Worst Austen adaptations

This is part one of two. Obviously, the second will be about best adaptations. There are plenty of lists floating on the internet that have been devoted to give you the best Austen adaptations. Most of these don't exclude films that were only inspired by Austen's stories. And a lot of these lists, simply put, suck. The main problem seems to be that people assume that Jane Austen is chick lit and thus include on their lists insipid fluff pieces instead of actual adaptations of her work. Since we're puritanical about Austen, we stick to the period. Don't worry though, we will definitely write about productions "inspired" by Austen. This list isn't only about butchering Austen's work, it's that these versions don't even qualify as good or entertaining media for us.  

1. Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Of course we abhor this adaptation the most. We really don't feel the need to explain further, since we've already done a pretty detailed account of this abomination. We also considered including BBC's horrific 80's series of Pride & Prejudice, but while it's bad, it's not infuriating enough to land on this list.

 

2. Sense & Sensibility (1981)
 In the 80's BBC's period drama art was still in its infancy, so if you really wanted to see a quality production of a period drama, you watched Merchant & Ivory. This would just be one of those bad theatrical and emotionless 80's productions by BBC that you could simply forget having seen, if it wasn't for a couple of things. Namely, Edward being a total asshole and Marianne almost dies, because, and we're being literal here, she is LOVESICK! What the fuck people who wrote this crap!?!?!??!?!?! This is beyond offensive - it's downright sacrilegious. 

3. Mansfield Park (2007)
This film suffers from very poor casting choices. Like, horrendous. Nobody seems to know the part they play in the story, probably because the script is also horrendous. That is the film's biggest issue, 'cause the book itself is Austen's most serious work and no version to date has really given it the magnitude it requires.

4. Emma (1996)
Oh poor Mr. Knightley, what have they done to you???? This is a really clumsy adaptation. Davies adapting Austen doesn't often let you down, but when he does, he really does. ITV might have had something to do with it as well.

5. Northanger Abbey (1987)
These writers must have been high. Jane Austen and the supernatural do not mix. You have Brontë or Montgomery for that. And the music - God! Some new age crap trying to imitate Enya - this is not a fairytale, folks. The whole point of the story is that none of that fairytale/gothic romance shit is real. Plus what kind of a weirdo kisses with their eyes open onscreen? That just does not happen. 

 

Disney, retrospectively

The Lion King (1994)


This is the last film of the Disney renaissance which we religiously watched numerous times as kids. These four movies pretty much defined our childhood (along with Star Wars, Aliens, Back to the Future and Die Hard). As with the previous three, The Lion King's beginning will suck you in with its animation and music. This film has more problems with its story and some characters rather than tone or ignorance about minorities and non-Western cultures.

Characters
Simba: He has a promising character arc that will disappoint you. Simba doesn't annoy us as much as Aladdin. However, unlike Aladdin, Simba's promised personal development goes nowhere. He's better as a child, because immaturity suits children more and is completely unattractive in any adult.  
Scar: Starts off as a great villain. The song is good, the attitude is good, it's all good! Until he's in power, and that's when he becomes uninteresting. He's just a whiny bitch, and not even a good one. He pales in comparison to Disney's Prince John.
Mufasa: The best dad Disney's had so far, so of course he has to go.
Nala: She has a distinctive personality as a child, but once she turns into an adult, that personality seems to have been completely eradicated. Her function annoys us even more than that of Jasmine. Although Jasmine did nothing, at least she had personality. Nala is shown to be physically more capable than Simba, but in the end, she is nothing more than emotional support for him. Frustratingly,  even that support has really no influence on him, one way or the other. No, you need a dude to return from the dead as a ghost to do that.
Minor characters: What makes this movie is its minor characters, much like Genie makes Aladdin. They are fuckin' hilarious. Timon & Pumba are our favourite cartoon skeptics. Rafiki, the random cryptic baboon who can do martial arts. Who wouldn't love that? The minor characters are funny because of their characteristics and interactions with others, not because they constantly allude to modern phenomena, which is probably the reason why the humour is more balanced than in Aladdin. Aladdin does take more chances with its humour, though.
 
