Redundant and unnecessary.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

I like all the movies that have been made for Jane Austin's "Pride and Prejudice." This one is my favorite. The humor that Greer Garson brings to it is delightful and the chemistry between her and Laurence Olivier is very evident and captivating. The mother and father roles "Mr. and Mrs. Bennet" played by Mary Boland and Edmund Gwenn are precious and very funny. Of course, the way the movie explores the depth and sometimes the shallowness of relationships and life are memorable and full of Truth. Love it!!!!

A sublime black and white film. A film about a beautiful time in which kindness and nobility were mandatory. Purity and arranged marriages and also less hurried were part of the painting that period of time. This movie is great for lovers of classic films. I do not want to reveal the action yet but I can say that it is a movie with a happy ending. I'm excited fashion of the time , attention and habits that everyone must follow. And yet there is something that makes ordinance established to give everything up, love. Is a perfect film for a relaxing evening in the family. I encourage you to watch and I wish you " Enjoy ". Worth seeing.

A few joke spoilers in here! Not much of the plot given away… I have read several reviews here that scandalize this movie for the great liberties taken with the source material. It's all true, of course. But I think what some people fail to appreciate is that the approach to "literary adaptations" and movies in general was very different in 1940. It was a very distressing time. There was a war going on, people were poor and frightened and wanted unchallenging entertainment, romance and comedy. Apart from the war, historical accuracy and closeness to the original were generally less important back then than they are now. So I don't think you can judge the movie by todays' standards. If you do, it's your own fault for missing the point. If you don't but still don't like it, that's another matter. Austen purists would probably not enjoy it much.Having said that, I do not think that the many departures from the original really injure Austens intentions that often (I've read the book many times, loved it and understood it, just to make that plain). Many of my favourite lines from the novel are in the script, produced more or less verbatim but given a more comical twist… like Lizzy aping Darcy's pompous comment "I'm in no mood to give consequence to the lower classes at play"… hilarious! You can tell that Aldous Huxley was involved in writing the screenplay. It is – and I hate to say this, because I love Austen – far funnier than the book. Austens book doesn't lack humour, but it is subtle and intelligent. There is often a serious note to the humour. When Lizzy teases Darcy in the book, he completely fails to respond and she takes this as proof of his arrogance. Not so here, the humour is very blatant.Where the screenplay DOES change Austens intentions, I think you have to blame the shortness of the movie (no movie could have done the book justice in that time, it's just a blank impossibility) and the time at which it was made. Darcy is too nice. Faaar too nice. But Lawrence Olivier is at his most charming (besides being one of the most gorgeous-looking men ever to walk the earth, if you ignore the two pounds of brilliantine in his hair). Greer Garsons Lizzy is intelligent, cheeky, full of humour and pricelessly amusing. Mrs Bennet is fantastically funny and Lady Catherine made me howl with laughter. "Give the chickens hot food, Mrs Collins. If they still don't lay, it means they are incorrigible. They must be killed and boiled, killed and boiled!" Of course the costumes are completely wrong, too. I think people just preferred Victorian-derived big fluffy affairs to regency costume back then, or MGM just had some lying around from some other movie and were too cheap to make new ones. I'm not sure. I don't much care for changes like that, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. Also, Lady Catherine's role as involuntary matchmaker is changed. Here she does it deliberately, which is completely wrong. But on the whole, I found it believable enough. The love story between Jane and Bingley is very very cute (perhaps a bit too cute, some reviewer used the expression "sugar coating" and I find it applies very well… however I don't agree with "little bite") In short: This movie falls short as a literary adaptation. If you judge it as one, it's one of the least faithful of all (together with the 2005 version which cannot boast any of the excuses I made for this movie earlier).As a movie, however, it's a masterpiece.If you're not a purist or haven't read the book, don't deprive yourself of the pleasure of enjoying this gem of a comedy.If you are an Austen purist (and there' s nothing wrong with that) it will doubtlessly annoy you… so steer clear.

For me, most all films made during the golden age of Hollywood are excellent and compare more than favourably with modern films, but this version of Pride and Prejudice stands out as my favourite version of them all.Let me say this. I love every film version of Jane Austen's seminal work, Pride and Prejudice. It's true that every version has its faults, but it is also true that every version has it's triumphs as well.The 1980 film series is perhaps most accurate. The costumes and demeanor seem most accurate pertaining to late Georgian/Regency England.The 1995 miniseries is by far the most complete, containing just about every facet of the book. Also, Jennifer Ehle is most likely the finest Elizabeth. That distinction might have gone to Greer Garson had she worn a few kilos less Max Factor.The 2005 Keira Knightly version is the most modern and in some ways the most romantic.But for me, despite some glaring changes/omissions, the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier is still the best. Ms Garson, despite appearing too old for the part, is absolutely pitch perfect and well captures Elizabeth's humorous nature. In fact, humor is likely this versions strength. Because Pride and Prejudice above all is a humorous look at Regency England and the lifestyle of the middle classes in England at that time, most particularly the Bennet household.Laurence Oliver, the greatest stage actor of the last century or two, and one of the greatest actors who ever lived, is wonderful as Mr. Darcy, if perhaps a tad too arch at times. Portraying a Regency snob is fraught with little traps and unfortunately, Lord Oliver does trip a few times and comes across as a bit prissy. But he is not alone, most other actors attempting Mr. Darcy end up looking a bit fey from time to time as well.David Rintoul, who, in the 1980 version, gives probably the most accurate depiction of Mr. Darcy of them all, is positively cringeworthy from time to time he is almost lady-boy.The only two actors who never seem effeminate in any way in the role of Mr. Darcy, Colin Firth and Matthew MacFadyen, both seem wooden at times, although I love them both in the role. In fact, although I find Matthew the sexiest Mr. Darcy and David Rintoul the most accurate, overall it is probably a tie between Laurence Olivier and Colin Firth with Colin Firth leading by a nose. He has his faults, but the 1995 production is simply too good, and his Mr. Darcy too perfect to be ignored.Say what you will about the superior attention to detail found in today's versions of P&P, the 1940 version positively rocks with the absolute best ensemble work found in any version.Mary Boland as Mrs Bennet captures her addle brained nature and slavish devotion to the marriage of her daughters in fine style and with a silliness not found in any other film version.Edna May Oliver is the quintessential Lady Catherine De Bourgh. I really do not care that the part was slightly rewritten to make her less hateful. The most telling feature of Mrs. De Bourgh's character should be that she is silly, and Ms Oliver captures that with aplomb. Further, Lady Catherine was first and foremost a powerhouse of a woman and that describes Edna May Oliver to a tee.Frieda Inescort is the perfect Caroline Bingley, absolutely chock full of upper crust venom. Caroline is one of the few characters in the book who is not at all silly. She is and should be always the ice goddess, who is unfortunately, a fool who does not realize it. There has never been another Caroline Bingley to compare with Ms. Inescort.Melville Cooper as the silliest character of them all, and perhaps the silliest character ever written, Mr. Collins, is hilarious.Edmund Gwenn is wonderful as Father Bennet if not really English sounding at all.Also of note are Maureen O'Sullivan as the beautiful Jane Bennet, and several others The aforementioned actors were all stage trained and knew how to master a character. This skill truly makes of the ensemble cast in this version a thing of beauty. Oh well, they all are really.There were some of the cast in the 1940 version who were a bit too vanilla for my taste, such as Bruce Lester as Mr. Bingley, and May Beatty as Mrs. Philips.This version of course takes liberties with the book, especially in substituting late Victorian fashion for Regency, and a few other things, but on the whole, I find it amazingly well written and well acted, and absolutely perfectly delineating the point of the novel.