Reviewing Pride & Prejudice 1995 vs 2005

Today, I'm talking about two film adaptations of Pride & Prejudice, the mini-series from 1995 and the feature film from 2005. While based on the same novel, they are wildly different, and I quite enjoyed going through their various strengths and weaknesses. I hope you all will enjoy it as well! Don't forget to share your own thoughts down below!
Get all 7 of Jane Austen's works in this beautiful boxed set:
amzn.to/3IvSd8Y (affiliate link ♥)
NEED TO BRUSH UP ON THE PLOT IN P&P?
Then check out my plot summary here:
• Let's discuss Pride an...
MY YA FANTASY NOVELS
Leaves of Holly
amzn.to/3V4ZpAm
Garden of Silver
amzn.to/3PdSi4O
(affiliate links ♥)
All clips and photos used in the video are the property of the BBC and Focus Features.
#janeausten #prideandprejudice

[@kathleenclark5877]

I agree with you 5 1/2 hours of Jane is better than two. That being said, when I first watched the 2005 version, I loathed it. But, in order to be fair, I gave it a second go and realized I had missed how utterly gobsmacked Darcy was when he first sees her. It is really subtle. And then I began to watch for it and there it was all the way through. I especially liked the closeup of his hand after he helps her into the carriage when she returns home from her visit to Jane. It is as though it is on fire. So the evolution of his feelings was really nicely done although it took me a couple of views to realize it. And the progressive “loosening” of his fashion style over the course of the film was interesting to see. Just a couple of observations.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I remember really disliking the '05 version the first time I saw it as well. I suppose I compared it too much to the '95 version instead of just accepting it for what it is. It does grow on you, though! Oh, yes, that close up of the hand is a very subtle yet also intense way of showing his feelings for Elizabeth, I quite liked that too!

[@annnee6818]

Yes, I loathed 2005 too when I saw it first... I have not rewatched it though. 1995 is peerless to me but that doesn't mean no one should ever try again.

[@sarosenna5850]

I'm just going to put this out there... young Matthew Macfadyen is a dream to take in.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I can't argue with that!

[@m__a_]

Amen to that!

[@sehrm1652]

Really enjoyed your video! At the risk of sounding an unpopular opinion, I did not like Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett. She felt a bit artificial. And brought a more modern sensibility to the character. But again just my opinion.

[@ArnellaHobler]

For me, Keira Knightley is difficult in that role because back then she was in (almost) every period drama. So I could never see her as the embodiment of Elizabeth, and I really think they should have chosen a less well-known actress.

[@randomgoats]

Yes I agree Elizabeth was bad in the 2005 version. She just seemed mean when she was meant to be teasing and funny

[@bw3839]

I thought she was awful as Elizabeth Bennett tbh, it would have been quite a good adaptation without her.

[@SuperDrLisa]

Not a fan of Kiera Knightley in this role. Too free, does not work in this time period

[@bw3839]

@@SuperDrLisa yeah, I would watch it a lot more if a good actress had played Elizabeth.

[@melissas4874]

I notice when people say anything about positive about the 2005 version it is mainly about set design and cinematography. I feel like they tried to make the Bennet's more poor than they actually were - almost making Darcy into a prince and Elizabeth into a peasant. I know some people love that sort of story, but it's over done.

[@ArnellaHobler]

That is a very good point. I don't think anyone could deny how beautiful the '05 version is based on aesthetics and cinematography. And indeed, it does seem to cater to that audience who enjoys love stories between rich vs poor characters. Nothing inherently wrong with that in my opinion (even if it isn't canon), but as you said, it's not exactly a new concept :)

[@ennediend2865]

So true : the Bennets are poorer , but they are not poor ! (Landed gentry) P&P is a story about rich people anyway...

[@marilynmourdock3688]

1995 version is my favorite! There was another take off on Pride and Prejudice called Lost in Austen. I enjoyed that very much as well.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Lost in Austen is great as whimsical escapism for sure!

[@kwek2243]

I first watch the 2005 however I fell in love with 1995. The old English, the accent, the savage fricking straightforward insult Lizzy thrown to Mr. Darcy, although the individuals weren't hot but considering it was happened in 1810s and everyone has *DIFFERENT BEAUTY STANDARD* THEN, it really made me see what was the novel really looked like in the mind of the author who was living on that same era. _2005 has more romance to it and great looking cast by modern standard but 1995 was a chef kiss and an iconic legendary film I kept in watching on repeat even thought it's more than 7 hours long because of how nicely it was done and was closer to the novel Jane Austen wrote._

[@ArnellaHobler]

It definitely does feel like the '95 version looks more authentic and kind of how Jane Austen would have imagined everything. The '05 version is more aesthetically pleasing to a modern viewer, but it's not as consistent in its look.

[@Pepperjack1986]

Personally, I disliked the 2005 version. Keira Knightley just seemed sassy instead of witty, Matthew Macfadyen didn't come across as snobbish or haughty at all; instead he just seemed socially awkward and distant, which made me feel sorry for Mr. Darcy instead of feeling like he needed to be humbled. Colin Firth from 1995 was excellent as cold and seemingly disinterested Mr. Darcy. I also hated 2005's Mr. Darcy's inexplicably long stroll across the field (it took him 51 seconds, with no cutaways).The music swelled so dramatically as he did so that it made me wonder if Elizabeth was going to run full speed toward him, meet him halfway then passionately make out with him. Every time I see that scene, I roll my eyes. Also, why did they have Mr. Darcy visiting the Collins ' house late at night to give Elizabeth his letter? She was in her nightgown and no lights were on. Did the Collins' servant just open the door and let someone into the house in the dead of night, not even bothering to announce the guests to the occupants?!

