Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

diverdiva This is definitely the quintessential version of P & P! The actors were all perfectly cast and I agree with previous reviewers that Elizabeth Garvie captured the spirit of Lizzie to a 'T' (as did David Rintoul with Darcy). Yes, it's production values are a bit primitive (1979 after all!), but you forget the settings because the script and performances are all so absorbing. True to Jane Austen and completely enjoyable. Quick quibble with some other reviewers, who are obviously Austen fans, but not very 'up' on British history ... P & P took place in Georgian England (George III - late 1700s to early 1800s), not Victorian England (1837-1901). Ms Austen was long dead by the time Victoria ascended the throne!

Qanqor I just don't know what planet some of these reviewers are from. I am agog that anyone can think this version vastly superior to the 1995 A&E version, or truer to the book or truer to the characters. Did we watch the same production? This one took all *sorts* of liberties with the book! Generally minor, pointless, and usually for the worse. One wise reviewer was dead-on in pointing out the wrongness of the change of Lizzy running to Darcy on getting the news about Lydia, instead of him walking in on her. But there are many lesser examples. How about the change of both scene and person saying the line about Mary having delighted everyone long enough? What did THAT achieve? At least when the A&E version added something, you can see why they did it, and I generally agreed with most (not all) of it and saw it as being in the spirit, if not the letter, of the original.Look, this is a very good version of P&P. I would rate it as the 2nd-best I've seen. The A&E is unquestionably the best, but this is much better than the 1940 (now *that* one took liberties!) and light-years ahead of the 2005 (don't get me started!). I didn't mind that the production values weren't up to the lush 1995, I'm sure they were very good for their time and place. Lizzy was pretty good. I thought Mrs. Bennett was excellent. Mr. Collins was too transparently avaricious in his first scene but after that I thought he was very good. Lydia and Mary were quite good (although Mary seemed a bit too happy and not stern enough; my take on her was always that she retreated into her books because she found so little happiness in social life, that it was more a defense than a joy, but here she seems to take real joy in it). I liked the Gardiners, they came off as appropriately steady and sensible. And, of course, I very much like that, as a miniseries, they take the trouble to really go through the whole plot and not skimp on anything.But there are, to be sure, flaws. I thought the father was poor. He has no mirth. He should have a twinkle in his eye and clearly find amusement as he makes his sarcastic comments about peoples' follies; as someone else here pointed out, he just comes off as grumpy. It's supposed to be a real change in him when he's all serious and unhappy about the Lydia affair, but we don't really see the change here because he's been so serious throughout the whole story. I also didn't really like Jane or Kitty. Kitty just somehow seems too old. And Jane just didn't convince me. About anything. That she was this rather innocent, almost naive person in the way she was always ready to think the best of *everyone*. That she really did love Bingley. Even that she was seriously ill when she was supposed to be seriously ill. It is very important that she really is seriously ill, not just has a little sniffle (if she just has a little sniffle, which is all it really comes across as here, then the mother is NOT foolish for devising the go-in-the-rain plan, and the father IS foolish for mocking his wife on that count. Which breaks both characters)But perhaps the biggest disappointment to me was Darcy. I really tried very hard to like him. But I just couldn't. He isn't *likeable*. Ever. More than in any other version, more than in the book, it just seems absolutely *impossible* to believe the servant when she goes on about what a great guy Darcy is. The point of the story is supposed to be that it is largely Elizabeth's prejudice that sees him in such a bad light, but as a viewer who actually gets to see him objectively, I too find him quite unpleasant. He never really *does* warm up, even after the failed-proposal scene. So, in the end, I don't find myself at all pulling for him and Elizabeth to get together. There's no spark, no chemistry, no feeling that they really do belong together in the end. And anyone who didn't find *that* in the book read the wrong book.(and don't think it's because I find Colin Firth sexy. As a heterosexual male, I promise you, I do not find Colin Firth sexy)The result is, that for four episodes, I was quite engrossed and entertained by this version, but ultimately the final episode left me flat. Because it is here that the ultimate get-together of Darcy and Elizabeth fails to score.

MRavenwood Not as great as the 1995 masterpiece, (starring Colin Firth as in one of his many Darcy roles to come!)but a faithful and engaging version of Jane Austin's tale of female character, primogeniture, and money as a motivator. The story focuses on five unmarried girls, in particular the second-eldest, in turn-of-the-19th century England. Elizabeth Garvie portrays this spirited but sensible girl in contrast to her sisters who are Sweet but Boring (Jane), Bookish and Plain (Mary), Pretty yet Scheming (Lydia), Lovely but Whinging (Kitty). Elizabeth is her judicious father's favorite. It is eventually clear that her mother, favors the eldest (Jane) on a societal level, but seems to identify most with and take the part of the pretty and scheming Lydia. The tale surrounds the mother's attempts to get the respectable and penniless girls married off as soon as possible. Her mother's (priscilla Morgan as Mrs. Bennet)non-stop nattering about her nerves is deliciously keyed to drive any sane man to drink and any respectable girl to roll her eyes in utter mortification. Natalie Ogle as Lydia captures the conceit and naive enthusiasm of a 15-year-old girl who is in over her head and still charging into the deeper water. Malcome Rennie as the daft Mr. Collins (cousin to the five girls and the male heir to the entire family estate upon their father's death) is unparalleled at guilelessly delivering the Left Handed Compliment (''Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us, which becomes herself and daughter."). His imperious patroness, Lady Catherine de Burgh, is forcefully played by Judy Parfitt. The brooding Darcy character (David Rintoul) is a difficult role to convey due to the pervasive call for stiff formality and a concealment of feelings. However, there should be a forcefulness to the man as he is eventually revealed to be powerful and respected. It is difficult to ascertain whether this actor was led astray by the director's calls for a flat brooding portrayal, or the actor was not able to evince the minuscule nuances that must be dragged out of this role. The joy of this story, when well told is that it is romantic and funny, but also serves as a reminder of how restricted both men and women were to their societal roles by the nature of property and finances at the time. It demonstrates how the manner in which money moves in a society influences greatly how that society must behave. By example, since reputation is an important factor in this highly networked community, a girl with no dowry and a tainted reputation is devastating to both herself AND the her entire family, since there is no anonymity in the vastly cooperative English countryside. Overall, an unglossy, but satisfying and faithful production of an enjoyable classic.

arrietty01 I'm so glad others think as I do that this is an excellent version. I just don't understand why it is never mentioned in any reviews when reviewing new version of P&P. Even in IMDb, there is hardly any extra information. And is it true that this mini series is not available on DVD? I saw it on tape and it was such a good series and so true to book. I can see why the Colin Firth one is so popular; it was more sensual and as someone commented, Firth was more like a smoldering Heathcliff. I think that book influenced the movie because didn't you think the scene with Elizabeth and Darcy coming out of mist was more of Heathcliff and Cathy type scene? I suppose that's the next book that will be made into a movie yet again.I've just read a review of all the popularity of Austen books, movies and look-alikes and think it's quite good that they have become popular but am sad that no one will make movies like the above version because it is too purist. Everything for the new generation has to be 'sexy' and snazzy and cool. Oh well, even if one young person is motivated or interested enough to read a Jane Austen book after seeing one of the movies, then I'll be happy.