Ok para que vean que no soy la unica loca en estas cosas le voy a poner las opiniones de algunos criticos y personas que ya vieron la pelicula, para que uds hagan su propia critica y opinion y ya deciden si la quieren ver o no.... ( No lo hagan por favor!!!! ) Como veran unos no saben si llorar, reir o que ...la verdad no sabes ni como reaccionar ...las criticas son de la pagina de megacriticos del cine ...
chris D gave it a2:
This movie was a huge disappointment for me. It pales in comparison to the BBC version. You just can't replace Colin Firth
Will H. gave it a5:
I saw this in Switzerland two weeks ago, and it was weak. Keria Knightley was really miscast in this role, and to boot, she overacts it. Her toothy grin was annoying. There was no passion, no subtle undercurrent of feeling between her and Darcy. Watch the TV BBC version instead. It's a far better rendition.
Mary P. gave it a3:
I laughed out loud when I don't think I was supposed to...more than once. They tried to hard but it just didn't get there. To tell you why would take an hour.
Marc T. gave it a0:
I'm curious why the New Yorker review is not listed here. Could it be because it isn't clear whether Anthony Lane liked or disliked the film? He finishes his review by saying something to the effect that 'any resemblence to the Jane Austen novel is purely coincidental'. I'm not sure what that means, frankly. [Ed.: We only include full-length reviews from The New Yorker, precisely because the short blurbs are often very difficult to judge.
MIke R. gave it a1:
This movie is a man's worst nightmare. Run for your lives.
Christine L. gave it a4:
I have no idea how people can praise Kiera Knightley in this performance - unfortunately she was the glarring flaw in an otherwise well-cast film. Several times in the movie, the director leaves us staring at her face, which is supposed to be showing us some kind of depth or emotion, but actually just has a blank, weird smirk that someone must have told her looks "enigmatic" or something. She was simply awful, giving us no sense of any personality at all, much less that of Lizzie Bennet. And why does she always talk like she has a mouthful of marbles? The director also seemed to confuse Jane Auten with one of the Bronte sisters - no Austen heroine stands on a cliff in the mist or stares for hours at herself in a mirror. The climax of Darcy walking out of the mist (Heathcliff!) while Lizzie stands in her underwear and an overcoat is just ridiculous. If you've read the novel at all, you're aware this is all blatantly out of character with the tone of the book and the characters Austen creates. A few interesting scenes and the refreshing "non-coiffed" look to the actors saved this from getting an even lower score.
[Anonymous] gave it a1:
No one go see Pride & Prejudice. It is the most wretched, boring, miserable movie I have seen all year. Keira Knightley does not look or act the part (note how she chooses to act with her chin every time she gets emphatic) and I've sold lumber more charismatic and interesting than the man who plays Mr. Darcy. There are so many clichéd shots (if I ever have to see someone stare at a candle in the foreground for an entire shot while having a conversation, and then blow it out for the scene change, or a door slamming shut with a dull, resounding crash directly into the camera, I may scream.) Darcy is boring; Collins is boring; Bingley looks like a woman; Mrs. Bennett is not funny as she is in the BBC version, she is merely irritating. And oh the giggling. The horrid, horrid giggling. I think a good 15 minutes of this movie is comprised of giggling. Another 15 goes to "moving" shots of the beautiful landscape, while Lizzie stares pensively into the distance. I offer this as an especial warning to anyone who has not read the novel, who would be doing themselves a horrible disservice by seeing the movie before reading the book and watching the delightful Colin Firth BBC version - which is in every imaginable way a superior film to this sack of sugary rubbish. Thank you. It felt good to get that out of my system. Please take my advice. For your sakes.
JD Rally gave it a1:
I have been so excited to see this movie and I was utterly appalled by it. Lizzy is played like schoolyard brat who, judging by wardrobe and stature, looks as though she just escaped from a concentration camp. Darcy has the acting skills of a box of hair. Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennett was completely without wit and he sounded, and looked, rather like a wounded hound dog throughout. All of the supporting characters where totally bizarre. And the giggling... at one point I quite wondered if Knightly's choice was to play Lizzy as though she suffered from Tourets Syndrome. If you haven't, see the BBC version as soon as possible.
DWilly gave it a3:
Oh, my God, this is an overrated movie. It's really pretty awful. Like those tone deaf singers on Star Search, it just flails about for effect; and, judging from the critical numbers, this is successful with most critics who likewise are out of touch with their humanity; and, for them, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck they can't tell it feels like plastic. It's especially galling in that it comes from that new, British snobbery that thinks it's real earthy, but actually isolates the hip from the hopelessly unhip, as they move among ciphers (i.e. servants) who don't count as people at all. This movie about class has no class.
Christina J. gave it a2:
A complete disappointment for any Jane Austen fan, or anyone looking for a good period story or romance. I am baffled by the positive reviews that Kiera Knightley received from some critics. She is the worst part of the film (which is saying something, as it is all horrifying). She looks like an emaciated runway model, not like Austen's Lizzie Bennett, who is supposed to be a bold, bookish tomboy. Knightley could not carry any picture, much less one as clever and nuanced as this story should be. There are many shots in the film that seem to be there only to show the beauty of her face. Okay, the first time you think, "Wow, she really has a beautiful face." But by the 10th time it seems like a never-ending Revlon mascara advertisement--and is about as exciting. For the last hour, the film felt like it was never going to be over. And the last 20 minutes were positively excruciating. We actually laughed out loud in parts. Oh, and Darcy? Who is this actor, and why, why did they cast him in this role? I have never seen an actor in an Austen adaptation with so little charisma. Give me Jeremy Northam in Emma or Colin Firth in the far superior BBC adaptation of P&P. In fact, I swear, the first thing I did when I got home was put in the BBC version in an attempt to erase this one from my mind. I don't think I can ever watch another film with Knightley in more than a supporting role--that toothy grin and that giggle she used to replace any real emotion have prejudiced me against her forever!
Posts
0 escritores:
Post a Comment