 















Story
To this day the Lion King's story must be the most ambitious and epic undertaking when compared to other Disney movies. The idea is downright mythological in scope, and for the most part it works quite well. Apart from the last conversation between Simba and Scar, which is where the film gets a flat tire. Because that discussion alone destroys the whole character arc they had been trying to build with Simba. Way to cheat your audience out of a satisfying ending, Disney. We thought Simba was about to prove that he had learnt an important lesson, but then you decided to simply let him off the hook. It wasn't integral for his character development to learn the truth about his father's death. We would argue that he would have been a better character without that scene. In addition, we wouldn't have that ridiculous cheesefest 90's slow motion fight sequence. And by all means, show children that their friends won't stand by them when they've made a mistake. There are some other incongruities as well, like the relationship of Simba and Nala as adults. They just swore eternal love to each other (via the sappiest Disney love song ever) and then right after they get into a massive fight. Boy, that's a promising start for a relationship. True love, eh?

Miscellaneous 
So Mufasa's polygamous, right? 'Cause he totally has a frigging harem of lionesses surrounding him. Guess that comes with the job description (or that they're animals). 19th century Mormons would have loved this movie, just sayin'. Clearly, Disney wasn't ready to address that aspect any deeper in the film, though. It does bring a somewhat disturbing perspective to the equation when Simba says about Nala: I can''t marry her, she's my friend. Apparently, Mufasa left his son in the dark about certain things. Ooops! For once, Hans Zimmer delivers with the original score and Elton John's pop music works much better than bland Broadway pop.

The "Suffragette" Syndrome

First, let's explain how we came up with the title. We don't want to give the impression that we think that the word suffragette is negative, because those women kicked ass hardcore. To us these women were true pioneers, people ahead of their time and a group that we really look up to. They wanted freedom from oppression and to be able to decide their own fate. They defied convention. Our made up term "Suffragette Syndrome" is about how the media sometimes fails to depict those kind of women. The inspiration for the name came from Parade's End. This syndrome is present in genres that rely on conventionality, although it's pretty ubiquitous. Women who want to control their life and want more than what they have been given or who fight against rigid gender roles are presented as bad and degenerate. In order to make a suffragette relatable and non-threatening is to have them say that they want those things, but to make it lip-service because deep down, they still want the oppression. We'll discuss three aspects of this syndrome: how "bad women" don't deserve happiness, women can't have characteristics or goals that are deemed unfeminine and finally, the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress.

The first example we have from anime. Mainstream anime is full of stereotypes, particularly the female characters. Kagura (check the previous post) breaks free from all stereotypes. Because she is neither a villain nor a hero, all she wants is freedom. She is a woman with a questionable moral character, therefore she does not deserve to live out her freedom. The minute she decides to break from the villain she has to pay the price for her past actions with her death, as if death would give her the freedom she so craved. We don't know what upset us more, the fact that she died or that her death was used as motivation for a male character. There are way worse females in anime than Kagome or Sango but they still won't ever compromise their morals. There's no shade in them, and that makes them boring. In addition, those two are too concerned with boys. Kagura couldn't give less of a shit about that, her objective was to be free in order to do whatever the fuck she wanted and not just to be with some dude.

Our second point about unfeminine goals and traits is illustrated by the altered and "improved" Éowyn from Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read the books knows what she was really supposed to be like. Now, we don't like the softening of her character in the end by Tolkien either, but that was not uncommon for male authors at the time (eg, Far from the Madding Crowd). However, the movies changed her personality entirely. Because according to the writers, her character from the books would not have been relatable as such, especially to the female audience (as if women were a monolith). This sentiment was a personal insult. In the book Éowyn is cold and hard as steel. The reason she rides to Pelennor is to die as a warrior in glory, to be respected and remembered as a hero. She's ambitious and driven. None of these things mean that she would be devoid of compassion because clearly she feels for Merry and obviously she loves her uncle, her brother and her people. How could we possibly not relate to wanting more than what has been dealt to us in life? Because nowhere do women face obstacles from which they want to break free (insert sarcastic tone here). Basically Peter Jackson and co. transformed this fearless warrior into a generic Disney princess. 