[@ArnellaHobler]

Hah, that is a funny point actually that the Collins' servant wouldn't announce the guest. (Now I'm thinking about the '95 version when a letter arrives at Longbourn late at night, and we hear Mrs Bennet shouting "are we to be murdered in our beds?!") Also, it would be inappropriate to the highest degree of any gentleman to call on a woman late at night like that. But I suppose they did it that way to add dramatic tension... most viewers aren't familiar with the etiquette of the era after all.

[@Pepperjack1986]

@Jonathan Parks agree 100% with you about Lady Catherine. I'm sure that even though she thinks she's a law unto herself, even she wouldn't be so gauche as to call on people in the middle of the night. She even makes a point of saying as she leaves that she won't even properly say goodbye to Elizabeth or send her compliments to her mother, which was extremely rude and only came about after she'd grilled Elizabeth about Mr.Darcy.

[@evelyne7071]

It is so funny that you “bring up” the music. Because, the one time that I saw the movie, that crescendo did distract me and make me pause and reflect upon “it” instead of put me in a romantic mood.

[@teddypeony185]

100% agree

[@klikmusicmode5934]

The Best Ever Version and adaptation made! 1995 - Beautifully and Perfectly done. Magnificent actors with their very high level of excellence in portraying all their roles individually and collaborating as group performance overall is superb!The soundtrack and costumes were masterly done and magnificent which bring us to the regency era enormously and undeniably the best and great experience and feelings while watching this masterpiece interpretation of the great Ms. Jane Austen literary masterpiece of all time.Loving it so much and watching repeatedly the whole series almost everyday! Well done to all and hope to find similar story in the near future!Magnificent and Superb Adaptation!! Thank You so much!!

[@ArnellaHobler]

It really is an excellent adaptation, happy you agree! :) Thanks for watching!

[@breannaslender9120]

Yes love, Collin Firth = Mr Darcy and Mr Darcy = Collin Firth its just too perfect

[@ArnellaHobler]

Indeed it is! 😄

[@ennediend2865]

Gorgeous Colin Firth 😘

[@emid5726]

I absolutely loath 2005 version. The Bennetts are gentlemen’s class, not a farmer. Why did the film maker thinks it was okay that the pigs are roaming in the house? Darcy will NEVER propose to Elizabeth in the middle of drenching rain. He is too much of a gentleman to do such thing, and will be too concerned for her health and well-being. The last straw was Darcy coming to propose to Elizabeth in the morning in his PAJAMAS!! UGH 😩 I watched it once when it first came out and hated it. It’s not worth watching it again. On the contrary, I adore 1995 BBC adaptations!

[@stellatocca]

You make a lot of good points, but I have to disagree with you about Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet & Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. First of all, Pike naturally exudes worldliness and sophistication. Moreover, her gaze is just so shrewd, knowing, and discerning. I can't really explain it, but that innate quality she possesses just doesn't work as Jane. Jane is sweet, angelic, and Pollyanna-esque. There's an innocence and purity about the character that I can't associate with Rosamund. Pike's full capacity emerges when she plays powerful & complicated characters like Lady Harriet Cumnor, Amy Dunne, Sandy Crowder, and Miranda Frost. As Jane Bennet, she just looks restricted and cramped. It's like trying to cast a lioness as a kitten. Susannah Harker looked more relaxed & natural in her role, even if her aesthetics doesn't adhere to the modern mainstream audience (personally, I think Susannah is very beautiful). If I were to produce my own version of P&P, I would have casted the cherubically gorgeous & doll-like Holliday Grainger as Jane. Another complaint I had about Rosamund's Jane is that she isn't fleshed out as a character at all...and it has _nothing_ to do with the 2 hour limit. It has to do with Wright's poor utilization of the time he was given. They could've cut out the useless scene where Lizzy spins aimlessly around in a swing (among others) to give Pike some extra screen time. It's funny because Joe Wright wanted to portray the character has someone who has her own "interior world," yet we see none of it. As for Judi Dench, I only have this to say: she's way too charming, endearing, and charismatic to fully capture the pompously repressive energy of Lady Catherine. She's an excellent actress, but she's miscast. I see her more as Mrs. Gardiner, even if she's a bit too old for the role. Barbara Leigh-Hunt, on the otherhand, completely owned it. Her screen presence, her stares, her diction, little nuances, and mannerisms...such an impeccable performance. She will always be Lady Catherine in all her lofty condescension.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I have a feeling you sensed my efforts to be diplomatic! As a Rosamund Pike fan, I cannot disagree with your points - she certainly is a lioness! My reason for liking her as Jane was rather her gentleness and immense beauty (she is far prettier than Keira in my opinion, and I like it when they keep in line with the lore). It would have been interesting to see her as Jane under a different director or format (like a series). I think she would be amazing, honestly. As for Judi Dench, I love her in everything she does, so I'm definitely biased. But I do agree that in none of these cases do they come close to meet their full potential. And yes, Barbara Leigh-Hunt IS Lady Catherine, full stop. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! :)

[@Padmepotter4986]

This is one of the best critiques of two fabulous but miscast actresses I've ever read. Well done!

[@juliakay6204]

I love Judi Dench to death but you are absolutely right. Judi would probably have been better if she’d had the amount of time needed to fully develop the character. But that’s how I feel about everyone in the 2005 version.

