hey... i am in love with the books of jane austen and i am hunting all the movies that have to do with her books...i have seen pride and prejudice with colin firth and the second version with naitly...i didn't have any idea that was at 1950 a movie..where could i download this version..pleaseeeeee if you know tell me
No, it isn't the A&E version, but it wasn't intended to be. It's a beautiful film, even with all of its deviations from the novel. Also, who can't adore Garson and Olivier!
For me this is the best scene in the film - Darcy is a half -baked snoot and Elizabeth quite rightly puts him in his place. But in the end true love conquers all lol Never tire of watching this film.
Well, you can't say they did much research on the clothes back then... (I've seen other 40's, 50's historical films where the clothes just are... completely wrong. They often look like some weird mixture of late 19th century dresses with occasionally 18th century elements).
this is the ultimate version to me...nothing against the wonderful bbc adaption, but greer garson and laurence olivier do the best acting job on the characters ever. just unbeatable!
Thank God for Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle... this version sucks - Olivier is his usual over the top self and Garson is a bitch. No nuance at all (but again that's typical olivier)
I was considering watching this version, too, for the sake of completeness, but now I think I won't. Exaggerated, melodramatic acting ... Garson should have been cast for Mrs Bennet. Olivier was a great stage actor, but he's so utterly inconvincing as Darcy ... They ruined this well written scene by putting words into the dialogue that spoil the Austin style beyond recognition. And why does Elizabeth burst into tears? I do enjoy old movies, but this is a crime against Austen. Insupportable! :-)
@Miggle153 she cries because of what he does to her sister Jane. As she is crying she says ' the sweetest soul that ever lived! how could you do? knowing jane how could you hurt her so?'
What is with 1940s acting? They never make the costumes or hair accurate to the period and the acting is so stiff and overly dramatic. It's so obvious that they are ACTING, like that's what they considered good acting back then!
Of the three versions I know this is the worst one by far. Laurence Olivier was a very good looking man and a great actor but I do not like his interpretation of Darcy at all.
I think the 1980 one was true to the book .but I didnt like it the 2005 come on it was more Bronte then Austen and the 1995 awesome perfect the Mr.darcy was hot!
Nothing can touch the original with Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. Love the line - "Its no use have struggled in vain I must tell you how much I love and admire you" - Pompous, Snooty Arse Hole. Cant believe she didnt Belt Him One Ha Ha. Wonderful Writing by Austen, a Joy to watch and listen to.
This isnt the best scene, but I like the movie as a whole. I think my favorite part is at the ball where she meets Darcy for the first time. This was the first Jane Austen i saw when I was little, at my Gramma and Grandpas house, so I like it very much. And everyone knows the Colin Firth version is the best, but this is a short sweet dose of P&P for days you cant indulge in the other however many hours long version.
Well, everyone has their favorite version-this one has some fans but the clother are stuck in the '40s. The 2005 version stinks in my opinion but many folks love that one for the modern feel. It's too abbreviated to tell the complex story and Lizzie is frumpy-looking and whiney with a smirk on her face most of the time - I don't see how that Darcy is attracted to her-I watched that movie 3x and I don't get it. To modern eyes/ears this '40's version is dreadful.
I agree that the dress is MUCH too extravagant to be for someone of inferior birth (not to mention the period is wrong). And that man is in no way Mr. Darcy, when I first heard him spoke I thought more of Mr. Collins.
she acts so arrogantly rather than with a sarcastic, passionate and witty countenance and Darcy is the least bit calm and cold! he looks like a little puppy begging for her affections! his actions and expressions don't really go with the rude remarks he gives about her family! He could have been Bingley in this scene! all nervous and eager to please! this is the worst version of P&P i ever watched! They have completely changed the nature of two of the most celebrated characters!
what a disappointing version! true it may have been influenced by the time, but when you are making a movie out of a "borrowed" story (that of Jane Austen's) it is important to depict it properly, giving a true version of the dialogs, the nature of the characters, the clothes etc. in this version Elizabeth looks like she's the one who's pride-struck!
to all the sceptics out there, this was made in 1940 - ALL the movies of that era were overacted. I was 13 when I first saw ithis and it had a huge impact, as my first introduction to Austen and Darcy. Since then I've seen every version of P&P ever made, and Colin Firth clearly is the best, but you have to make allowances for old movies and not compare them to more realistically made and acted modern ones.
1. part: I just saw exactly this version last night by accident in german TV (couldn't sleep)...by reason I'm not American and not used to watch old american movies from that era, I also never read the book. But I have to say I loved that movie and couldn't stop watching it!...although I needed to get up early today. Just read all comments here and want add that for professional connoisseurs this movie might be lame. However...I for my own really enjoyed it and was amazed by Lizzy and Darcy ♥
...and yes, how he gesture around in this single scene looks funny indeed...but the rest of the entire movie he did a great job for my opinion. Thanks to all actors to lighten our days =)
I cannot stand Olivier,I always though he was over rated. Sorry just my humble opinion. And what was the costume designer on? Come to think of what were the speech and script writers on?LOL!
she acted as if she's Mrs. Bennet. And Darcy, oh no. he's never the Darcy i imagined as i'm reading the book. and this scene is a million percent opposite of the scene that had played in my mind the moment i was reading this part. LOL.