In our final point, angel vs. seductress we will discuss in two separate paragraphs. We will use two different shows as examples. This is the culmination of The Suffragette Syndrome. The first show is The Musketeers and the contrast is between Milady and Constance. Yeah, Constance is supposed to be the woman you're rooting for. The other characters describe her as kind, strong and independent (which is apparently the perfect mix). FALSE. She can do jack shit. She couldn't be more clingy to the guy and she has to be rescued constantly. She occasionally tries to have some attitude but always falls short, and comes off as a whiny, immature girl. Whereas Milady is described literally as the devil, manipulative and even a whore. They don't see anything redemptive in her. In reality, she's the one with independent spirit and gets herself out of any trouble or danger. Furthermore, her attitude comes to her effortlessly. 

The other show we chose was, of course, Parade's End. This is where it gets ironic. The whole point of the show is that the protagonist, Christopher, leaves behind his stuffy, conventional, stiff upper-lip Englishness to enter a more modern era. His wife, Sylvia, represents the past and his new "suffragette" girlfriend, Valentine, the future. Sylvia though, couldn't be more unconventional if she tried. She also evokes real passion in Christopher, breaking him free from the shackles of his stiff shell. She contradicts and challenges him. Life with her is not simple or easy, like in a real relationship. Also, she's depicted as an indecent woman. Valentine on the other hand talks big about women's liberation, but is willing to worship the ground the guy walks on. She couldn't be more conventional. She always defers to Christopher and brings out nothing controversial or interesting in him. She evokes sexual feelings in him but not passion. Although she's supposedly this strong and independent suffragette, all she dreams about is the protagonist and their perfect life together. That is all she aspires to. Choosing a clingy schoolgirl whose world revolves around you over a woman who can stand on her own and who doesn't need you but wants you; How is that leaving your traditions behind? WTF, BBC??!! Unless it was meant to be irony. We doubt though that most male authors of the time were ever self-aware enough to create such irony. And God, what a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch.

A few good "suffragettes": Daniel Deronda manages to steer clear of the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress. Both Gwendolen and Mirah are great characters. The book does way more justice to Gwendolen though and is altogether superior. George Eliot, duh! Winslow Boy and Hysteria both have delightful suffragettes (in the true meaning of the word) who actually stand for what they believe to be right. Wanting independence and freedom from oppression does not disqualify someone from being in love or wanting to be with someone. For us, it simply means not losing your self-determination to this other person or that your whole existence won't revolve only around that one person.

Complicated evil

We don't generally like anti-heroes because they often don't possess any redeeming qualities. We didn't want to include characters that do things purely for self-gratification, because there is a difference between self-expression and selfishness. We see anti-heroes more as people who do something reprehensible or even commit horrendous acts, yet retain some part of their humanity and vulnerability. Therefore, you might not find some of the more famous anti-heroes from this list. We had to share the #1 spot 'cause both of those characters are so good and very different as well.


1. Catwoman in Batman Returns. What can we say about this woman that we haven't already expressed? She's our favourite character from any superhero film we've come in contact with (and we've seen all the major ones) and Michelle Pfeiffer plays the hell out of this character. In addition, she's in charge of her sexuality, an active subject (much like Kate Bush in The Sensual World), instead of just being an object to ogle at.

1. Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition. Man, what a departure for Tom Hanks this movie was. This was the first time we saw him play a character whose place in the good vs bad - spectrum is ambiguous. Leave it to Tom Hanks to make a morally compromised assassin one of the most sympathetic protagonists of modern cinema. His altruism, in contrast with his ruthlessness, is baffling.

3. Kagura in Inuyasha. We continue to be embarrassed by our 90's anime past (apart from Trigun), but HOT DAMN if she is not the best thing to come out of it. For some reason, anime is full of bratty teenagers and Kagura is a refreshing deviance from all those lovesick schoolgirls. She manages to be delightfully snarky and rude, especially considering that she is, in fact, a slave. Her sole objective is to be free (which we related to as repressed teenage girls). The creator treated her like shit, though. Which is something that she has in common with our next entry.