[@vonniecao3991]

The 1995 version of pride and prejudice is more addicting to me than the 2005 version. This is just in my own opinion. The 1995 version gave me a sense of imagining myself in the scene with the characters and watching them interact while enjoying the view of the illustrious landscapes, which is my favorite thing about the 1995 version. The landscape choices are amazing! The 2005 version is very good but it doesn't give me a wow factor to it. It seems a bit more darkened setting-wise and feels a little bit more modern vibe-ish. But I will admit that Donald Sutherland in the 2005 version of Mr.Bennet did a very spot-on job in that role. He never fails to surprise me. 2005 version is a wonderful version of pride and prejudice but it's not one I would want to watch continuously everyday like the 1995 version. Again, this is just my own opinion and mine alone. everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

[@ArnellaHobler]

You are quite right that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I do agree with you. And good point about Donald Sutherland, I did enjoy him as Mr Bennet too. :)

[@AthenaisC]

Both Mr Darcy's are marvelous, but Colin Firth just owns this role for me. David Bamber was perfect as Mr Collins. I agree about Rosamund Pike. Amelia Fox was my quintessential Ms Darcy, ditto the woman who played Miss Bingly in the 95 version. I loved both Mr Bennets. The acting in both versions was superb. Having said all that, I've watched the 95 version a billion times. I love everything about it. 😊

[@stellatocca]

I'm not even going to try to be diplomatic. The 2005 adaptation feels like it was written by Mills & Boon. That's what happen when you try to romanticize, dilute, and dumb down Austen's Novel of Manners. There's literally no compelling insight or reflection of class, etiquette, propriety, etc. Also, Keira Knightley looks as if she's playing a weird hybrid Cathy Earnshaw/Jo March instead of the vibrant yet genteel Lizzy Bennet. She simpers, pouts, snarls, laughs dementedly, throws hissy fits, and splashes through puddles with tomboyish defiance. I find it ironic since Jane Austen scathingly criticizes impropriety and lack of self-command in all her novels. As for, Matthew McFayden...I like him as an actor, but he is more suited to play Edward Ferrars or Captain James Benwick. He's too earthy & unassuming, and lacks the charisma to be a convincing Darcy. I also find him plain-looking. Colin Firth, on the otherhand, just _exudes_ that elegant hauteur the moment he stepped in front of the camera. Colin Firth will always be my Mr. Darcy & the 1995 miniseries will always own my heart.

[@glendodds3824]

Sadly, a lot of Pride and Prejudice devotees (many of whom have never read Jane Austen's wonderful book) do view the story as a forerunner of a Mills & Boon. They love the idea that a girl from a supposedly poor family married a very rich man. In the book, however, Mr Bennet has an income of £2,000 a year which was a mouth-watering sum for most people at the time. Indeed, in 1816 (three years after P&P was published) one of Jane Austen''s brothers was earning just under £55 a year as a clergyman at Chawton!

[@jannertfol]

Feels like it was written by Mills & Boon. That is exactly what I thought as well. I got so fed up with Keira Knightly's coltish, antic behaviour and posey 'beauty' I actually stopped watching the film the first time through. I did manage to stick with it at a second viewing of the film (I have it on DVD), but did not warm to it. The only character I slightly preferred from the 1995 version was the movie version of Mrs Bennett, whom I found more believable and less grating on the ear. But as for the movie as a whole ...just no. That 1995 version will never be bettered, in my opinion. As Arnella points out, understanding the etiquette of the time is crucial to understanding the story. You can't modernise it and expect the story to make sense. The 1995 version understood this concept completely, while the film version preferred to pretend that etiquette was dispensable, and 'passion' was what mattered.

[@b_a_t_m_a_n_]

1995 will always be the best in my eyes.

[@kathyrose8750]

I was shown the series when I was about 10 and I became obsessed with it. I used to watch it on repeat, it got to the point where between the ages of 10-14 I could quote the entire series. I wasn't a Twilight tween, I was a Pride and Prejudice tween. That was 9 years ago now, but I still have such a strong love for it and because of my love for it I was never that much a fan of the film, even though it's technically beautifully made.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I completely get that! I suppose we all have a bit of a bias when it comes to our favourite childhood media, I think that's quite normal. :)

[@Spiritrider17]

By early 1800s standard, Susannah Harker is a model. Sloping shoulders, long neck, smaller head. She has everything that would make her the most beautiful in that time. I feel like the 2005 movie can be summed up by this comment the director made when asked about the costuming. I think the empire line dresses are very ugly, so I did some research. Although the novel was published in in 1811, Jane Austen wrote the first draft of Pride and Prejudice, then called First Impressions, in 1797. So we were able to use the fashions of the earlier period, where the waist line was much lower, and more flattering." -Director Joe Wright He wasn't going for accuracy necessarily. He was going for aesthetic.

[@vbrown6445]

And even given that they had a specific earlier period in mind, all the women in the 2005 movie were still dressed in costumes from different decades. There must have been almost 50 years in difference between what Mrs. Bennet was wearing (a dress you would wear with side paniers and a powdered wig) and what Caroline Bingley was wearing (Regency-like dresses that could double as underwear of the time).

[@kasiemi]

The only way to enjoy the 2005 version is to look at it as a romantic Hollywood film, beautifully shot with a enticing love story. It is, however not, in any way, a depiction of the Jane Austen world. So much of the subtleties of her writing get lost in the movie. Why is Elizabeth so mean at times? Why is Darcy so socially incompetent? These are not the characters we know from the books. As you said, some changes and shortcuts are necessary when adapting a novel but not when it loses its essence.

[@bofhzerozero777]

The 1995 series only feels dated to those who do not appreciate the accuracy in everything, from the sets, to the wardrobe, to the hair and the general demeanor of the characters. The 2005 is anachronistic and that distracts the viewer and detracts from its supposed virtues as an adaptation. If they really wanted a modernized version, they should’ve set it in the 20th century or even the 21st. Or whenever Keira Knightley’s hairdo made sense.

