Added: 4 years ago
From: zippyC3
Views: 107,234
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (193)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I have to disagree with a lot of people and say that I loved the 2005 version the best. I might be biased because I saw it before the BBC version or reading the book (and I love Keira Knightley) but I feel that Elizabeth is such a stronger character in the 2005 version than either the book or the 1995 adaptation. Lizzie seems so much more sensible and independent in this version. i'm more of a Jane Eyre girl honestly but I think the 2005 movie is fantastic in every way.

  • In the 1940's version the costumes were about 80 years off period.

  • the 2005 version is definitely the best version, no doubt. The music was fabulous, and there was much chemistry between Matthew and Kiera. I adore it :)

  • What is this 1950 Mr Darcy who is smiling ! Sacrilege !

  • The 1950 version is so inaccurate. They never would have worn those kinds of garments in the beginning of the 19th century, and also the acting in that movie is inaccurate as well. Mr Darcy was never that genial and Elizabeth is way too... I don't even know what she's doing. I think the most accurate portrayal of the book was the newest one. And of course Judi Dench does a fantastic job as Lady Catherine. I just think it's the best version.

  • Lizzy from 1940 is a quite bad actress, I think. She speaks and acts so unplausible! And the dresses are terrible :D

    Good to see the comparison! :D

  • I personally liked the 2005 version, the soundtrack was beautiful , the dialogue was good , I personally liked it.

  • what song was she playing in the 2005 version??? WHAT SONG IS IT?!?! i need to know!!! hahaha

  • @rosyboe its in the soundtrack of the Pride and the Prejudice I think its called dawn. But for some reason the soundtrack is interconnected having the same key, so they might sound similar to others in the soundtrack .

  • It's so funny that Lizzie says she's not very good and in the 1940 and 1995 version she's actually pretty good, but then in the 2005 version she is awful! haha

  • It's interesting how each newer version strips Lizzie's playing further down till she sounds like a beginner. I think the 1995 piano performance is probably the most appropriate.

  • think the Darcys in the two version (this one and the 2005 one) are different but they are still Mr. Darcy. In this one they had more time so they were able to focus a lot more on Mr. Darcy's pride and suposed pompousnous. But in the movie Mr. Darcy had to be more likeable faster or then the auidience would never had anytime to like him. So they focused more on Mr. Darcy's shyness and vunerability. I love both versions very much, they are just the different sides of book Mr. Darcy.

  • Thank you so much for taking the time to put this piece together!!!!! It was a joy to watch!!!! It was seamless when compared with the dialogue from the book! :-)

  • The most historically correct dress & manner of behaviour is the 1995 version.  I personally find the 1940 version most correct in speech, accent & feel.

  • Thanks for taking the time to do this. The most recent version has nothing to do with Jane Austen. It's way too "hollywood"....pouting lips from both Keira Knightly and Darcy, a complete disregard for how they would have appeared - in terms of dress.... hair made to appeal to today's need to be sensual & seductive. That is NOT how it was in Jane Austen's England.

  • Though the 95 version is much more accurate, the 2005 version is better imo.

  • Hi! I'm ana and I love your video, it's fantastic but i have a question for you What song is plying liziee in 1995? I'm looking for but i dont know the name. Thank you so much. :)

  • Yes, and Knightly is HORRIBLE as Lizzy. Just HORRIBLE.

  • Darcy #1 - Colin Firth

    Darcy #2 - Laurence Olivier

    Darcy#3 - David Rintoul

    Darcy #4 - that what's his name dude from 2005 movie

  • That was really cool, showing the same scene with different versions all lined up so well.

  • This submission is nicely done! The BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth is superior to its counterparts in every way. It seems to strive for accuracy. The 1940 version (though blessed with Miss Oliver's participation) tends to reflect the mores and values of Hollywood's golden age rather than Miss Austen's time, while the 2005 version reflects the decadence of its own time. Must every story be retold in terms of the self-centred arrogance and sloppiness of the Twenty-first century?

  • This was fabulous! I love how you pieced them together, so clever.

  • Mr. Darcy in the 1940s version is far to charismatic.

  • what is up with the 1940s costumes? WAY over the top for an upper middle-class character like Elizabeth Bennet.

  • @MegaSupaFine the 1940s film changed the period from 1810s to 1830s. That's why the dresses are so different, not the regency style ;)

  • The playful tension of the 1995 version is delicious.