Not only the acting is terrible, but also the costumes! Omg... Did they ever realise what people wear in the regency period? Probably not! This is just completely unacceptable.
i never saw this version before and i always wondered what was it like, but after seeing this all i can say is not only thank God for j. ehle & c. firth, i can also say that colin firth was born to show us the perfect mr. darcy
This is pathetic!! They're pulling all the melodrama stops on this one. She even has the tissues ready! Mr Darcy is too polite and thoughtful in this scene, and Elizabeth is a bundle of nerves. I-want-to-throw-up. Thank God for Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth!
This is a good version. Try watching the 2003...thats right 2003 version!!! It was like a kiddies version of P&P. I like the ending in this version the most....Darcy's aunt is hilarious
God this one sucks. Considering this is Laurence Olivier, it's surprising flat and dreadful the acting is. There is no emotion in this scene, like, at all.
I think the script for this film is very mangled. Ms Garson's performance is shallow and unconvincing. Olivier is too girlish. This film fit a certain period and the tastes of the American public at that time, but it's silly.
I just watched the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, and this is SOOO DRY compared to the newer ones...Darcy is too emotional, and Lizzie is like a bimbo here..
Pride and Prejudice is my favourite book ever, and I own three different versions of the film(and have seen four), but this is by far the lamest version I have ever seen. It made me laugh...and I agree with you, swapte, Darcy's body language is hilarious. And Eliza would never cry in front of him. She is too tough(in a feminine way) for that...LOL
i don't know if this has been addressed before in previous comments but since it comes up a lot it should be noted that 1) this film is based off of a theatrical adaptation of the novel and 2) in this film the costumes are different because they had a very low production budget and aside from the main actors had to use second hand costumes from gone with the wind. and yes, in the 40s they love their glamour.
....i don't. if you've read any of the other comments on this page a lot of austen elitists like to hold it against the film as if they simply discarded the context and i was just pointing out that isn't true. i love this version.
I love Olivier, but he's too dramatic for Darcy's role. As someone that should be stoic and reserved, Colin Firth pulls it off magnificently. I also don't think that Elizabeth would ever have cried in front of Darcy. She's too proud.
Sure, this version may be arguably not the closest one to the book, but it is still a good movie. It's different from the book and because of that, I'm glad because we might be bored of the story once the 2005 version came out. But all 3 adaptations are very agreeable.
I was just wondering, back in the day when they made historical movies, did they not care about being authentic to the era? The costume the actor wears is pretty, but it looks nothing like a dress from Regency England.
If I am correct, I believe that as the budgets for movies back in the 40's were much smaller, they sometimes had to make do with the costumes they already had in the costume room...
What a great movie. The 1995 version is still my favorite, but I love the dialogue, costumes, and sets of this one. Olivier is the perfect Darcy and Garson is a dream :-)
Oh, and I love the stage mannerisms of the characters (which were common in costume dramas during the forties). They weren't trying to be "real" here because in the 18th century, social artificies guided behavior. They did a good job capturing the rarified air of the time.
i don't like this version. the characters have changed to much and her dress looks too fancy for her character. she's supposed to be poor according to the book, so why does she had such a fancy looking dress!? mr. darcy lost all the aspects that made him who he is. What happened to that delicious brooding attitude of his? he just seems needy now which is so unlike mr. darcy.
Well her dress is too fancy because MGM wanted to change the period to slightly earlier then the book is actually set so that they could make use of the lovely crinolines. P+P is set in the Georgian period the dresses were the Empire-line type, not huge crinolines!
I think that they tried to make Mr. Darcy more likable to the audience, but he's NOT SUPPOSE TO BE! He's suppose to be proud, and unforgiving, and quiet, not this needy little man! The acting isn't bad for the time period, but I fear that I don't like it because of how much they changed the characters from the book. And what is with Elizabeth crying?! She's suppose to be strong! Stubborn! I must say that I like the BBC adaption much better, even the 2005 is better despite it being rushed.
OMG Finally someone who knows what Mr. Darcy is really supposed to be like lol! P&P-95 is my favourite adaptation & I highly dislike the 2005 one for more than one reason but mainly because THEY RUINED DARCY! They made him out to be a good guy all along but shy & misunderstood.. Hello?! He IS an arrogant snob who thinks his company is beneath him!
Well, it was good getting that off my chest heheh..
Ohhh yeah baby... ive got what u need, heels,toys, outfits and much more hehe .... i do what u need anal, oral, cam2cam I PLAY WITH ALL THE RIGHT TOOLS HEHE I DO TICKLE SHOWS, ROLEPLAYING AND MUCH MORE HOW ABOUT U TRY ME OUT FOR SIZE!! sooooooo beautifull eyes...tender look,artistik look,deep look, magneficent look...and many others...i can talk about my eyes so long as you even can't imagine..come visit me at - Play-Cam _dot_ COM - my user-id there is Savannah-betr chat soon on cam;)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I liked this version of the movie so much better than the newer versions. It showed more acting skill than movies of today. They were not afraid to use older more experienced actors, that is why today's movies are so forgetible. Movies made in the forties and fifties are classics. Thank you for posting this.
Couldn't agree with you more! Olivier is Darcy himself with the inborn arrogance which he carries so well. All the recent remakes simply cannot be ranked in the same category!
