Sorry to interrupt the Children of Men discussion, but I have to vent for just a second, and then I'll get out of the way. I just saw, finally, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, and...yeesh. What a fucking mess. What a waste of an almost uniformly tremendous cast on a load of clunky, clanking dialogue (for almost every single modernized rewritten line, there already existed a line by Austen that could have said the same thing more concisely and sharply; there wasn't one single rewritten line that sped things up, clarified things, or served any plot or character purpose whatsoever), ugly clothing, pointless melodrama (so many changes to Austen's story, again to no purpose), and incredibly irritating anachronisms (Bingley visiting Jane's sickroom? Darcy and Lizzie meeting on the windswept heath in their nightclothes? The fuck?!?).

One sad example among many: the utterly shitty decision to make Charlotte Lucas being penniless and desperate to marry to save herself from the poorhouse instead of wealthy, bored and unhappy, and desperate to avoid spinsterhood in her kindly but dull parents' house. Sure, the stakes are heightened, but since the movie spends no time on Charlotte's character or circumstances before the engagement, the heightened stakes carry no emotional weight, and the complex sadness of her original compromise -- giving her vibrant, intelligent self to a repellant dullard like Collins because it's the only hope she has, plain as she is and adequate but unspectacular as her fortune is, of ever being anything but someone's spinster daughter -- is entirely lost. And the "I am not romantic, Lizzie. You know I never was" speech wouldn't have taken up any more time than that stupid, anachronistic "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzie!" screech. Artificially, completely ineffectively heightened stakes that illuminate nothing, streamline nothing, bung up the works.

And, bleah, all the other pointless changes and omissions. Wickham and Georgiana, Wickham and Lydia, the bitchy Bingley spinster, Lizzie and Jane's deep sisterly friendship.

And what the fuck happened to the funny? You can't make it a straight romance; it's a romantic comedy. Take out the funny and you're not left with love and drama, you're left with nothing. The 1995 BBC version and even the much earlier, also crazy anachronistic Olivier version were about eighty jillion times more romantic than this "I love you! I love him! Do you really love him, do you! Mrs. Darcy!" horseshit. All those poor actors, doing the best they can without being allowed to be funny; it was just brutally unfair to demand such a thing of them.

Bah.

Okay, I'm done. A year late. Carry on with the much more interesting discussion of movies that are actually being all movie-like right now.

::goes away to take Pride and Prejudice out of NetFlix queue::

What a waste of an almost uniformly tremendous cast on a load of clunky, clanking dialogue (for almost every single modernized rewritten line, there already existed a line by Austen that could have said the same thing more concisely and sharply; there wasn't one single rewritten line that sped things up, clarified things, or served any plot or character purpose whatsoever)

This was what pissed me off the most about that version -- why even BOTHER making a Jane Austen novel into a movie if you're not going to use her words? (Excepting something like Clueless, natch.) Feh feh fehity feh.

I'm with Jessica. I felt with the characters all along--I was THERE, so I didn't need discussion. I also disagree thjat nothing happened. the big jpurney was interior--Theo changed from someone who was leading a comfortable, self-centered and numb existance to a person who was willing to sacrifice himself for a tenuous hope for a future for mankind.

The funny thing is, all the reviews of P&P I saw were positive. Although I never trusted them, and never saw it.

Matthew MacFadyen was pretty.

JZ-- I didn't hate it. It's not my OTP&P (the Firth/Ehle) one, nor even my old friend the Olivier/Garson one, but it did have some pleasures. I thought it gave us a great Mrs. Bennet. I finally understood why Mr. Bennet married her and she wasn't just a broad comedic supporting character.

Oh, wanted to add that we saw Little Children last night. Wonderful work from the cast. Kate Winslet has a pitch-perftect American accent and gives a luminous and intelligent performance. Jennifer Connolly is not only good, she is so freaking BEAUTIFUL in this that it takes your breath away. patrick Wilson, who is mostly a stage actor. was excellent, and looked nice naked. I was worried it was going to be another overwrought "adultery in suburbia" indie film, but it was more inventive and subtle than I expected. There are a few too many coincidences in the story, and some supporting characters who are a little too much, but that doesn't detract from a really powerful film.

I sort of liked the blowsy portrayal of the Bennett household but other than that, I thought it was complete shite. I HATE the rewrites. I was especially pissed in the director's commentary about how he thought Mr. & Mrs. Bennett were truly in love and showed them affectionate at the end. They were the prime example for making a match in which shallow affection died a quick death in the face of extreme silliness and stupidity. There were very specific passages in the book about how Mr. Bennett subjected his wife to the ridicule of her children and didn't respect her and how he was, essentially, no longer in love with her.

JZ, I just reread recently and I thought Charlotte DID marry for financial security. Yes, her father was a gentleman (and a knight) but she had brothers and they couldn't settle any kind of fortune on her. She thought her marriage very prudent in saving her from penury or at least dependence on her brothers as a spinster.

Sorry, Children of Men again. I think, if you invest in the characters, depends on how you experience the journey in the film. After the first third of the film, I was Theo. Which sounds pretty wank, but hey.

Robin - wanted to see that film. Now I will.