  

4. Milady in The Musketeers. We've already introduced her in length in a previous list, so there's no need to say anything more than that she kicks ass, in every sense. The reason why this didn't turn into a four-way-tie for 1st place, is because we were incredibly disappointed with the hand that both Kagura and Milady were dealt by their creators. Not to mention both of these characters deserved to be in much better series.

5. Longbaugh and Parker in The Way of the Gun. We couldn't separate the two, because they're a package deal. The movie wouldn't work with only one of them. What makes these two particularly intriguing, is that they have their own singular moral code which they follow. Although they are cold-blooded killers, they still possess some form of compassion and desire to protect those weaker than them. 

    

6. Lady Susan in Love & Friendship. She's probably the most eccentric on this list, not only because she doesn't steal, maim or kill anyone but also she's a truly unique Austen creation.  She's a ton of fun and such a bitch. But, by God, what an enjoyable bitch she is! Her redeeming quality would have to be her sense of humour since she pretty much puts her ego first. This is the kind of woman who could've been content with her life during Austen's time period.

7. The Punisher in Daredevil. Right, we don't read superhero comics, so we have no stake in how superhero material is adapted to the small and big screens. We actually wound up liking his character the best in this whole show, though we have enjoyed the series in general as well. He brings much needed contrast and moral dilemmas for the protagonist of the show, without turning into a villain. You sympathise with this man's tragic past, while simultaneously being horrified by some of the things he does.

 

    

8. Vito Corleone in Godfather Part II. We admit, we are not big fans of this trilogy, mainly because we don't really connect with the characters or the story, apart for the younger version of Vito Corleone. And that has lot to do with the actor who's playing the character. He is very good portraying calm and collected people, who have their own set of ethics. This character, though sharing some similar qualities with Michael in Road to Perdition is decidedly more cold-blooded and ambitious. Also, altruism is a foreign concept to this guy.

9. Marnie in Marnie. In Marnie's case, much like with the Punisher, it's her past which transforms her into an anti-hero.  This film though, does not lack in characters devoid of human decency (we're looking at you, rapist husband played by Connery). In the end, she probably became less of an anti-hero, since she began moving forward from her childhood trauma. Although she is a thief and a liar, you sympathise with her motivations much better once you find out about her past.

   

10. Napoleon in Assault on Precinct 13. He's the most superficially introduced character here, since the film is so short and action-driven. Still, he comes across as a pretty cool personality and provides the best one-liners in the movie. What makes him interesting is that he is a death-row convict who has killed people for some undisclosed reasons, yet he accepts the consequences of his crimes and is still willing to help others.

 

Overtones, overtones, we already have overtones

This post is going to be somewhat peculiar in comparison to our previous ones. We're pretty sure that most of you know (since we assume that our readership is mostly our friends) that we were raised Mormon. So we grew up seeing quite a bit of movies produced by the church. Here's the thing: we hated them, especially when we were full-on believers (now we're just indifferent). This isn't about creating controversy between our position now and what the religion teaches though. We understand that religion is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people, and we will try our best to be discreet. We acknowledge that we're not impartial in the matter, observing from afar. This is also our history and our identity that we're exploring. So this is a departure from our normal format; while we will be discussing one movie in particular, we will be looking at it in the context of all LDS (Latter-Day-Saint) movies (especially those of the historical nature). 

The movie in spotlight is called Legacy. The film revolves around Eliza whose family was among the first converts to the Mormon church. The main characters are fictional, but the story is based on the church's history. The family has to flee from one place to another because Mormons are persecuted and unwanted. Their mother dies and the father is sent to preach "the word of God" to England. While there, he converts an eligible British bachelor, David (whose English accent is as convincing as Kevin Costner's a la Robin Hood). David joins Eliza's father back to America to congregate with the rest of the church (this is pretty much what all Mormon converts did back then - travelled to America to be with the main body of the church so they could build Zion, or whatever). Eliza is engaged to bald and bespectacled Jacob, so obviously she's with the wrong guy. After some manouvering Eliza and David end up getting married. Then the church's founder, Joseph Smith, is murdered and few years later they're forced to leave their homes again. David volunteers to join an army battalion, leaving Eliza and their family to travel from Nebraska to Utah, which is an arduous journey. These people are called pioneers in Mormon circles. It ends happily ever after with David returning to Eliza and their family unscathed.