Even though their portraying of the characters is wrong you can't help but love this version because its refreshing and gives Mr. Darcy a more in depth look to his feelings
this is absolutely funny, and nothing like the book...they would never have acted like this,so much emotion displayed...yet why is it that i like it so much...
if you actually READ the book, you would know that elizabeth's family IS very poor. its not perfect, but that is why it is called pride and prejudice. elizabeth is too prideful to admit that she has wrongly judged darcy, and he is prejudice toward her family and lack of wealth. the 2005 and 1995 versions both showed that, so "tatorstevie", why don't you actually watch the movie before judging that they looked "too poor". people like you make me so mad i can't see straight. UGH.
This version is absolutely awful, much too theatrical. The woman playing Elizabeth looks too old, and its difficult for the audience to identify with her and feel how she feels. The 1995 BBC version was very succesful in doing this.
I always wondered what Lawrence Olivier would be like playing Darcy, I think he would have made a good Darcy, but the poor quality the fact it doesnt stay true to the book overshadow his potential to play Darcy. tion.
this is not at all like the book! her dress is too much and what is up with the thing she does in the end? anyway I think the 1995& 2005 P&P was much better!
A lovely version of P&P - I looked at this the other night and there is nothing wrong with the acting, not when you see the whole thing. You can't judge a film by a two minute clip! Wonderful performances by Greer Garson and Sir Laurence Olivier, and also Edna May Olivier is the most marvellous Lady Catherine De Burgh. Thank you for putting this up - love it.
LOL! The clothing is ALL wrong and the acting is awful. I wonder if these two actors ever read P&P. Very poor interpretations of Elizabeth and Darcy. Still interesting to watch however.
I am a huge fan of old movies, but this acting is really really bad....the 95 version nailed the acting..and I think the 2005 version had the best look. And what kind of dress is Elizabeth wearing in this one???? Wrong era anyone?
The actress that plays Elizabeth was nominated for six academy awards and won one, so she was obviously an accomplished actress. This is a wonderful interpretation which they purposely set THIRTY years ahead of the time the book really took place.
Still, there's nothing wrong with that. I loved the costumes
The '95 version is my favorite, but I'm fond of this one too... it's so silly, overly-dramatic "old Hollywood," which makes it great fun in my eyes. And the ridiculously perfect
i love it ! its really a classic. it has everything that was said in the book (except of course, mr.darcy kissing her hand)! greer garson is very very beautiful. =)
i love it ! its really a classic. it has everything that was said in the book (except of course, mr.darcy kissing her hand)! greer garson is very very beautiful. =)
Actors from early Hollywood could out-act any and all actors from this era as far as I'm concerned. I thought the 2005 one was terrible and extremely rushed
I believe that you are right Girlygirlemc. However, how many people would have sat in a theatre for five hours to watch it(I would have, but there are not many people as in love with P&P as I am...). The 1995 version is definitely the best so far. For a laugh, watch the 1980 proposal scene-emotionless Darcy is hilarious!
Thank you. An even more severe test for historical perspective is to go back nearly 100 years, let's say to the Lillian Gish movies of 1912. One suddenly realizes how very, very different the styles related to public performance can be, depending on historical period. Anything taken out of temporal context always seems strange. The challenge inevitably falls on the viewer, because the criticism of the period has already judged the performances.
Agreed. It's very interesting to see different versions (49, 70, 95) shows the body languages and acting styles of that particular era. The 2005 version comes too soon, 1995 version hasn't gone out of fashion yet.
Anyone know where I can download a copy of this? I'm using it for my dissertation on the adapataion of P&P but can't find anything other than American dvds!
Love this movie!
pinkwonderpower 6 days ago
how can you say it's bad? such classic Olivier mannerisms and voice - the waving of hands, all very stagey.
ciroalb3 1 month ago
This just straight up sucks.
barakawsimu 3 months ago
wow,talk about no emotion at all lol
linegenrou 6 months ago
Um. I don't think anyone attached to this film read the book.
ItsCourtenayMmkay 7 months ago
The costumes are so wrong in this movie
willowbel 8 months ago
What the fuck. HAHAHAHAHAHAHH. Elizabeth shows more attitude than Darcy.
ALLADINification 8 months ago
maybe this happened while North and South war:)))
enka1980 10 months ago
Olivier came close but oh no he too lacked the Colin Firth charm.
bluewren2 10 months ago 2
hey... i am in love with the books of jane austen and i am hunting all the movies that have to do with her books...i have seen pride and prejudice with colin firth and the second version with naitly...i didn't have any idea that was at 1950 a movie..where could i download this version..pleaseeeeee if you know tell me
abgdezh1234 10 months ago
No, it isn't the A&E version, but it wasn't intended to be. It's a beautiful film, even with all of its deviations from the novel. Also, who can't adore Garson and Olivier!
MsJennieDuke 1 year ago
For me this is the best scene in the film - Darcy is a half -baked snoot and Elizabeth quite rightly puts him in his place. But in the end true love conquers all lol Never tire of watching this film.
Thereisonlythemoment 1 year ago
Well, you can't say they did much research on the clothes back then... (I've seen other 40's, 50's historical films where the clothes just are... completely wrong. They often look like some weird mixture of late 19th century dresses with occasionally 18th century elements).
szilvavirag 1 year ago
Full of class. Wonderful.