[@livphilip7486]

What gets me about the 05 version is how quickly everyone speaks to eachother - you can just imagine the director in the background going 'go faster we only have two hours for this make it snappy talent!!' and it's so annoying because the performances lose all feeling and weight, when the actors are just doing their line readings as fast as they can. It sucks and I hate it.

[@ArnellaHobler]

That is a good point. It makes the dialogue feel less authentic, because normally people don't speak that quickly - even in modern times - and if you do it's usually a one-off that only applies to one character.

[@evelyne7071]

I’m currently rereading the book. You have made a great point. The subtlety of the language is lost in the modern version. Also the use of period words are often “dummied” down to two syllables so the modern audience can follow the plot more easily. The “flavor” of convoluted conversation is completely lost.

[@randomgoats]

I agree on almost every point. However, I thought Jane was too giggly in the film, I think shes meant to be a little more calm and reserved. Also, just saying I love regency fashion, but that's just my opinion. I thought the film was way overshot and I just didnt like it. I think you are like Jane, you seem like a rlly nice person:))

[@randomgoats]

Another thing, I didnt like how they did mr Collins in the newer one. U get the impression everyone hates him just bc hes small and Lizzie rlly overreacted when she refused him.

[@ArnellaHobler]

​@@randomgoats That is a good point about Jane, she's supposed to be quite calm I think. I did however like Rosamund Pike's performance as she really nailed that naïveté that I associate with Jane. I have mixed feelings on Collins. Preferred him in the '95 version, but the film shows a very dull Mr Collins so I suppose that's fairly accurate as well. Thanks for watching! :)

[@karlabenavides9449]

I Agree 1995 Mr. Darcy was perfect. I can never see the man again normal he will forever be Darcy

[@ArnellaHobler]

I very much agree! :)

[@nickj4526]

I watched the movie first and I can’t even watch the series now. The movie is really condensed so the passion and reckless abandonment of their love is amped up to 10. I love that. The series is just too whimsical and lighthearted in comparison. The film’s score and cinematography are otherworldly. It’s a feast for the eyes and ears. I get flack for it from my guy friends, but it’s one of my favorite movies of all time.

[@Ana-cl4it]

Exactly !

[@ArnellaHobler]

I think you have a point in how it depends on which one you see first, and also of course if you have read the book. The book is quite whimsical which I believe is the reason why the series gives that impression. But I do agree in general that the film is a feast for the eyes and ears, much more so than the series!

[@randomgoats]

I think the film was too dramatic, but then I did watch the series first!

[@Penelope9441]

I agree it depends on when you saw it and which you saw first. I watched the 6 part series with my parents at age 8 when it aired and I have a hard time getting through the movie. I just don't like how "Hollywood" it is, especially when it comes to the over dramatic class differences they displayed. I found a lot of it insulting not only to parts of the book, but the 95 feature I was so used to. I have no doubt had I seen the movie first I would be in the same boat as you.

[@stellatocca]

I've read the book first, so I automatically preferred the 1995 series. I also really liked the 1980 series, despite the old-fashioned acting. Anyone who has read Pride & Prejudice should already know that Austen's style is "lighthearted" & "whimsical," *NOT* overwrought, emotional, melodramatic, and sentimental. After all, her novels are archetypal "Novel of Manners" or "Study of Manners." Sharp & clearsighted social commentary and satire is the heart of Jane Austen's work, not romance. That's probably why I never felt that the ending was "rushed" during the series. I loved how the series carried out Darcy & Elizabeth's love with a light and graceful hand while respecting all of Austen's lucid narration & analysis. The 2005 film has very aesthetically pleasing cinematography and a well composed musical score, but that's it. There's nothing "Austen" about it because they modernized it to the point where the study of etiquette, convention, society, familial structures, etc. is no longer relevant. It's a cute but clichéd "rich boy meets (and marries) poor girl" story. Personally, I think Joe Wright's style suits gothic romances more. Too bad he chose to mangle Austen and roll P&P in artificial sweetener instead of making an adaption of Wuthering Heights. Keira Knightley, in all her simpery pouty-ness and propensity for hammy antics would have made a very decent Cathy Earnshaw.

[@juliawhite7644]

No one is a better Darcy than Colin Firth😍😍😍

[@kathleenwaln9867]

Thanks for your wonderful review of the two adaptations. I thought the director made some bold, artistic choices, as you point out in your review. But many of his choices were so wrong. I wondered if he had read the book much at all. My biggest complaint was the portrayal of Mr. Bingley. He’s made out to be such a dunce. I can’t really watch the film, as so many of the choices destroy Miss Austen’s wonderful characters.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I'm glad you enjoyed the review, even if you didn't quite enjoy the film (the 05' version that is)! There are indeed some strange choices there! Thanks for watching & sharing your thoughts :)

[@glendodds3824]

Hi Arnella. I have enjoyed listening to your comments. However, I prefer the way the Bennet family home, Longbourn House, is portrayed in the 1995 adaptation. For a start, there are no livestock walking through the property. Moreover, the paintings and furniture are in good condition which one would expect in the home of a country gentleman. Jane Austen tells us that Mr Bennet had an annual income of £2,000 which, although dwarfed by Mr Darcy’s £10,000 per annum, was still a large sum of money. Indeed, the vast majority of people in England at the time earned less than £50 per annum. Thanks and take care.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Hi Glen! Indeed I do agree, the Bennet family would still be considered wealthy compared to the general population, and that is far better portrayed in the 1995 version. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!

[@drpatrickbarry]

There are KZbin videos that try to convert that type of income into today's money and as you say the are vast amounts.

[@alejandrosalazar4638]

My personal problem with the 2005 is how they change the dialogue. Austen is especially well known for her dialogue. I would like to point out, though, that the 2005 version does a better job with the age of the characters. Most actors in 95 where way too old for their characters...