  • This is a very, very clever video! I love it! Did you do any other with scenes from these films?

  • I've seen all 3 versions that were used and I like them all in different ways but my favourite is the 1995 version

  • mmmm just judging by this video, 2005 Darcy (MacFayden) looks melancolic, and the 1995 Darcy (Firth) is more... I don't know, proud. I did not read the book, though, but I like the 2005 version better, judging by THAT video

  • @Hootshot112 Since both the book and the movie are called "PRIDE and Prejudice", Mr Darcy should be proud rather than melancholic :) I liked Matthew McFayden in "Spooks", but here... with that look of a sad puppy... He's not Mr Darcy. He should make a passable Mr Bingley and Keira Knightley would be quite a qood Lydia, but they were sadly miscast. Not to mention the fact that the script for the 2005 movie is much weaker than to the 1995 mini-series.

  • @stareprzescieradlo you are very right! Like I said I didn't read the book. I'm sure that if I read it, I would prefer the 1995 version!

  • @Hootshot112 Then I strongly recommend the book to you :) I don't know anyone who didn't like it, even my brothers, when I finally persuaded them to read it. They also love the 1995 series.What's interesting, one of my brothers thinks the actress playing Jane very beautiful, while she was criticised by many women as not that beautiful as she should be :)

  • @stareprzescieradlo Amen, you sait exactly what I think

  • @stareprzescieradlo

    I couldn't agree more with you on the sad puppy look.

    GOOD GOD! Why would they even attempt for a remake!

    1995 version is absolutely faultless! So true to the book, it's just like reading it!

    The actors are so perfectly chosen and act impeccably.

    I guess they tried to make a more close to our time version but it loses all the charm.

    BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice stands as the best movie ever done after a book.

  • @tubedebby I've only seen parts of the 1995 but the 2005 version has far better cinematography in my opinion. The 1995 version just seems a bit bland. Also after seeing Judi Dench play Lady Catherine, all others fall short imo.

    I also think you and others are missing the point of adaptation. Most film scholars agree that the goal is not to stay perfectly true to the source material, as this is impossible.

  • @tubedebby I am reading the book right now and it does seem rather different,

    But I still loved the 2005 version even if it was inaccurate,

    can you not say you enjoyed it a bit, not taking into consideration the original and viewing it as a different movie entirely

  • @Hootshot112 than you should read the book, because MacFayden's Darcy is nothing like the Darcy Jane austen created. Colin firth on the other hand is perfect. Colin Firth does not play Mr Darcy, he IS Darcy

  • NIce edit. I don't like any of the Pride and Prejudice movies but I like them combined all together. Thanks.

  • the film version is so flat and weak willed.

  • As much as I adore the BBC version I gotta say the 3:25 - 3:38 part kicks ass! Even though the costumes are out of place...

  • 2005 is the best, the acting so much better especially Elizabeth Bennett. In 1995 Colin was the only good actor.

  • I prefer the 2005 version... Matthew looks dreamy as Mr. Darcy and I love Keira as Elizabeth...

  • I think the 2005 version is the best!

  • I've read this part in the book, and the 1995 version is by far the best interpretation, it's just the lizzy and Darcy it is described, although I don't like very much the 2005 one, I have to admit, the other one is so much worst and ridiculous! Lol

  • 1995 version puts the others to shame. But I do love Edna Mae Oliver... wonderful actress. Judi Dench was miscast. Barbara Leigh-Hunt is incredible in the role. My favorite scene in the film is with her confronting Lizzie towards the end.

  • Congrads! This video is very cool!

  • 1940's version is ridiculous, it destroyed the characters of the book. It was very "light" and the music was inappropriate.

    1995's adaptation is the best , in terms of connection to the book.(love colin-excellent actor)

    2005's version is actually good, I loved it, but it was more adjusted to modern people's characters; much angrier and rude to each other.

    Anyway, everybody should read the book, it is excellent. Jane Austen could absolutely really draw characters in her novels.

  • 2005 is defiantly the best

  • Hard to beat Ehle and Firth.  Thought Macfayden wasn`t great.

  • None are better than the other - 1995 was a TV miniseries, while 2005 was a feature film - so it probably comes down to a partiality to one medium of entertainment above the other

  • @uofc57 : agree both are good, 2005 was made for big screen certainly different than 1995 (miniseries)

  • The 2005 version is so much better than the other versions. It is so much shorter than the 1995 version which was like 6 hours in all. Also Kiera Knightley is a lot better that Jennifer Ehle.