The99Gambo 1 year ago
@The99Gambo wunderfull???? it is BAD!!!!
MadeInHeaven76 1 year ago
AWFUL, I can´t barely watch this.
sionafaby 1 year ago 2
this is the ultimate version to me...nothing against the wonderful bbc adaption, but greer garson and laurence olivier do the best acting job on the characters ever. just unbeatable!
hedwigkiesler 1 year ago
Doesn't hold a candle to A&E.
Birdsong16 1 year ago
Darcy would never say 'darling', he goes with 'dearest' and lovliest'
AMY1213141 1 year ago
this version is absolutely awful, really, but good acting back then, wasn't what we consider good acting today.
IAMWHOIAM237 1 year ago
I can barely watch this...lol I love her false laughs.
ableaire 1 year ago
Thank God for Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle... this version sucks - Olivier is his usual over the top self and Garson is a bitch. No nuance at all (but again that's typical olivier)
orlandovjc 1 year ago
A giant layer of ham from one of our best ever actors.
cbak12sg 1 year ago
YUK!
83MoonLightLover93 1 year ago
What accent is this?
bebenut123 1 year ago
this scene is completely wrong! the clothes the performance everything!
sirenitafloretta 1 year ago 3
hhahahahahhhahahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!! xxxx
funnypumpkinhehe 1 year ago
That's just sad!!!
beatifultruth1 1 year ago
Hahahahaha!
Really, that was so bad it laughter is the best response.
frostdiamond1 1 year ago
Lol this was consider good acting, lol is so staged:)
esteff22 1 year ago
I was considering watching this version, too, for the sake of completeness, but now I think I won't. Exaggerated, melodramatic acting ... Garson should have been cast for Mrs Bennet. Olivier was a great stage actor, but he's so utterly inconvincing as Darcy ... They ruined this well written scene by putting words into the dialogue that spoil the Austin style beyond recognition. And why does Elizabeth burst into tears? I do enjoy old movies, but this is a crime against Austen. Insupportable! :-)
Miggle153 1 year ago 3
@Miggle153 I couldn't agree more with you
HeartlessAngie1508 1 year ago
@Miggle153 she cries because of what he does to her sister Jane. As she is crying she says ' the sweetest soul that ever lived! how could you do? knowing jane how could you hurt her so?'
houzan8 1 year ago
What is with 1940s acting? They never make the costumes or hair accurate to the period and the acting is so stiff and overly dramatic. It's so obvious that they are ACTING, like that's what they considered good acting back then!
CJOsterhout 1 year ago 2
Of the three versions I know this is the worst one by far. Laurence Olivier was a very good looking man and a great actor but I do not like his interpretation of Darcy at all.
TheGlaros 1 year ago
I think the 1980 one was true to the book .but I didnt like it the 2005 come on it was more Bronte then Austen and the 1995 awesome perfect the Mr.darcy was hot!
mizpain624 2 years ago 2
why does she walk like that? like she's in a stage or something?
Mr. Darcy seems to be reading his lines...no emotion at all ...didn't like it.
s2Buuhs2 2 years ago 2
@s2Buuhs2 yeah the walk has always bother me....I love the story but yeah...
LizVasquez21 1 year ago
The chothes are completely wrong for the period they're supposed to be in.
ljs94550 2 years ago 49
@ljs94550: indeed. They're dressed here like the 1860's - 1880's .... they should be in 1700's garb.
kensingtonpalace 1 year ago
for me...the 1996 version remains the best!
GeorgianaPop 1 year ago 3
omg this completely SUCKS
i would have to say 1995 verisons the BEST ! so much detail n the best mr.darcy!
however i like the 2005 movie to ... the actors did a fab jobs expressing sadness n pain etc...gosh i love him to
but lizzie of 1995 was the best ...
SummerScentt 2 years ago 4
Nothing can touch the original with Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. Love the line - "Its no use have struggled in vain I must tell you how much I love and admire you" - Pompous, Snooty Arse Hole. Cant believe she didnt Belt Him One Ha Ha. Wonderful Writing by Austen, a Joy to watch and listen to.
rockchick80s 2 years ago
...Fail.
MusicOrMisery114 2 years ago 2
This isnt the best scene, but I like the movie as a whole. I think my favorite part is at the ball where she meets Darcy for the first time. This was the first Jane Austen i saw when I was little, at my Gramma and Grandpas house, so I like it very much. And everyone knows the Colin Firth version is the best, but this is a short sweet dose of P&P for days you cant indulge in the other however many hours long version.
HDC17 2 years ago
no wonder this version wasn't that popular ....lol
ruba1029 2 years ago 3
Lol.. ugh.. this is... horrible.
Lynn15 2 years ago 2
Well, everyone has their favorite version-this one has some fans but the clother are stuck in the '40s. The 2005 version stinks in my opinion but many folks love that one for the modern feel. It's too abbreviated to tell the complex story and Lizzie is frumpy-looking and whiney with a smirk on her face most of the time - I don't see how that Darcy is attracted to her-I watched that movie 3x and I don't get it. To modern eyes/ears this '40's version is dreadful.
calebcakes 2 years ago
What the hell with those clothes??