[@thinkhaven7902]

I’m not sure that the production is dated. Maybe you meant the image quality? The cameras used in ‘95 had poorer image quality to those used today. It’s only in looking between productions of that day and now that you realise how much progress has been made to that aspect of film making.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Yeah, "production" wasn't perhaps the best word to use here - like you said I was referring to the image quality. :)

[@jasminewat2662]

@@ArnellaHobler I would really recommend buying (if you are a fan of the 1995 version) the restored blu ray version - I think there is also an hd version, as the quality is amazing and it really does make for a better viewing experience

[@janleonard3101]

@@jasminewat2662 Yes, I have the restored edition DVD set and it's gorgeous! I don't believe this production will ever be dated because it's so true to the period.

[@em6010]

I loooved this! I found a lot of inconsistencies in the movie. That rain scene was not that good for me, it felt overacted (I didn't like Keira particularly). Also, I don't think that people from that time spoke soooo fast. I personally absolutely love both Matthew and Colin as Mr. Darcy. Jennifer's portrayal of Lizzie was on point. I think that the BBC series did a great job capturing the essence of the society of that time. The movie was so-so in that aspect. The music and cinematography though... Omg, if I watch the movie again, it has to be because it's gorgeous to the eye and the music is stunning. I absolutely loved this video! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I think it's super accurate.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you so much Emilia! I really find it so interesting to hear what people's opinions are on these different versions. You do have a point that they speak very fast sometimes in the '05 version. And the rain scene in general is so different that I find it difficult to believe that Darcy would blurt out his feelings in that kind of setting. But yes, like you said it really is gorgeous to look at and the music is great! Thanks again :)

[@ivanplavanko3562]

Did not appreciate how In the 2005 version both Elizabeth and Darcy lose more clothes as the movie goes on- breaks the setting completely.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Huh, I suppose they do. Didn't really think of that before. 😅

[@ivanplavanko3562]

@@ArnellaHobler they did it I think to show them growing closer together- and showing more of themselves in this case literally as well as figuratively. For me though it simply lent the film an air of a modern love story- though I do sympathize in one regard that being that with only two hours the 2005 film does not have the time for all the scenes to show them slowly coming together.

[@ArnellaHobler]

@@ivanplavanko3562 Ah, I see. While that does kind of make sense, I don't really think it serves an obvious enough point to be necessary. So I quite agree with your original statement!

[@ivanplavanko3562]

@@ArnellaHobler Thanks so much for the P&P review. My family has been watching all the versions during this endless lockdown.

[@eme.261]

I can genuinely say I adore both versions. They're different mediums and both accomplish their goals stupendously. I find the comparison of them to be as useful as comparing a tangerine to an orange. Yeah, they are similar, but they aren't the same, so why bother.

[@kathleenclark5877]

And all of you who hold P and P dear, watching the 2009 parody (or call it what you will) entitled “Lost in Austen” will give you a much needed lift these days. It is about a modern day girl obsessed with the novel who ends up being transported into the P and P world with comic effects on the plot. “That’s not what is supposed to happen!” ,she constantly wails. Quite a lot of fun.

[@kasandrajames1860]

I do enjoy both versions although 1995 is far superior to me. I think its the attention to detail and historical accuracy that I appreciate. Andrew Davies was very pedantic regarding accuracy to the time, down to the food, clothes etc. I can imagine the 2005 version appeals to younger audiences. I think what I didn't appreciate so much was the lack of attention to detail- especially Keiras hair.

[@cassandramuller7337]

The one thing I like about the 2005 version is the first proposal scene where Lizzie throws Jane's shyness in Mr Darcy's face. Is it something someone like Lizzie would have done? Probably not. Did it feel satisfying to have her defend her sister in that way and throw some truth in Darcy's face? Yes! Absolutely. Everything else I prefer the 1995 version. Just as someone who is extroverted and has been bullied and has watched people I'm close to get bullied this is something I would do, have done and wish other people had done for me and it speaks to me.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I actually feel like it would be in Lizzie's character to defend Jane, given how outspoken she was even towards frightening people like Lady Catherine de Bourgh. But yes, I do agree with you :)

[@cassandramuller7337]

@@ArnellaHobler Hmmm, yeah perhaps Lizzie would have done that. It just seems like it's not something that was considered "appropriate" and Lizzie knows how to stay within the boundaries of what is acceptable within the standards of society. But I guess she could have said something like that. But I'm sure she would have chosen different words to say the same thing. She's far more eloquent than that.

[@jonathanparks207]

The problem is I don't think Jane is shy. She is an introvert and she guards her feelings, but shy she is not.

[@TorchwoodPandP]

The tea cup is from the Swedish porcelain Ostindia.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Indeed it is! 😊

[@gunillajohnson9727]

That's what I was thinking too! I love that one.

[@behall464]

Enjoyed your review and the environment you created for your video. I felt like we were having a chat together. And thank you for offering me tea. I agree with you about the 1995 version. It reflects the world Jane Austen knew and wrote about. All of the formalities and social rules. 2005's version broke lots of those rules. How many times were Elizabeth and Darcy alone together? To me the biggest difference between the two is Darcy's character. Colin Firth's aloof personality actually continues through the entire movie. He would remain formal and stiff, even as he married Elizabeth and loved her deeply. Matthew MacFayden's Darcy was a man with a deep warmth within (even the housekeeper commented on him as a child.) He covered it in public and explained his shyness. Elizabeth's personality and challenge opened Darcy. It drew him to step into his kind, yet strong nature. I could see this Darcy relax and live a more comfortable and happy life. Now Elizabeth ... was Elizabeth. You spoke of costuming in 2005's version. I found this video a while back addressing this very thing Mr. Darcy's Character Arc as Shown Through Costume Design | A Video Essay 6:52 kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3XKnYx8hcqSoas Thank you again for your thoughtful review. Have a wonderful Holiday Season!

