To me, this movie is perfection.

How sad is this?

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Pride and Prejudice (TV Mini-Series 1980) is a BBC production directed by Cyril Coke. It stars Elizabeth Garvie as Miss Elizabeth Bennet, Sabina Franklyn as Miss Jane Bennet, David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy, and Osmund Bullock as Mr. Bingley. Important supporting cast members are Moray Watson as Mr. Bennet, Priscilla Morgan as Mrs. Bennet, Irene Richard as Charlotte Lucas, who is married to the insufferable Mr. Collins (Malcolm Rennie). Peter Settelen portrays Mr. Wickham, a rogue in a gentleman's clothing, and Judy Parfitt plays the hateful Lady Catherine de Bourgh.Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a superb novel, that has been admired for over 200 years. Transferring it to the screen has been a challenge, because there are so many characters, who are key to the plot, and whom are related to each other in complex ways. The BBC mini-series is 265 minutes long. Even at that length, some characters are introduced briefly and then disappear from view. The 1995 BBC mini-series is 327 minutes long. It will be interesting to see whether the extra hour will allow more character development. Possibly the extra hour will just be used to show off the wonderful BBC production capabilities.If you're familiar with the novel, I think you'll be pleased by the actors and the interpretation of the characters as decided by director Coke. The only character with whom I found a problem was Mr. Bennet. Yes--he's a curmudgeon, but we see him as a rather harsh curmudgeon. I don't think Jane Austen thought of him in that way.If you're not familiar with the novel, you might find it helpful to read the novel, or at least read a synopsis of the novel, so you can keep the characters straight.We saw this movie on the small screen (in a VHS version!) and it worked well enough. Of course, it was made for TV, so it should work on a small screen. Still, if you ever have the opportunity to see it in a theater, I'd take that opportunity. It's a good, solid depiction of a great novel. This BBC Pride and Prejudice is definitely worth seeing.

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!

The BBC's 1980 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, like the BBC's 1995 adaptation, follows Jane Austen's novel more closely than the theatrical film adaptations do. But I think it's a tossup between the two miniseries on which one is closest to the book. It's true that the 1995 version shows more of Darcy than the book does. But the 1980 version shows less of Darcy than the book does.A common misconception of Darcy in the book (even Colin Firth had this misconception) is that Austen never gives us his perspective. Not true. It is true that the predominant point of view in the novel is Elizabeth's--but at strategic points in the narrative, we get glimpses of Darcy's conflicting feelings toward her. Rather than spoiling the surprises of his eventual actions toward her, these glimpses add suspense to the story and make his eventual actions more believable than they would be if Darcy were presented solely from an external point of view.The problem with adapting any novel to the screen is dramatizing parts of the narrative that aren't dramatized, such as the glimpses of Darcy's inner conflict. A film adaptation may either omit such parts or bring them out in added dialog, gestures, or scenes. Many viewers, and I'm one, prefer the way Darcy's inner conflict is brought out in the 1995 version. But some viewers may prefer to see Darcy only from an external point of view, and the 1980 version offers that limited perspective of him.I didn't like the 1980 version at all on first viewing. On second viewing, I've found it enjoyable where it includes Austen's scenes not included in the 1995 version. On the other hand, this version alters some of Austen's scenes in a way I find more jarring than purely invented scenes. Incidentally, it's particularly those altered scenes that the BBC got right in the 1995 version.All in all, I can't see the 1980 miniseries as the film version closest to the book, only as the first of two different BBC adaptations of the book. The 1980 adaptation is the slower, quieter version, and it may very well suit some viewers' tastes--or even a viewer's temporary mood--better than the 1995 version does. But for me, the 1995 version remains a great improvement.

Without doubt, this is the truest to the original novel by Jane Austen of all the versions made to date, and equally the quietest, the most stately and sedate. I won't worry about the story; anyone likely to watch this now will know already what it's about. It seems more and more likely to my sense that Elizabeth Garvie's Lizzie best represents the vision Jane Austen had of her brightest, most sparkling character: the sweetness is there, an interesting but not a perfect face (just as it should be); though perhaps just a little of the liveliness and archness that Austen wrote about is missing that you can find more easily in either Jennifer Ehle's excellent 90s TV Lizzie, or even Keira Knightley's more recent film outing. But in her bonnet and parasol, her curls wilfully asserting themselves, she's almost exactly what I imagined (apparently not everyone agrees).David Rintoul's Darcy is on first watching, excessively stiff and not particularly entertaining to watch. There is so little mobility in his face, and on occasion even in his voice, that only careful repeated viewings reveal nuances in his performance. I do find myself liking his portrayal more now: it's very subtle, to be sure, no diving into pools or striding open-shirted through dawn meadows, but once you're used to the subtlety, the great formality provides a backdrop against which Darcy's own wit and growing interest in Lizzie stand out in the gentlest relief, like the pattern on a damask cloth.So rich a text is bound to be full of favourite moments; and Weldon's script manages to include much of the wit – and some of the humour – of Austen's original, while also teasing out themes on marriage and happiness which suit her personal brief as a great feminist writer. I particularly love Lizzie's singing (I think it's dubbed but Garvie's acting of the singing is itself a pleasure to watch). The supporting cast is on the whole very good; I liked Uncle and Aunt Gardner and thought Mr Bingley and his sisters well cast. Mr Bennett was a little severe, and didn't seem to take the requisite pleasure in tormenting his wife.I didn't find Mr Wickham very charming; but then I never do. It seems to me they never make him handsome enough – how else could he charm her so much as to blind her to real goodness and excellence? I guess the makers of these programmes are always afraid he'll steal the limelight from Darcy – but since that's exactly his function in the book, take the risk! Perhaps this version has receded into time and been superseded by later attempts that speak more directly to women now. But I'll be keeping it on my DVD shelves for a long time to come, to remind myself how well a little stately simplicity can work.