Witchpheebs 2 years ago 2
Cast offs from Gone With The Wind
cbak12sg 2 years ago 15
@cbak12sg Not at all. GWTW was filmed at the Selznick studio.
greennice 1 year ago
@greennice I wasn't speaking literally.
cbak12sg 1 year ago
Poor Laurence's hair. How wrong is the time period?
This version is disappointing, but then I'm not a fan of Greer Garson.
And I love Laurence Olivier, and I'm pretty sure he's only so bad because of the script. Ha. Oh, well.
dancingfreak94 2 years ago
i can't stand to watch this.. it's awful.
areyourunningaway 2 years ago 2
I agree that the dress is MUCH too extravagant to be for someone of inferior birth (not to mention the period is wrong). And that man is in no way Mr. Darcy, when I first heard him spoke I thought more of Mr. Collins.
iilovelove5 2 years ago
she acts so arrogantly rather than with a sarcastic, passionate and witty countenance and Darcy is the least bit calm and cold! he looks like a little puppy begging for her affections! his actions and expressions don't really go with the rude remarks he gives about her family! He could have been Bingley in this scene! all nervous and eager to please! this is the worst version of P&P i ever watched! They have completely changed the nature of two of the most celebrated characters!
tanaquile1 2 years ago 2
what a disappointing version! true it may have been influenced by the time, but when you are making a movie out of a "borrowed" story (that of Jane Austen's) it is important to depict it properly, giving a true version of the dialogs, the nature of the characters, the clothes etc. in this version Elizabeth looks like she's the one who's pride-struck!
tanaquile1 2 years ago
to all the sceptics out there, this was made in 1940 - ALL the movies of that era were overacted. I was 13 when I first saw ithis and it had a huge impact, as my first introduction to Austen and Darcy. Since then I've seen every version of P&P ever made, and Colin Firth clearly is the best, but you have to make allowances for old movies and not compare them to more realistically made and acted modern ones.
carokat1111 2 years ago 5
1. part: I just saw exactly this version last night by accident in german TV (couldn't sleep)...by reason I'm not American and not used to watch old american movies from that era, I also never read the book. But I have to say I loved that movie and couldn't stop watching it!...although I needed to get up early today. Just read all comments here and want add that for professional connoisseurs this movie might be lame. However...I for my own really enjoyed it and was amazed by Lizzy and Darcy ♥
argh1974 2 years ago
...and yes, how he gesture around in this single scene looks funny indeed...but the rest of the entire movie he did a great job for my opinion. Thanks to all actors to lighten our days =)
argh1974 2 years ago
I cannot stand Olivier,I always though he was over rated. Sorry just my humble opinion. And what was the costume designer on? Come to think of what were the speech and script writers on?LOL!
peacerose2130 2 years ago 2
This sucks!!!!! And this is not Mr Darcy, and the acting sucks and that dress is WRONG!
britty12071992 2 years ago
i think this scene was influenced more by the times than the actual book. that dress....i'm really skeptical about it lol
poetshine 2 years ago 2
what's this??? this is not the movie that i love so much... lizzie is always smiling...and in this scene she's crying...she's not cold...:(
AfOnSoPrInCeSs 2 years ago
she acted as if she's Mrs. Bennet. And Darcy, oh no. he's never the Darcy i imagined as i'm reading the book. and this scene is a million percent opposite of the scene that had played in my mind the moment i was reading this part. LOL.
marmiesa 2 years ago 6
Not only the acting is terrible, but also the costumes! Omg... Did they ever realise what people wear in the regency period? Probably not! This is just completely unacceptable.
Sarbanda 2 years ago 5
Oh dear! The actress that plays Elizabeth is too overdramatic! She's flounces back and forth and the has a tissue too!
Thanks for posting, it's reinforced my belief that the BBC 1995 version is better.
dodgyop 2 years ago 3
i never saw this version before and i always wondered what was it like, but after seeing this all i can say is not only thank God for j. ehle & c. firth, i can also say that colin firth was born to show us the perfect mr. darcy
dariavlad 2 years ago 3
This is pathetic!! They're pulling all the melodrama stops on this one. She even has the tissues ready! Mr Darcy is too polite and thoughtful in this scene, and Elizabeth is a bundle of nerves. I-want-to-throw-up. Thank God for Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth!
unamuerte 2 years ago 3
Gosh, I feel no hint of angst that Mr Darcy is supposed to be feeling on the inside. :( He seems so matter-of-fact about it all.
When it comes to emotional struggle and vulnerability, Elliot Cowan's Darcy in 'Lost in Austen' is my favourite.
AAMLfan 2 years ago
suckkkkkkkkkksssssssss
whateverlaila 2 years ago
That was the funniest thing I have ever seen... I love 1:57 when she floats across to the chair. A gay Darcy what ever next!
Intolerable!
ladysnoozen 2 years ago
This is a good version. Try watching the 2003...thats right 2003 version!!! It was like a kiddies version of P&P. I like the ending in this version the most....Darcy's aunt is hilarious
PrincessAphroditePAV 2 years ago
Yeah, I love this ending the best too. It's the happiest!
HDC17 2 years ago
This is the best of all the film versions.
classicfilmbroad 2 years ago
God this one sucks. Considering this is Laurence Olivier, it's surprising flat and dreadful the acting is. There is no emotion in this scene, like, at all.
