Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Jane Austen fans—beware.

If you don't like to see the prose of world's most beloved romance novelist altered, you may find reason to complain about the way director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach have abridged Austen's Pride & Prejudice. But if you're content to see classics abbreviated so you can escape the movie theater in less than three hours, well, you may join the chorus of critics raving about this film.

But critics aren't just comparing this version of Pride & Prejudice to its literary source. Wright's film, version, which stars Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen, is being held up against what is considered the gold standard of Jane Austen adaptations—the popular, highly-praised, five-hour BBC adaptation of the same book.

Camerin Courtney (Christianity Today Movies) says, "The A&E/BBC version is like a family portrait—a stunningly lit, artistically framed photograph that captures the family so true to life. This new 2005 version is more like an impressionist painting of the family—less detail and depth, but when you look at it from different angles, various shadings and nuance catch your eye. It's the same lovely story, just a different artistic rendering."

She concludes, "The film certainly stands well on its own merit, and will most likely find the harshest critics in ardent Austen and A&E fans (or husbands who get dragged to the film, for whom this genre simply isn't their cup of tea). Sure, the film can't go as deep on issues of class and gender in a mere two hours. But what it lacks in depth of plot and character development (at least to the degree that Austen fleshed these out in her book), it more than makes up for in luminous visuals, subtle thematic statements, and fine acting."

"The MGM and BBC renderings were fine indeed, but the latest [version] is yet another splendid dramatization," says Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service). He praises the performances and direction, and concludes, "Apart from a subplot involving a rakish character who elopes with one of the daughters with dishonorable intent, there is nothing to preclude recommendation for all ages."

Michael Karounos (Christian Spotlight) says that non-Austen fans will enjoy the movie "because it is a good love story, with believable character development, interesting settings, and a brisk pace which makes the film's length seem shorter than its satisfying 127 minutes." Austen fans, meanwhile, will "concede that it's better than the 1940 Lawrence Olivier/Greer Garson, if not quite as satisfying as the fuzzy-lens romanticism of the 1995 BBC mini-series … that is everyone's favorite."

Mainstream critics are swooning.

Chris Van Allsburg's children's books are characterized by large, enchanting, imaginative illustrations. But they're not heavy on narrative. Screenwriters don't so much adapt his books as invent narratives that bridge the gaps between the images. Those who enjoyed Robert Zemeckis' The Polar Express or Joe Johnston's Jumanji were probably surprised when they searched out the book and found much of the movie missing from the original text.

John Favreau's Zathura is similarly stuffed with embellishment. And, like the other Van Allsburg-inspired films, it dazzles viewers with wall-to-wall visual effects. But does it offer more than eyefuls of digital animation? Is there anything meaningful in this story of a house that blasts off into outer space? And what about the question on many parents' minds: Is it safe and entertaining for the whole family?

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

November (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49