  • @DMM1717 Why on earth would you come to a clip of the 1995 miniseries to comment on how 2005 is better? What is the purpose of that? People who comment here obviously like the 1995 version better, so what is the point in commenting here?

    That said, I thought Keira Knightley made Lizzy into a stubborn rude teenager, but that is my own opinion.

  • THE difference is vast but its due to the length of the movie  the 1995 version is much longer, it allows the scenes to be completed, instead of rushed through like 2005. 1940 version is also rushed THE DIRECTOR OF PULP FICTION SAID IT BEST WHATEVER HIS NAME WAS THAT HE LIKED THE AUDIENCE TO GET TO KNOW THE CHARACTERS, SO HIS MOVIES ARE LONGER.

  • Does anyone know the classical piece that Jennifer Ehle is playing in the BBC 1995 version? I know Carl Davis did P&P's intro song, but I can't find a "soundtrack" anywhere. The other songs are all Mozart and Beethoven so I'm assuming this is similar.

  • @WhiteMage0 search Pride and Prejudice soundtrack on amazon, you can buy the cd there. As for what Lizzy is playing during the Rosings piano scene, I don't recognize it; it could easily be something Davis wrote as a filler.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Very interesting video, REALLY shows just how the 40's and '05 version pale in comparison to Ehle and Firth's adaption!

  • Wow, all of the other scenes really pale in comparason to the 2005 version. Macfayden=WIN

  • wait... keira knightly or Natalie portman? i get confused

  • keira

  • thx =)

  • the 2005 setting is so beautiful

  • the 1995 version is most certainly the best. but can you please tell me what song she was playing on the piano? and why on earth didn't they release a soundtrack?! lol

  • I believe that question has been answered before - she's playing part of the score, composed by Carl Davis. And they did release a soundtrack, it's available at Amazon or iTunes or other places. :)

  • @deonaka The 1995 version is the best, indeed!

  • @deonaka I also like 1995 version but you must also try 1980 version.

  • They were all brilliant. But 2005 was the best in my opinion.

  • 95 beats them all...05 version miss bennet was too trashy looking..1940's too stuffy and uppitty..

  • mr.darcy was too jolly in the 1940s version :|

    ugh!

  • Wow. You have done a great job!

  • I love both the 1995 and 2005 versions for their own reasons, and I really can't say if there's one I love more than the other. They're both at the top of my all-time list. If you take my favorite elements out of both versions--the script, cast, and running time in '95 and the music, cinematography, camera movements, etc. in '05,--and mashed them together; holy cow, that would be the greatest film of all-freakin'-time.

  • I totally agree with you!

  • Comment removed

  • the dresses in the 1940 version are 1860 rather than 1790

  • I'm not sure why you think they should be 1790 when the book was published in 1813 (yes, she did a draft earlier, but revised it before publishing). The point about the costumes in the 1940 version being Victorian has been made before...since they were reused from Gone With the Wind to save money, it is not surprising.

  • @zippyC3

    the filmmakers of the 2005 movie version chose the 1790ies fashion for Lizzy's country society because it was supposed to show the more reduced circumstances and that country society was not at the height of fashion.

    also, the book may well have been published in 1813. but the question is: was the storyline taking place in that particular year or maybe a earlier...?

  • @BrionyMae but the 1995 and 2005 are also using different styles.

    when you look at english fashion plates from the 1790ies you don't see the style they used in the 1995 version. there you have the true à la grecque which evolved from france's neo-classical era in fashion. and in the 2005 version you see the fuller skirts and lower waits. only miss bingley whose money allows her to be a precursor in fashion is wearing this style...

  • I have to say that I LOVE the 2005 version... and compare to the others the version of the 40's it is awful

  • Prepare yourself for something very dreadful

  • the accents are very strange in the 1940s version.

  • it sounds almost spanish...

  • What year was the black and white version made?

  • Love how you did this.

  • P&P 2005 is my absolutel favorite...and Matthew Macfadyen as Darcy is perfection!!!

  • 10+

  • This was very well put together! Thanks, I've recently been revisiting the 1995 series.

  • the 1975 mr. darcy was... scary.

  • How horrible does lady catherine speaks in the 1940 version!

    I love 2005 version, it is the best, and the music of it is really good and better than the one in the other films.

  • the 2005 version is the BEST!!!!

  • The costumes in the 1940's version look very much out of date.