Tyscyth 2 years ago 2
I think the script for this film is very mangled. Ms Garson's performance is shallow and unconvincing. Olivier is too girlish. This film fit a certain period and the tastes of the American public at that time, but it's silly.
mc0558 2 years ago
I just watched the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, and this is SOOO DRY compared to the newer ones...Darcy is too emotional, and Lizzie is like a bimbo here..
Estella0707 3 years ago 2
Ahaha nice dress. It's straight out of Gone With the Wind. And Mr. Darcy isn't passionate enough. Where's the fire??? :D :D
IloveSirLancelot 3 years ago 2
yah, her dress really does look straight out of gone with the wind. lol.
qwertyz15 3 years ago
the clothes its wrong!
lilimar683 3 years ago
yes, wrong period of clothing
jagcf 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes, wrong period of clothing
jagcf 3 years ago
Pride and Prejudice is my favourite book ever, and I own three different versions of the film(and have seen four), but this is by far the lamest version I have ever seen. It made me laugh...and I agree with you, swapte, Darcy's body language is hilarious. And Eliza would never cry in front of him. She is too tough(in a feminine way) for that...LOL
ScottishLady11 3 years ago 4
yeah me myself had a good laugh, so melodramatic! XD
jagcf 3 years ago
Hahaha... this scene is funny, Darcy's body language is so hilarious..and Eliza is crying in front of him..so dramatic!
swapte 3 years ago
one of my favorite movies :) saw this version in high school, loved it since.
blueeyesofice 3 years ago 3
LARRY! He's so wonderful, he's my fave Darcy--he played arrogant jerks very well
meladorimagpie 3 years ago
The acting is too dramatic for Pride and Prejudice.
Definitely not my favorite adaptation.
cindyaniston 3 years ago 5
I agree with you 100%!
MosaicMaiden 3 years ago 2
i don't know if this has been addressed before in previous comments but since it comes up a lot it should be noted that 1) this film is based off of a theatrical adaptation of the novel and 2) in this film the costumes are different because they had a very low production budget and aside from the main actors had to use second hand costumes from gone with the wind. and yes, in the 40s they love their glamour.
darlingdelovely 3 years ago
who cares the budget it is a good classic.....
ExtremelyWildWill 3 years ago 4
....i don't. if you've read any of the other comments on this page a lot of austen elitists like to hold it against the film as if they simply discarded the context and i was just pointing out that isn't true. i love this version.
darlingdelovely 3 years ago
I love Olivier, but he's too dramatic for Darcy's role. As someone that should be stoic and reserved, Colin Firth pulls it off magnificently. I also don't think that Elizabeth would ever have cried in front of Darcy. She's too proud.
susieweasley 3 years ago
do they post the entire movie on youtube?
lysolluvswindex 3 years ago
The costumes are totally wrong for the time of the story....
Pipistrella123 3 years ago 4
TOTALLY wrong :)
pennyash 3 years ago
The period was moved up 20-30 years. Big deal.
greennice 3 years ago
Sure, this version may be arguably not the closest one to the book, but it is still a good movie. It's different from the book and because of that, I'm glad because we might be bored of the story once the 2005 version came out. But all 3 adaptations are very agreeable.
snowhite01 3 years ago 4
Compared to the version in 1995 with Colin Firth this scene seems artificial, not very moving
diada2007 3 years ago
I know... Colin Firth did it so well!!!
iraqilynn 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the acting in it is so poor dramatic
til it doesnt look like pride & prejudice.
crackpairings 3 years ago
I was just wondering, back in the day when they made historical movies, did they not care about being authentic to the era? The costume the actor wears is pretty, but it looks nothing like a dress from Regency England.
sm8908 3 years ago
I heard they used the same costumes from Gone With the Wind, which would explain the inaccuracies.
afrobella19 3 years ago
If I am correct, I believe that as the budgets for movies back in the 40's were much smaller, they sometimes had to make do with the costumes they already had in the costume room...
ScottishLady11 3 years ago 2
What a great movie. The 1995 version is still my favorite, but I love the dialogue, costumes, and sets of this one. Olivier is the perfect Darcy and Garson is a dream :-)
Oh, and I love the stage mannerisms of the characters (which were common in costume dramas during the forties). They weren't trying to be "real" here because in the 18th century, social artificies guided behavior. They did a good job capturing the rarified air of the time.
magpiepeck 3 years ago 6
LOL! I can't stop gazing into Olivier's bed-room eyes...ooh-la-la.
IngridBergmanRocked 3 years ago
I LOVE THIS MOVIE ALREADY! I only watched it once... and I fell in love with it!
Prilpril21 3 years ago 2
Greatness.
I love all the versions of Pride and Prejudice :D
Crzyrocker11 3 years ago 4
Ditto, Crzyrocker11.
LisMaree 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
elizabeth's dress is ridiculous and mr darcy 10 times more... :D he is talking as if nothing had happened :D
elviraga 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha Mr. Darcy looks like a spaz xD the ladys
such a drama queen to hahaha they both are.