[@ArnellaHobler]

You are correct, the '05 version lacks the social rules and etiquette that was such a huge part of the society it's supposed to portray. You're right in that the '95 version really reflects that and it makes it a lot more immersive. I've always seen Colin Firth's Darcy as a very warm character, albeit stiff in the beginning. It might just be a testament to Colin Firth as an actor, but I find that his expression changes throughout the series; it becomes more warm and loving, especially when looking at Elizabeth. Thank you for the video tip! :) And also, huge thanks for watching and commenting, I apologise for my late reply. Happy Holidays to you as well!

[@randomgoats]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree abt darcy, I think the opposite

[@randomgoats]

Sorry to be frank but there you go

[@hiranyv5901]

I loved your video! And I have read the book one million times haha but the 2005 is the best movie you can feel Darcy’s feelings towards Elizabeth which is incredibly 😻 however, I’m aware that the 95 movie is more close to the book either way both movies are enjoyable

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you so much Hirany! I do agree that both are enjoyable :)

[@teddypeony185]

Also the problem with Keira Knightly is she is the modern era view of how Regency women (which basically what Hollywood wants women to look) looked whereas the 1995 has more Regency shapes where so different.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Good point. And not just Regency women, she's also done plenty of roles depicting (upper class) 18th century women, who in real life would have been more curvy.

[@teddypeony185]

@@ArnellaHobler Exactly. Since they forget that in those days clothes was made to fit the people not the people fit the clothing. I am so tired of the modern era views in the past *cough* corsets.

[@CarolinaCharles777]

While I love the artistry of the cinematic version, I really do enjoy the miniseries more because of the added subtext, as well as a better understanding of Mr. Bennett. BTW, I'm also a big fan of the more recent Sense and Sensibility miniseries.

[@freezerlmao]

2005 is not touching the 1995 version. Just loved that version and have watched it over and over again.

[@carlybishop6160]

I love your commentary and wit with your cup of tea. I agree with your analysis. You have done very well to be so diplomatic. Although I can't stand the film. 'Pride and Prejudice' is my favourite book and they butchered it too much! It may have been pretty and artistic but if you are going to tell a Jane Austen story, please do it properly!

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you, Carly! I did actually focus on trying to be as diplomatic as possible. Although I do agree, too much of the story is cut in order to fit the feature film format. But at least we have the mini-series!

[@tde02021]

I love the atmosphere you bring to each video :). Also completely expected the conclusion.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I suppose I can be rather predictable sometimes 😅

[@petalchild]

Wow so happy to have discovered your channel! I'm excited to watch more of your videos! 😊

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you so much! 😊

[@maryhamric]

I agree with your takes on both these version!! I only disagree on Matthew McFayden...I loved him as Mr. Darcy. I liked his take on being socially awkward. I love him and Colin Firth equally. I especially loved Mr. Collins in the 2005 version while I feel in 1995 it was a bit. over. played. I liked the 2005 portrayal very much. I do disagree on women's regency styles. I actually love them. :)

[@julmcconnell]

Mr. Collins was young and big in the book.

[@jaydas8976]

I love both adaptations very much, but I will always prefer the 1995 version because it’s more accurate to the novel.

[@evelyne7071]

Agree…..The ‘95 version is the one I recently bought…..but did not even nibble at the ‘05 film. To me, some of the characters in the newer version were “too modern”…….maybe “too aggressive” in a feminist way. Maybe it was the lack of “propriety” which was off putting. The spirit of the novel was not adhered to, in my mind, in an effort to appeal to a more modern female esthetic. The strong female role was more or less pushed on me, rather than being more subtly developed. I didn’t feel connected or swept away by some of the characters, as I did in the earlier version.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I agree with your points. It definitely sacrifices historical accuracy to the benefit of aesthetics. Although I'm sure there's an audience for that, most Janeites seem to prefer the older version.

[@HJKelley47]

If you think the 90s are dated, than the Regency period must be like ancient Greece. (LOL) A good source for P&P (2005) costume details by Cat's Costumery on Ytube: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2KZaYB6j5iYbKM. Cat's Costumery is a costumer, and her insights are extremely helpful for the Edwardian to 1890s time period. Cat's Costumery is from the UK.

[@ArnellaHobler]

Oh no, the older the better 😅 the "dated" comment refers more to the production itself. Although I was really grasping at straws trying to find something to say about the 95 version that wasn't overwhelmingly positive. 😊 Thanks for the tip! Will definitely check out her videos!

[@aaronahana325]

as most diehard fans of the book seem to prefer the 1995 movie I prefer to point out what the movie did better than the series. the 2005 version was superior in its ability to capture the emotions of its character, easily drawing in the audience. The actors did spectacular in this regards. The set, the clothing the music all tied together to create an outstanding aesthetically crescendo of cinematography that the series is lacking. The series with is slow pace true to the book adaptation makes for a good visual representation of the book, also causes drag in many parts of the show. Those who have red the book will have much more appreciation for the 1995 version because of its faithfulness to Jane Austin's novel. The movie on the other hand does a much better job at drawing in a larger demographic. individuals who may not have red any of Jane Austin's books, seem to have a much better appreciation of the movie, as it is able to capture the major plots of the book by creating a film in a way to hold the audience from beginning to end.