  • @FantasmaLuna Oh they are. The costumes are from the later half of the 19th century. Jane Austin was from the very early 1800s.

  • what is the name of the song that Lizzie plays in the 2005 version??

  • Asked and answered previously. She's playing music from the soundtrack. :)

  • Comment removed

  • Keira's playing a simpler version of 'Dawn' composed by Dario Marinelli for the P&P soundtrack. You can find the original and complete version on the soundtrack CD :-).

  • You should have put the 1980 version in there too, that would have been a lark (and better than 1940). This was fun!

  • lol at 1:24 haha i watch it over and over :D

  • whats up withe the 1940's version? At least the 2005 and 1995 look realistic

  • how is the 1995 version corny? you've got it so unbelievably wrong.

  • the book is better ..

  • MY FAVORITE IS THE 2005!!!!!!!!!!

  • i LOVE 2005 version WTF people say

  • Very good!

    Matthew and Colin = Stunning!

    x

  • amen

  • My favorite is the 2005 version, but the 1995 one is also very good. The 1940s one is just ridiculous!

  • they lost of the esence of the scene

  • I really like Colin Firth as mr darcy, but that look that Macfadyen gives her in the end is just PERFECT.

  • Oh my god, what have they done in that 1940s version. It's just horrible!

    The 2005 version is nice, but no one beats Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle!

  • Keira Knightley is the best elizabeth out of those

  • the Mr.Darcy of 2005 is so so dellicious...

  • Cute!

    Oh lordy, no one can beat Colin Firth *swoons*

  • I love the 2005 version!

    I LOVIE THE KEIRA KNIGHTLEY!!

  • That was great! I loved it - keep up the good work - I'd love to see more.

  • Thanks for posting this, it's great!

  • A big ol' YIKES to the 1940s version. Did they forget when and where the novel is set? Elizabeth Bennett will never go hungry again, apparently.

  • LOL@wbuck: exactly!!!!!!

  • haha that was great!

    i didn't know there was a version from the 1940. i still prefer matthew macfadyen, colin firth was good but all the other ones seemed to open and cheerful to be mr. darcy.

  • I've never seen the 1940's version of Pride and Predjudice, though I have seen the both later versions and I think the 1995 is the best one of them. Not just because it's a longer version, but I think the cast is much better than in the other one too. Both Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth are so realistic in their roles as Elizabeth and mr. Darcy :) Especially Jennifer Ehle, she's exactly as I had always pictured Eliza to be ^^

  • i love how they're all just standing around like a painting XD

  • can anyone tell me the name of the song that elizabeth is playing in the 2005 version?

  • I think the 2005 version is the best one ever made I have studied Pride And Prejudice for 3 years to comment on it on the A.Q.A. coursework and although its only a short version the scenes are best portrayed on the 2005 version.

  • I agree. Indeed it was the first one I saw, but I think Knightley gave the best portrayal of Elizabeth. I've seen most of the adaptations, and so far the 2005 version still holds top place as, what I believe, to be the most romantic and breathtaking.

  • thank you!!

  • The main problem with the 2005 version is that it all seems rushed.

  • I think becuase it lasted for 2 hours only, it has to be rushed..

  • Unique idea to combine the perspectives of all three movies for the same scene. It was interesting to watch. I agree with a lot of you in saying 1995 was the best version. I've seen it who knows how many times and I never tire of it. 2:14-2:15 makes me squirm like a schoolgirl! :) First time in the whole movie we see a glimmer of a smile from Mr. Gorgeous. Love it, love it!

  • That's odd - English Captions for an English movie (1940)! What was that about? Though I have to admit - that British upper-crust accent can be tricky1 :-)

    Totally agree about 1995 - Ehle and Firth hit it out of the ballpark - the whole cast did. The whole of it is a pleasure to watch - and watch - and watch... :-)

  • lol. why did the men stay standing only in the latest movie.

  • 1940s look too dull. The 2005 has beautiful

    coloring and the 1995 version is by far the best out of the three.

  • the 1940's version was good but it was not the best

    I have seen all three versions and the one with Jennifer Ehle is the best one. Jennifer's version was more balanced and more realistic.

    In the 1940's version they made Elizabeth too perfect and 2005 Elizabeth was too bold without capturing Elizabeth's vulnerability.

    Jennifer brought out different dimensions to Elizabeth she made her so realistic

  • soooooooo true! well said!

