referencegirl Both big concepts - an update to Jane Austen's original story and Mormon culture - are so watered down that the movie won't offend anyone but is rarely interesting. The Pink Bible and attempt to update feminism were nice touches but neither quite landed. The whole movie feels awkward and a bit disingenuous. Two positives: Orlando Seale as Mr. Darcy is almost as hot as Colin Firth and there are some genuinely talented actors doing solid work.

istara I really wanted to like this movie. Modern day adaptations and twists on Austen can be wonderful, many on here have mentioned Clueless, another great one is the Lost in Austen miniseries.The problem here is not so much the Mormon setting, but the limitations and constraints that Mormon culture appears to put on the writers in terms of plot. I gleaned enough of the cultural setting from other reviewers on here for that to more or less make sense (those reviewers are correct in that it's not very well explained/explained at all).So what's good? It's nice, bright and colourful. Casting the five sisters as various college friends was an interesting idea. The main actress playing Elizabeth is very watchable. The actor playing Darcy is competent (even if he often looks uncannily like Adrian Lukas, who plays Wickham in the definitive BBC adaptation). Chemistry is more or less there. The quotes from Austen, had they been less hideously pinkly presented, were nearly an interesting touch. The problem is tone. Austen's work is sharp and exacting, biting, witty and harsh. This was bland. It lacked edge. One got the sense that there was a culturally religious nicely-nicely thing going on here, and it just doesn't work with the background material.There were slapstick moments that really jarred: particularly in "imagination" sequences - ie they didn't really happen. (Is slapstick perhaps a more tolerable form of humour to Mormons than satire or saucier wit?) Regardless, the movie should have had the guts to follow through with these moments if it wanted that tone, instead of: "no, not really! It didn't really happen, it was just in her mind!" every time. In doing so it weakened the heroine and made her look passive and victimy.It's hard to fit a novel like Pride & Prejudice into a feature film length, as there are so many characters, and that weakness showed here. The writers would have been better to reduce the amount of female characters (Mary's and Charlotte's roles were mixed up anyway) and they did at least axe one of the Bingley sisters. But ultimately Kitty and Lydia felt very extraneous. From memory, Clueless was slimmed down in terms of supporting cast compared to Emma.All in all it's a pleasant, visually colourful movie to watch. But it lacks edge, guts and is at times painfully naive. Which, given its religious subtext, is perhaps unsurprising.

jinuu If you watch this expecting an updated classic a la Bridget Jones or Clueless, you'll be very disappointed. But this version has its own campy charm. I watched this the same night as I watched the recent Keira Knightley adaptation. The Knightley version was modernized without seeming to know it; the character interactions and language struck me as too contemporary among the lavish sets and costumes. This version of Pride and Prejudice never tries to pass itself off as great art or writing, and in fact, it never takes itself very seriously at all. That made it a lot more enjoyable for me to watch. So if you don't go in expecting greatness, you might be able to enjoy it for what it is.

jami-9 My roommates and I just love this movie! Even thought the story doesn't follow the book exactly, you get the same feel as in the book.In this story, all the sisters in the book are roommates in the movie, Kitty and Lydia being the only sisters, however, each character retains the same personalities as in the book. Kitty and Lydia are vain and revolve around boys, Mary is completely awkward but tries REALLY hard, Jane is extremely nice, and Elizabeth is stubborn and independent.Many of the events in the book are put into a modern setting, so it's fairly faithful. Everyone meets at a party thrown by Charles (where he dances the majority of the night with Jane), Wickham elopes with Darcy's sister (and tries to with Lydia), Charles leaves, Collins proposes, etc., etc.True, my roomies and I are Mormon, and there are plenty of inside jokes for us Mormons, but its really just a cute, simple movie that's just lots of fun. In one of the comments, someone says that it teaches girls that independence is a bad thing. I don't really get that out of the movie. Elizabeth goes on with her life, even after making up with Darcy at the end of the movie. In the book, Elizabeth changes her views of not needing men, and thinking all men are pigs, just as the Elizabeth in this movie does. It's really just a fun movie, I would recommend it for anyone.