The reason we took this movie is because we know it pretty well, it was one of the few "movies" Mormon missionaries were allowed to watch in a missionary training center (if you're wondering what the hell that is, there's always Google - this isn't about us explaining Mormon religion). We're going to discuss three things that we find problematic with Legacy and/or this kind of religious media in general. The first of these issues is the double standard in the love-triangle. As is common in religiosity, loyalty in romantic relationships is emphasized with vigour in Mormonism. The doctrine of the church teaches that when you make a promise, that promise is binding (and marriage is the highest status within Mormonism). So here we have this church funded film that contradicts its own teachings. And not even for good reasons, eg. a personality mismatch, consenting to marry Jacob out of gratitude or duty etc. No, it's because David is constantly harassing her even though she asks him not to. So marry your stalkers, people! Because that is the conclusion to which you will arrive when you analyse the romantic aspect of the movie. In addition, there is some really disturbing, deep-rooted and inherent sexism that is dressed up to look like romance.

Secondly, the historical whitewashing is an issue for us. In Legacy, it only glorifies and exaggerates, unlike, say, Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration where there are serious omissions and downright falsehoods (that's not to say that Mormons didn't face some serious persecution and violence). Presenting a false narrative wouldn't be so problematic to us if these films weren't used as education about the church's history to children, teens and prospective members. Furthermore, if these movies were any good, we would care much less. There are many movies that are glaringly inaccurate history-wise that we love (eg. Gone with the Wind, Last of the Mohicans, The Mission). But they're good movies, and they care about character development. These films are just plain bad. They're naive, clumsy and without proper storytelling. First of all, Mormon history has a plethora of fascinating human beings and stories of which we would love to see material that was faithful to that history. That unwillingness to present accurate history leads to our final point. 

This is to illustrate the early Mormon migration, for those who are confused

Lastly, these movies are religious propaganda. We understand that, because obviously when the church funds these things they have a conflict of interest. Of course you don't want to promote the fact that Joseph Smith practised polygamy with teenagers or that the church was racist. Other religions, and institutions and even countries partake in this practice, it's not uncommon and we're not making the Mormon church into a scapegoat. Propaganda is quite ubiquitous. The reason we're writing about Mormonism is because we were immersed in the religion. So imagine having been taught this narrative as the unequivocal truth and that these historical figures were next to only Jesus and then finding out that's not the case. Not even close. That's some serious cause for disillusionment and identity crises. Although we're agnostic, we don't take issue with movies that are even heavily religiously themed; The Ten Commandments is still one of our favourite films.  However, when you camouflage a commercial for a specific religion as a movie, we do take an issue with that. What we would really love to see, is a film about Mormonism and its history by someone who has no stake in the religion, one way or the other. Ultimately these events deserve to be presented as human stories, because that's what they are. These people should be depicted as complex human beings, and that is our biggest beef with LDS church funded films and also, we think, their greatest failing. 


PS. if you want to watch a historical pro-Mormon movie that isn't blatantly trying to convert you or whitewash the history, you could do worse than watch 17 Miracles. It wasn't directly church funded or distributed though. Mind you, don't expect to witness cinematic history.

Pick of the month

Laura (1944, Otto Preminger)

This film pleasantly surprised us. We were expecting something like The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity, you know, film noir. We were thrilled to discover that it was more similar to a straightforward crime movie than anything else. The only obvious film noir aspect would be the voiceover. We were particularly pleased with the titular character; unlike in most film noirs, she was three-dimensional. She has personality and strength of character, she's not dependent on anyone else but herself (eg. she clearly has a high-ranking position at her job), but more importantly she has no ulterior motive, which is an exception to the rule (with film noir women). 

So, what other reasons do we have to like this movie? Pretty much everything. Characters are interesting and the interaction between them is well written. The overall atmosphere is quite engaging. In addition, we're fans of well told crime stories. By the way, Jeff Bridges must be the illegitimate son of Vincent Price, right?

Music that kicks the movie's ass

Occasionally, we've encountered films/series where the music has really stuck with us, much more so than the actual product. Some of the films on this list are not bad movies, in fact, they're quite good. However, for us the music overshadows those films, hence we've included them here. The order on this list depends on how wide the disparity between the score and the source material is.


