version.
Also, I liked the casting overall better in the 2005 movie. Not that I like *all* of their roles better (There were a good number that I prefer in the 1995 movie) but majority and their importance to the overall story rules.
It was longer and able to tell more of the story.
Not only that, but Colin Firth is amazing.
I just liked it more - not that I didn't enjoy the new one too.
Thank you! :)