ChaoticGold 3 years ago
This is such a delightful movie.... It is funny and so sweetly tormenting. I cried a few times watching it. :)
rutlegirl 3 years ago 3
i think this was too different from the other movies. and i know mr.darcy was very gentle, right? well. that's only an opinion. :)
maruness08 3 years ago
i don't like this version. the characters have changed to much and her dress looks too fancy for her character. she's supposed to be poor according to the book, so why does she had such a fancy looking dress!? mr. darcy lost all the aspects that made him who he is. What happened to that delicious brooding attitude of his? he just seems needy now which is so unlike mr. darcy.
jadeyes914 3 years ago
Well her dress is too fancy because MGM wanted to change the period to slightly earlier then the book is actually set so that they could make use of the lovely crinolines. P+P is set in the Georgian period the dresses were the Empire-line type, not huge crinolines!
DreamEaters 3 years ago 3
the dresses from this movie would fit a little better in other period films...maybe North and South(now THAT is a good film!)
ScottishLady11 3 years ago
I think that they tried to make Mr. Darcy more likable to the audience, but he's NOT SUPPOSE TO BE! He's suppose to be proud, and unforgiving, and quiet, not this needy little man! The acting isn't bad for the time period, but I fear that I don't like it because of how much they changed the characters from the book. And what is with Elizabeth crying?! She's suppose to be strong! Stubborn! I must say that I like the BBC adaption much better, even the 2005 is better despite it being rushed.
88flowerchild88 3 years ago
OMG Finally someone who knows what Mr. Darcy is really supposed to be like lol! P&P-95 is my favourite adaptation & I highly dislike the 2005 one for more than one reason but mainly because THEY RUINED DARCY! They made him out to be a good guy all along but shy & misunderstood.. Hello?! He IS an arrogant snob who thinks his company is beneath him!
Well, it was good getting that off my chest heheh..
BlueGene1402 3 years ago 2
Exactly what I was thinking I could not belive this scene lawrence olivie is a great actor but I saw nothing of darcy in this scene.
tefaclark 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ohhh yeah baby... ive got what u need, heels,toys, outfits and much more hehe .... i do what u need anal, oral, cam2cam I PLAY WITH ALL THE RIGHT TOOLS HEHE I DO TICKLE SHOWS, ROLEPLAYING AND MUCH MORE HOW ABOUT U TRY ME OUT FOR SIZE!! sooooooo beautifull eyes...tender look,artistik look,deep look, magneficent look...and many others...i can talk about my eyes so long as you even can't imagine..come visit me at - Play-Cam _dot_ COM - my user-id there is Savannah-betr chat soon on cam;)
sgpolitics 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I liked this version of the movie so much better than the newer versions. It showed more acting skill than movies of today. They were not afraid to use older more experienced actors, that is why today's movies are so forgetible. Movies made in the forties and fifties are classics. Thank you for posting this.
Ladylibra98 3 years ago
Couldn't agree with you more! Olivier is Darcy himself with the inborn arrogance which he carries so well. All the recent remakes simply cannot be ranked in the same category!
Parkinsue 3 years ago 2
great actors; i actuelly love this version;
fabulous Garson and Oliver were so great
these were Lissy and Darcy what i imaged
ketxiang 3 years ago
Even though their portraying of the characters is wrong you can't help but love this version because its refreshing and gives Mr. Darcy a more in depth look to his feelings
AiNt5It 3 years ago
This is a poor and wrong presentation of these two characters.
smuvjel 3 years ago 2
this is absolutely funny, and nothing like the book...they would never have acted like this,so much emotion displayed...yet why is it that i like it so much...
vinepress 3 years ago 3
This movie, thankfully, has now been drowned out by the angry cries of modern-day Austenites.
ShelleyTheScribbler 3 years ago
if you actually READ the book, you would know that elizabeth's family IS very poor. its not perfect, but that is why it is called pride and prejudice. elizabeth is too prideful to admit that she has wrongly judged darcy, and he is prejudice toward her family and lack of wealth. the 2005 and 1995 versions both showed that, so "tatorstevie", why don't you actually watch the movie before judging that they looked "too poor". people like you make me so mad i can't see straight. UGH.
berrynice90 3 years ago
This version is absolutely awful, much too theatrical. The woman playing Elizabeth looks too old, and its difficult for the audience to identify with her and feel how she feels. The 1995 BBC version was very succesful in doing this.
I always wondered what Lawrence Olivier would be like playing Darcy, I think he would have made a good Darcy, but the poor quality the fact it doesnt stay true to the book overshadow his potential to play Darcy. tion.
MyClassicMovies 3 years ago
I agree it's not the best version, but since it's the first one I've seen, I have a soft spot for it, and I love it completely.
tatorstevie 3 years ago
nonononono!
this is not at all like the book! her dress is too much and what is up with the thing she does in the end? anyway I think the 1995& 2005 P&P was much better!
loovetv 3 years ago
I agree about the 1995 being better, but the 2005 one was disgusting. They looked much too poor.
tatorstevie 3 years ago
thats elizabeth?!!!O-M-G
hitomianna 3 years ago
Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier... a very talented actress and actor.
I miss movies like this.
tunapup12 3 years ago
She is Elizabeth?O_o too pride!and costumes are too rich XD and they're not so "passionate" especially Darcy.. he never kiss her hand..
ArwenUndomiel87 3 years ago
lol this is like a soap!
HTilney 3 years ago 3
LOL WRONG COSTUMES!..but hey whatever...
Orbster25 3 years ago 3
Yeah, they slightly changed the time period of the story so they could use those kind of costumes
WonGirl 3 years ago
Yeah i assumed so..but it just bugs me..lol
Orbster25 3 years ago 2
Yes, I love this one! And the 1995! Both are great!