  • I agree with you..

    I also thought that the 1940s adaptation made everybody too ridiculous, I wonder why..

    But I liked KK and JE, they both added something..

    And All the Darcys were fine, they portrayed the character differently..

  • this was really cool, good job. i like how much the different versions contrast, and this really highlight very well. :) yay Jane Austen!

  • haha

    very funny...:D

  • This is amazing! Kudos to you, zippyC3!!!

  • everyones battling about who are the best lizzie and darcy...

    judi dench = best lady catherine ever.

  • Haha, I was gonna point that out, too!

  • yeah! *highfives*

  • Woot! *Returns highfive.* We're just that cool. =]

  • let's not have a battle of which version is the best! this video is great with the 3 versions mixed in, makes it very enjoyable and fun :)

  • But then again I have never seen the 1940s version.

    I love Jennifer Ehle in this role, I don't think that will ever change.

  • BBC version is the best!

  • BBC version is clearly the best! Though never seen the 1940s version and does look funny but i don't think is staying true enough to the novel from what i can see here.

    Colin Firth is amazing - best bit at 3:40 when he rolls his eyes at LC, very funny

  • I always felt that Matthew Macfadyen looked more like the Darcy I imagined when I first read the novel, but that Colin Firth better captured the emotions and mannerisms of the character.

  • I think the 1940s MGM version is the best, and funniest.

  • WOOO!!! BBC VERSION ROCKS!!

  • 1995 te best ...best darcy colin firth :)

  • kiera knitely version is the best!!!!~

  • the best is 1995 version.i love it

  • i love the 1940s version.

    my favorite!!!

  • The BBC version is SO MUCH BETTER than the Keira Knightly version.

  • I agree completely. The other versions are stupid and ugly. In BBC version you can feel real feelings of the characters

  • does anyone know what song she's playing?

  • I believe Kiera is just playing some of the soundtrack music, as for Jennifer and Greer, I'm not sure. :) C

  • LOVE IT!

  • my favourite movie is the 2005 version.

    Many of the scenes are word for word from the book.

    Although the book is loads better than any of the movies, of course.

  • Love the way Firth rolls his eyes--here with Lady Catherine, and later when Mrs. Bennet coldy recieves him when he and Bingley come to visit.

  • This was really interesting. I'd never seen anything from the 1940 film...wow. I just can't get over Lizzy's dress and Mr. Darcy's sucking up - it's just too funny. I'll have to see if I can find it somewhere and watch the whole thing! Thanks for posting.

  • I really like the fact you took one scene and showed it from all the diffrent movies. I've only seen the 2005 version, but the 1940 one looms quite goofy, but I should see the Collin Firth one I guess since I hear it's so great. Though, I don't like the Elziabeth in the movie.....

    but yeah, that was cool.

  • You HAVE to see the 1995 one. I didn't want to see it at first cuz I thought it would be so LONG, but now watching that is about 1/5 of my movie life and considering how many movies a person watches in their lifetime thats quite a lot

  • Lol I love Colin's face when his aunt shrilly asks "What are you talking of?"

  • "And if I had ever learnt, I should be a true proficient!" Such a hilarious and haughty Lady Catherine in the BBC '95 version. Definitely the best for me.

    It's hard to compete with a mini-series as far as telling the whole story - and I think that all of those actors in it were superb.

  • yes that Lady Catherine was totally unforgettable... i like Judi Dench but she isn't a patch on the other actress in this part. i also agree that the BBC version is far more authentic. Keira is just too modern-looking, i find it impossible to believe she is supposed to be someone from that era.

  • No, No, No, No, No and No. The 1940 version was the most refined version of them all.

    1980 made the story unaproachable.

    1995 best adaptation.

    2005 was o.k but felt they took a step backward with it.

    Best Darcy Oliver/Firth both very good, but Rupert Penry-Jones from Jane Austins Persuasion would make an excellent Darcy.

  • Colin Firth is the best mr. Darcy!!

  • no he's not!!!

  • He is!

  • Ditto.

  • I agree completely, I've read the book and seen different movie adaptations and Colin captures the Mr. Darcy roll perfectly.

  • lol, I just love the wit exchange between Catherine and Lizzie (any version). check out those sleeves!

  • the 2005 Mr. Darcy is my favorite

  • the 1940 mr darcy is all wrong :O

    i can not stand him

  • Isn't there another BBC version of P&P done before Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle adaptation?

    It's quite good.