[@ArnellaHobler]

You have a point there, that diehard fans of the novel often gravitate towards the miniseries simply because it's a more faithful adaptation. Diehard fans in general (no matter the fandom) tend to dislike it when film makers take creative liberties with their beloved stories, even if it is done with good intentions. But you are correct in that the 2005 version does a better job at drawing in a larger demographic, the cinematography alone makes it more palatable than the miniseries. It's just difficult for us diehard fans to accept this I think :)

[@miracles15]

Colin Firth plays very well as Mr. Darcy in the 1995 version. The 2005 version is crap in every way and the 1995 version was better in every way.

[@inesdias793]

Hello. I agree about the dresses in the regency era, I think that's why the 05 pride and prejudice make some adjust to make it more pleasant, films are that:adaptations. Opinions are just that but, I think that the 05 version is very beautiful and very well realized, not only for eyes and ears. Some long takes inclues more than one part of the book, the zooms make it more interesting... , when we read the book and had the opportunity to watch the movie almost at the same time, it's a mazing to see that important parts and little details of the story are all there (in just two hours!). About the actors, all of them represent so well the personality of each element of the book and, in particular, speaking of Darcy and Elizabeth, Matthew and Keira are great. They are very expressive and emocional, so intense and well represented that we feel it. I never love so much a story book and the adaptation to a movie.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I do agree that the '05 version is a delight to watch, and I always enjoy myself when I see it. It's so interesting to hear everyone's opinions! Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts :)

[@nobirahim1818]

Thank you 😊 Hello 😄 I'm new here and have been binge watching your videos. Thank you for your reminder. I'm here drinking tea in my "Waiting for my Mr. Tilney" mug. I'll resume

[@ArnellaHobler]

Hello to you too! So glad you've been enjoying my videos. :) That certainly sounds like an epic tea cup!

[@nobirahim1818]

It is 😄 It's Henry Tilney 😄🤷🏻‍♀️ Only problem is, it's not a decent sized mug 🤷🏻‍♀️ Should've bought another one and have 2 mugs of tea at the same time. I think we take it the same way. Black, no sugar?

[@ArnellaHobler]

@@nobirahim1818 Another solution might be to have a kettle and just refill at your leisure 😊 And yes, black and no sugar is correct 😅

[@outspoken5808]

Mrs. Bennett is barely tolerable in the 1995 version... (she's at least tolerable in the book/2005)

[@ArnellaHobler]

I really like her 😅 although I agree she's not for everyone!

[@jasminewat2662]

That's very interesting as personally I think she's great. Definitely a charactature, but wonderful at the same time

[@PaolaBarrientos]

I own the 2005 film and watch it often as for the 1995 series I've seen it once. Not going to lie Mr Darcy 2005 it's so damn hot 🔥🔥🔥.

[@ArnellaHobler]

He certainly is!!

[@johncourtright1632]

A lovely review and comparison. I am a fan of both the movie and mini-series. As you say, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think Rosamund Pike is the perfect Jane and Colin Firth is the perfect Mr Darcy. While I think Jennifer Ehle was wonderful as Lizzie in the mini-series, I personally find Keira Knightley more attractive and a fine actress, so I enjoyed her as well in the 2005 film adaptation. The cup of tea was a nice touch! ☕ I made myself a cup as well. Happy New Year! 🎉🎈 (2021 has to be an improvement over 2020!)

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you so much! It makes me so happy when people enjoy my videos. And thanks for sharing your thoughts! I do agree with them even though I might be a bit more pro-Jennifer than Keira.😄 Happy New Year to you as well! Indeed, let's hope it is!

[@jjjnettie]

You need to buy a Jane Austen themed cup from the Jane Austen shop. :)

[@ArnellaHobler]

They are certainly very pretty :)

[@jjjnettie]

@@ArnellaHobler The one I have, has the spines of all her books around it. :) I only use it when I rewatch the movies and tv series. :)

[@lordcutlerbeckett4175]

2005👍🥰

[@Penelope9441]

Great video!

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you! 😊

[@julieoliver7983]

You make a lot of valid points, but I have to say I prefer the 2005 one by a landslide. Austen herself describes the novel as “light, bright, and sparkling” which is exactly what the 2005 version feels like. I saw the 2005 one first, and I think it fully captures the essence of each of the characters so perfectly. On top of that, it is cinematic perfection and has the loveliest music score. The 1995 miniseries, due to its length, is more faithful to the book, as you have mentioned, which definitely gives it an esteemed amount of credit. I’ve heard so many good things about the 1995 P&P, so I had high expectations, but when I watched it, it felt dry and bland. The characters (save for Mrs.Bennet) seem to lack a certain amount of expression and emotion. You mentioned etiquette being very important, so maybe it was their sense of propriety that kept them so rigid and seemingly unfeeling, but I was disappointed by it. In my opinion, the 2005 adaption seems captures the spirit of the story more, and in fewer strokes, which I’d say is a fair accomplishment. Also, Kiera Knightly, to me, will always be the only correct Elizabeth Bennet, because she has the spirit and vivacity that Jennifer Ehle just plainly does not possess in this role. I hope I didn’t offend anyone by saying this, but I felt it had to be said!

[@ArnellaHobler]

It's absolutely ok to prefer the 2005 version! We all have the right to our own opinion. And you're quite right that the "rigidness" of the characters in the 1995 miniseries is part of what makes it accurate. They were expected to always be in control of their emotions. That's why Mrs Bennet was so often seen as improper. To me, it makes it more impactful when emotion does show, such as Lizzie's fierce reaction to Mr Darcy's first proposal or her immense shock when Lydia ran away. But I can see why some people might dislike this.

