The first thing that struck me was how rushed the opening scene seemed. There was so little introduction to the characters and situation that if the viewer were unfamiliar with the story, they might not understand the content or importance of the Bennet girls’ discussion. In the following scene, when Elizabeth and Jane first meet Darcy and Bingley, the dialogue is a bit difficult to follow because the dance music is so loud. The movie improves considerably after the first fifteen minutes, but those first scenes do not establish what they need to establish.

My biggest disappointment with this version concerned the portrayal of certain characters. Mr. Bennet is, with the exception of Elizabeth and Darcy themselves, my favorite character in the novel. He is an intelligent man with a quiet, wry, and ironic wit that is a pleasure to watch when done correctly. Sadly, Mr. Bennet is shoved aside for the majority of this movie, and some of his best lines are either cut or delivered in the background as Keira Knightley pouts her lips at the camera. I was also disappointed in Lady Catherine, who had far less screen time than in any other version, and, although she managed to be haughty enough, she was not nearly as commanding and forceful a presence as the story demands. Mr. Collins was not quite awful enough, and I have frankly forgotten what Lydia looked and acted like entirely—obviously, her character was not very memorable. Part of the delight of Austen’s Pride & Prejudice is that there are so many varied and colorful characters who are fully realized and fleshed out. Here, these characters are pale, sad versions of themselves and the movie is noticeably less sparkling for it. And did anyone else notice that Caroline Bingley showed up to the first ball looking more like a prostitute than a lady of wealth and fashion?

I must also say that this is my least favorite incarnation of Elizabeth. Keira Knightley is a bit too giggly at some points and never quite spirited enough—not even as plucky as her Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) character Elizabeth Swann. There are also several parts where Elizabeth is sitting or standing alone just staring into nothing for a long period of time. Obviously, she is deep in thought, but there is little or no insight into what she is actually thinking or feeling. I was more in doubt about her motivation and the gradual change in her character than I would have thought possible.

Other than my disappointment in the characters, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the movie’s most pivotal and romantic moments seemed contrived, while a number of the best exchanges between Elizabeth and Darcy were either shortened or cut entirely. When Darcy first proposes to Elizabeth, it is in the middle of a storm in a magnificent marble . . . what? A gigantic gazebo? The family mausoleum? Even if you ignore the utter randomness of this enormous structure that seems to be in the middle of the wilderness on Darcy’s property, the fact that it takes place in the rain is obviously for no other reason than to heighten the romantic atmosphere. Everyone looks sexier when they’re wet, and as Mrs. Bennet says in the 1940 version, “There’s nothing like wet weather for engagements. Your dear father and I got engaged in a thunderstorm.” Just think of John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara in The Quiet Man (1952). And, again, in what is probably intended to be one of the movie’s most romantic moments, following Darcy and Elizabeth’s marriage and removal to Pemberley, there’s a playful exchange between them about what Darcy should call her when he is in different moods. (Never ‘darling,’ and ‘Mrs. Darcy’ only when he is “incandescently happy.”) So he ends up repeating “Mrs. Darcy,” over and over while kissing her, and then the credits roll. The first time I watched the movie, instead of sniffling into tears the way I usually do at the end of a romantic show, I rolled my eyes and thought, Oh brother! A few repetitions might have been all right, but this dialogue repeats to the point of artificiality.

On the other hand, Matthew Macfadyen was excellent as Darcy, although not quite what I expected either. Perhaps too likable early on, not aloof enough. However, the change in his character is done perfectly—you can actually watch him fall in love with Elizabeth and become a more open and sociable man. Also, Mrs. Bennet was portrayed with all the exaggerated drama and volume that her character deserves. I must also point out that certain parts were handled with wonderful realism and detail. Charlotte’s reasons for marrying Mr. Collins are explained not only completely, but with more poignancy than in the other versions. In watching the 1940 and the A&E versions, I never quite understood how Charlotte could be so stupid to marry a man who would only aggravate and annoy her, even knowing that he would not make her happy. But here, her character explains her choice so well that not only do you understand it, you empathize with her deeply. The scene where Mr. Bennet gives his permission for Elizabeth to marry Darcy is also very well done. In no other version did I feel the father-daughter bond between them more strongly than I did in that scene. (Sadly, their relationship is downplayed in the rest of the movie) Three cheers for Donald Sutherland! The movie also improved on the second viewing, even the “Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy, Mrs. Darcy,” part at the end. I think that if you come to this version with few expectations, it is a much better experience overall.

The other versions of Pride & Prejudice have their good and bad points as well. The A&E miniseries, while more scrupulously accurate than the Keira Knightley version, is far too long. The first half drags terribly in large part due to the fact that every single dance of every single party is filmed in its tedious entirety, instead of just capturing the characters interacting during the party. The A&E Mr. Darcy is more sullen than haughty, glaring and scowling at anything that moves—the absolute worst Darcy of the bunch. This popular version, however, provides the very best Lydia and Mr. Collins and a close second for Elizabeth and Mr. Bennet. If you can make it past the endless dancing, this version is very well done and very effective as a romance and a drama.

The 1940 Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier movie deviates from the novel more than any other, but it remains my undisputed favorite. Usually I am the kind of person that freaks out over any departure from the original plot—heck, I usually consider it unforgivable. But I believe that this version is truest to the spirit of the novel, if not the truest to the plot. Garson is the perfect Elizabeth, strong and intelligent and captivating, fiery enough to stand up to the wealthy, but well-bred enough to do so cleverly and wittily. And of course, Olivier is fantastic as both the cold, aloof man Darcy initially is, and the ardent, struggling lover he becomes. This is my absolute favorite incarnation of Lady Catherine and Mr. Bennet (all his lines are intact, all the wit and irony of his character shines undiminished!), the most deliciously melodramatic Mrs. Bennet, and Lydia and Mr. Collins are wonderful in their own way, if not quite as fleshed out as in the miniseries. The intentional humor and satire of Austen’s novel comes out more in this version than the others as well. Where the dialogue deviates from the book (not often), it actually improves it, and the entire cast is brilliant. Definitely make time for this one.