JenJenofAz 3 years ago
it sucks...
maryariel89 3 years ago
A lovely version of P&P - I looked at this the other night and there is nothing wrong with the acting, not when you see the whole thing. You can't judge a film by a two minute clip! Wonderful performances by Greer Garson and Sir Laurence Olivier, and also Edna May Olivier is the most marvellous Lady Catherine De Burgh. Thank you for putting this up - love it.
ashbyjay 3 years ago 2
its such an old style of acting though...yikes. I'd rather the 1995 and the 2005 :)
Orbster25 3 years ago
Chacun à son goût..
LadyPenelope8 3 years ago
"To each his(or her) own" Definitely...
ScottishLady11 3 years ago
the best of all the P&P produced ever, splendid acting
QuintyS 3 years ago
lol! their clothes and hair r totally rong! this one is nothing like the book!
sportygirl6280 3 years ago 3
LOL! The clothing is ALL wrong and the acting is awful. I wonder if these two actors ever read P&P. Very poor interpretations of Elizabeth and Darcy. Still interesting to watch however.
silvertonguedbard 3 years ago
Im a Greer Garson fan because of this film and RANDOM HARVEST.
She had excellent chemistry with Olivier.
IngridBergmanRocked 3 years ago 2
WOOOOOOT!!! SUCKA!! tht iz baaad man. elizabeth lukss n soundss lyk a snob
IssuesWitchu 3 years ago
LOL! This is hilarious!
Now I'm sure that 95 version is the best and that Colin Firth is the one and only Mr.Darcy!!!
misswhisper86 3 years ago 2
wow this is some terrible acting!!hahaha soo funny....wrong dress for elizabeth, and darcy is supposed to be shy, and more reserved....
xomariox 3 years ago
I am a huge fan of old movies, but this acting is really really bad....the 95 version nailed the acting..and I think the 2005 version had the best look. And what kind of dress is Elizabeth wearing in this one???? Wrong era anyone?
catatonic18 3 years ago 4
she's in Scarlett O'Hara style
lunaverna 3 years ago
Haha, maybe she got hold of a 1864 copy of vogue early.
catatonic18 3 years ago
The acting isn't bad at all!
The actress that plays Elizabeth was nominated for six academy awards and won one, so she was obviously an accomplished actress. This is a wonderful interpretation which they purposely set THIRTY years ahead of the time the book really took place.
Still, there's nothing wrong with that. I loved the costumes
Girlygirlemc 3 years ago
The '95 version is my favorite, but I'm fond of this one too... it's so silly, overly-dramatic "old Hollywood," which makes it great fun in my eyes. And the ridiculously perfect
ending is great too.
hobbesnblue 3 years ago
i love it ! its really a classic. it has everything that was said in the book (except of course, mr.darcy kissing her hand)! greer garson is very very beautiful. =)
15iloveu 3 years ago 2
i love it ! its really a classic. it has everything that was said in the book (except of course, mr.darcy kissing her hand)! greer garson is very very beautiful. =)
15iloveu 3 years ago
E o meu trecho favorito!
TatianeInui 3 years ago
This one is not faithfull to the book and th actnig is kinda funny... too theatrical, seems like theater and not cinema.
aptavares29 3 years ago 2
I love the 2005 one way better. This one is sorta lame...
BlackShadowXIII 3 years ago
Actors from early Hollywood could out-act any and all actors from this era as far as I'm concerned. I thought the 2005 one was terrible and extremely rushed
Girlygirlemc 3 years ago 5
I believe that you are right Girlygirlemc. However, how many people would have sat in a theatre for five hours to watch it(I would have, but there are not many people as in love with P&P as I am...). The 1995 version is definitely the best so far. For a laugh, watch the 1980 proposal scene-emotionless Darcy is hilarious!
ScottishLady11 3 years ago
Well this one is okay...but the '95 version is the best one...It looks like they based it on the late 1860's instead of the 1790's
SHCkeyboardist 3 years ago 3
its like they didnt read the book before making the movie.
littleMissSunshine77 3 years ago
This movie is no nice and lo looks very handsome in it. :)
moonflower0924 3 years ago
and i love what she tells him. :)
moonflower0924 3 years ago
Thank you. An even more severe test for historical perspective is to go back nearly 100 years, let's say to the Lillian Gish movies of 1912. One suddenly realizes how very, very different the styles related to public performance can be, depending on historical period. Anything taken out of temporal context always seems strange. The challenge inevitably falls on the viewer, because the criticism of the period has already judged the performances.
stefakamelpash 3 years ago 3
Agreed. Totally different mindsets.
LittleDrinkies 3 years ago
Agreed. It's very interesting to see different versions (49, 70, 95) shows the body languages and acting styles of that particular era. The 2005 version comes too soon, 1995 version hasn't gone out of fashion yet.
jliufo 3 years ago
this is HORRIBLE! Geez I just want mr darcy to shut up!
jussy1323 4 years ago
mr darcy is a wimp! he's more like mr collins
rabassa1 4 years ago
Anyone know where I can download a copy of this? I'm using it for my dissertation on the adapataion of P&P but can't find anything other than American dvds!
tinydisk 4 years ago
love greer
Bergman90 4 years ago 2