[@fiammatoscana]

Just an FYI, Pride & Prejudice is actually a Novel of Manners. You praise the 2005 version for its emotion, but overwrought emotions, unbridled lust, and overwhelming passions is NOT what the book is about. It's a social commentary observing the protocols, propriety, and social mores of Regency England. We're watching all the character maneuvering their lives within the strict rubric of society in a sharp and satirical way. We get to see the way characters rise above or fall below these social expectations. EVERYTHING is regulated during the era, even the way people smiled & laughed. I don't think many people have any idea how strict society was at the time. This is the reason why so many people regard the 1995 mini series as far superior. Their etiquette and self-conduct is so on point. You can tell that these protocols dominate every aspect of their lives. As a result, subtlety and nuance is the key to Austen, not melodrama. The 2005 film shows *NONE* of that...not even the bare minimum, apart from the occasional awkward bow/curtsy. Without that essential aspect, why bother? Even with the beautiful cinematography and OST, the 2005 version feels like a generic Mills & Boon. In regards to Keira Knightley, she is just not the Elizabeth Bennet that Jane Austen created. Yes, Lizzy is spirited and independent minded, but she is also GENTEEL. This is a proper regency woman...a gentleman's daughter. She actually has an amazing amount of social graces and a basic regard for propriety because she has common sense. If you've read the novel carefully, whilst Louisa and Caroline were criticizing Elizabeth's appearance after her 3 mile walk to Netherfield, they let slip a very subtle detail to us readers: Elizabeth let down the hems of her outer gown to hide her muddied petticoat. This implies that actually she does feel some sense of embarrassment for her dirtied appearance and took care to tidy herself up. She did not want to humiliate herself or her sister by association. I don't see ANY sense of propriety with Keira Knightley's portrayal. She's too vulgar. Elizabeth Bennet would never ever walk into someone's house with her hair down with that smug simpering expression on her face, nor would she walk out of her house without a bonnet. Nor would she cackle and giggle manically at a party. Nor would she openly flirt with Wickham openly in a ribbon shop where anyone can see her, etc. It actually makes her character unlikeable and inconsistent. She has zero regard for decorum, yet has the audacity to act appalled at her family's own lack of propriety when she's no better than them. It goes against the book, and frankly the choice to turn Lizzy into a tomboy makes no sense. She's not Jo March. Jennifer Ehle's portrayal is highly accurate to the book in the way she shows that an independent mind & a sharp wit can coexist with graciousness & beautiful manners. I love the way she's so quietly radiant...her spirit glimmers beneath her genteel surface (just as one can expect for a gentleman's daughter).

[@mannonty2799]

I like Darcy as Colin Firth and Lizzy as Keira Knightley

[@passiflora_girl]

I liked your criticisms 👍 I just think you should have more confidence

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you! Heh, I'll try 😅

[@l.fernanda9808]

I really love the film, but I never watch the 1995's version

[@ArnellaHobler]

I highly recommend it! Although you might have to keep an open mind, as it is after all very different from the film :)

[@MariaJArce-bl3jm]

I want pride and prejudice with Colin Firth and Keira knightley

[@ArnellaHobler]

That would be interesting for sure!

[@cindy9697]

I liked the movie better than the series, the series feel very dated, the cinematography is in my opinion its weakest point, I found the color scheme of the whole thing to be very dull and boring, like someone had put a filter on the whole thing and sucked all the color and vibrancy out of it, and the sets while I wouldn’t call them ugly they definitely weren’t that pleasing to look at, at least for me. I was a toddler when the series came out so I definitely didn’t watch it then and only did so in recent years well after already rewatching the movie a couple of times so maybe that’s why I find it off putting. The movie on the other, as you and almost everyone comment, is pure eye candy, the sets, houses and landscaping we see absolutely gorgeous, unlike the series the whole thing is exploding in color, one of the best cinematographies there has ever been so far in my opinion. If you pair up the beauty of the whole thing with the great acting and an overall decent adaptation of the book this easily wins for me.

[@ArnellaHobler]

That's exactly what I meant when I said the series could feel a bit dated, you just explained it a lot better than me :). They certainly could have done more in terms of creative cinematography, but I suppose as a product of the '90s it does follow the blueprint for costume dramas of that time. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts, Cindy!

[@ennediend2865]

Most boring video about P&P I've ever seen ! Please come back when you're interesting ! And when you've finished your cup' tea ! 😆

[@evelyne7071]

Can you do better, or are “we” being snarky and jealous just to be mean ?

[@74357175]

The screenwriter of the 2005 version explicitly reset the story in the 18th century, so they wouldn't have to wear the regency era costumes. So the dresses being out of date is intentional

[@annnee6818]

Caroline Bingley wears a sleeveless dress which don't belong in either time as far as I'm aware...

[@t.leecooper5301]

Lovely. Perfect. You are right - - I have watched the 2005 version the last three times. It is time for me to enjoy the 1995 version again. Have a nice day. :)

[@ArnellaHobler]

So glad you enjoyed it! Have fun re-watching the '95 version 😊

[@Alchemist1330]

I'm not sure if this is the case but you seem to imply that the 2005 film takes place during the 1810s and this caused some historical inaccuracies. The 2005 film is set in 1797 which is a change from the book, and a deliberate choice by the director (the book never gives a date for when it is set but is assumed to be 1813 which is the same time of publishing). Perhaps this changes a bit of your view of the film it still has historical inaccuracies but is not trying to be set during the regency period. Wonderful video.

[@tymanung6382]

According to some, at least of reasons was due to lead actresses preference for appearance of Victorian vs. Regency women s clothes---- they thought that they looked better in later period fashions.

[@ArnellaHobler]

I believe the director has said something like that in interviews as well. Regardless of my views on the film itself, I must agree that the Regency clothing isn't particularly flattering 😏

[@n_horstink]

I really enjoyed this video it's exactly how I feel I love your videos

[@ArnellaHobler]

Thank you Luna! Really happy you enjoyed it :)

[@ladykemma3]

Itv, not bbc