What have they done to Mr Darcy
Uploader Comments (Freckles2185)
Top Comments
-
Firstly, I absolutely adore your video. Colin didn't just portray Darcy he was Darcy in every sense of the word. After Colin there was nothing. Matthew spent most of the time brooding and looking emo. Squinting your eyes doesn't equal acting. It helped that Colin had someone who could act opposite him in the role of Lizzie. I see it's already been mentioned and I totally agree that Kiera plays the same role in every film she's in. A travesty to the Academy Awards that she was nominated.
All Comments (95)
-
I was 11 in 1995 and Colin had both me and my mother completely hooked and drooling. Colin all the way, oh yes.
-
I think they are two very good adaptations of a book that is a work of art in itself. the 2005 movie was very good, even though some things made you almost expect a digital alarm clock to appear or some other anachronism of the sort. I find that by modernizing the aesthetics of the movie in general they made it more appealing for people who don't care or know about regency era.
Still, GREAT movie, has made a load of people want to know what P&P is all about...
-
1995 version.......just not feeling it.
It was very poor acting in my opinion (from the lady who plays Elizabeth)
Colin Firth was all right, but there was just no emotion whatsoever.
Now, the 2005 version, was brilliant. I know it was missing parts of the book, but what do you expect from a 2 hour film? The 1995 version got it almost perfect because they had 6 hours! And the lake scene in the 1995 version? That wasn't even in the book!
All in all, two great films, but 2005 was the best! :)
-
I'm SO glad when I rented the videos back in the day (the 1995 version) I had NO idea what to expect w/ the story, plus I'm glad I saw the 1990's version because it was longer. Then I read the book and *barely* a thing is missing, it's nearly verbatim! With the Firth version you just get more! It goes on for days!
-
Colin Firth always has been and will always be THE Mr. Darcy. Accept no substitutes. I don't know what character MacFayden played, but it wasn't Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy. Maybe he got confused and thought he was playing Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights.
-
I think the 1995's Mr.darcy reminds me of a gorilla and the 2005's Mr.darcy reminds me of a gargoyle. Honestly not at all what I had pictured from the book, but then again nothing is. Atleast the movie of 2005 had better acting.
-
I totally aggree with you!!!
-
@Freckles2185 i agree 200%
-
Oh, Mathew isn't all that bad. I mean, the movie was two hours, where the series was SIX. :/ there were obviously budget and time restrictions. This doesn't make 2005 worse, just less fortunate. And it was my first P&P, so it will always have a special place in my heart. <3
The 1995 version is much better than 2005!!
Pride and prejudice <333
rutigtroja 2 years ago 11
I agree 100%!! :0)
Freckles2185 2 years ago
I have to admit, read the book first, but it didn't help that some of the pages was missing. Anyway, the first adaptation i saw was the 2005 and i watched at school. i fell in love with it by the end. Matthew's performance was heart stopping, but i was already a fan of Colin's after watching Bridget Jones. I wanted the P&P on dvd but couldn't make up my mind which one to have, but as my mum had seen the 1995 version and with my liking of Colin she persuaded me to choose the 1995 version...
beckycairns 2 years ago
well, i saw the 95' version first, then i read the book, and only later i watched the 2005 movie.
i guess it all depends on what you see/read first lol. :0)
Freckles2185 2 years ago
Colin Firth IS Darcy. Matthew is plays too emotional and is too young-looking to be Darcy. He can't beat Firth in any way.
51stcenturygirl 2 years ago 2
yeah! :) you are so right! im so glad i made this video - now i know im not the only one who thinks this!
Freckles2185 2 years ago