Something tells me I should start writing movie reviews now before they pile up. Already, I have 3 pending ones for my asian movie review blog, and am planning on seeing 3 more on the weekend. Gah, why do the good movies have to all start showing on the same day anyway? Luckily I have after office hours off now, that I can see movies on weekdays. Cheers for ATC which is only 2 kms away from home and 2nd to the last full shows! XD
I'm not really sure if all the movies I'm planning on seeing will all be good, though I'm very thankful that this first one was.
I guess it's not the prettiest I've seen of Keira Knightley (I never saw Arthur and that Robin Hood thing though), but then she's not supposed to be the pretty one here. And I guess she was adequate, considering the looks, the actions, etc. Though there weren't really any parts that needed really strong emotions so why she ever got nominated for an Oscar for this role, I guess I will never comprehend. But let's not talk about that issue and move on with the review.
Story-wise, it was good. Of course it was based on a classic novel which wouldn't be called a classic if it wasn't good in the first place, so I wouldn't give too much comments about that. How was it as a film adapted from a book? Well, I never got to read the book, but I enjoyed the movie so I'd say it was fine. So please don't start telling me how they changed so many things and how they didn't get a lot of details accurately. I once heard that "The best way to enjoy a book-based movie is to not read the book." and I have to say I agree. Because comparing it with the book is just pointless. It's a different medium. Let's leave it at that.
Something to say about the dialogue though on account of I could not understand half of it. I'm sure it was witty and funny and all things brilliant, but for the life of me, I just couldn't get the hang of the English accent, and they were speaking in olde English too. But I guess they did a good job overall because although there were a lot of lines I missed, I still got the gist.
I don't really have a favorite part for this movie, and I don't know, it wasn't able to make me feel any strong emotion either, although some parts stood out--like when Mr.Darcy was in the rain with Elizabeth, and that time that they talked to each other at dawn (which wasn't very believable by the way; what in the world was Mr.Darcy doing in the middle of the fields at dawn?!). And, though I wasn't able to predict it, I really liked the ending. I think it's good that no-wedding-scenes and no-kissing-scenes (Constantine with Keanu Reeves and Rachel Weiss; My Sassy Girl) are getting to be a norm nowadays. Emphasizes that love can be unconventional, even in the old days. Well, the ending was just right, I think. Because it left you wishing for more.
Compared to other classic-adaptations, I guess it does well. Maybe it's not as good as Little Women but it's a bit better than Sense and Sensibility (this one's Jane Austen, too). Or maybe I just have a bias against the casting of the latter because really, Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant do not make a cute couple, and Alan Rickman was just too old for Kate Winslet. Casting in this one was okay, though. And I'm glad it proved that a movie doesn't always need big names to work. Matthew MacFadyen who played Mr.Darcy fitted the role well, despite reminding me of a younger Alan Rickman, or maybe because of it. Well, it doesn't matter as long as he did a good job. And he and Keira didn't look too bad together either.
I'd sure like to watch it again if only to understand the bits of dialogue I missed. It's worth a second watch, and a maybe a third or fourth, but I wouldn't list it as my favorite.