1. The Vision of Escaflowne by Yoko Kanno. Having rewatched the show it's not the worst, but the music is still far superior and the gap in the quality between the soundtrack and the show is clear. It was a no-brainer for us that this needed to be first, it's practically the reason we created this list. Hollywood needs Yoko Kanno, she could transform film music to its glory years.

 















2. Lotr: The Two Towers by  Howard Shore. We have to take the three movies as separate entities, since the quality is different in the soundtracks as well as the films. Watching these movies again, we definitely hate this the most. The music is pretty much on the same level as in the 3rd movie.





















3. Lotr: Return of the King by Howard Shore. It's not a secret that we don't enjoy Jackson's renditions of Tolkien's work. Nevertheless, Shore has managed to capture the essence of the books. We like the 3rd movie's score the most and hate the film less than the 2nd. One of these days we'll probably end up writing about our distaste for these films.























4. Pocahontas by Alan Menken. Most people would probably agree that this is not Disney's finest moment, but more on that when we look at this retrospectively. Menken doesn't disappoint, though. 

 















5. Prince of Egypt by Hans Zimmer. The only time you'll find Hans Zimmer mentioned in a positive light in one of our lists. This guy only works for us when he's composing around a particular theme. 

 

6. Blade Runner by Vangelis. The music is very different from any other film soundtrack you'd hear. Props to the one-man-band Vangelis and his ingenuity. The soundtrack is as beautiful as the film's visuals. As for the story and other aspects in the film, we're not the biggest fans. It definitely has its merits and has earned its place in film history, but other than that, we're not into it.

7. Don't Look Now by Pino Donaggio. Best soundtrack to a horror film hands down. Probably one of the most awesome scores to any 70's film we've seen. The film is pretty good too and we'd definitely recommend it to people, but the soundtrack is truly phenomenal. It is no wonder to us that this movie holds such high cult status.

8. La La Land by Justin Hurwitz. The songs are so memorable and this has to be one of the best soundtracks of this decade. Too bad that we don't find the movie matching the great music.

8. Madlax by Yuki Kajiura. She is a master of her craft and she has other soundtracks that are better than the show she composed to (like Tsubasa Chronicle or .hack//Sign) but Madlax is probably the best overall, for us anyway. We love both the first and second soundtracks, so would urge you to listen to them together. The series itself isn't bad by no means, but the score is just superior all around.

 

 9. Lawrence of Arabia by Maurice Jarre.  These last two films are good movies by any standards. It just so happens that we prefer the music over the movies. This soundtrack has epicness plastered all over it. It's awesome.

 


















10. North by Northwest by Bernard Herrmann.  Again, nothing really wrong with the film, but the score just impressed us more, and that's saying a lot since it's Hitchcock.

 




















 

How to butcher Austen

A word of warning to all you who really love Joe Wright's 2005 movie, this one might not be for you. We hate it. With every fibre of our being. And that is no exaggeration. It's not a judgement though, so relax. We have wanted to do an entry on Pride & Prejudice since before we had a blog. We realised that we couldn't compare the "new" film to the miniseries as that would be unfair. Also, why compare anything to perfection? (Insert a wistful sigh here) We might do a comparison to the book one day though. Instead we decided to go with 1940 versus 2005, as they are the only legitimate film adaptations around. Before you ask, we'll never touch the Bollywood, LDS or zombie ones. Because these two are already a far cry from Austen. We think that it would be better for you too as our puritanism would certainly take over us even more so than now. Both of these movies make the same essential mistake: they've changed the whole idea of the original story. Mr. Darcy is supposed to be a total asshole the first half, but because of Lizzy's lecture he realises that and admits it to himself and stops being such a massive jerk. It's in essence a transformation story for both parties. In these films they've turned it into a misunderstanding from Lizzy's side. Unfortunately, only in one of these versions does it work. 





















1940 Pros

Lizzy is what ultimately saves this version. She's witty but not impertinent. "If you want to be truly refined, you must be dead. There's nothing more dignified than a mummy." Its humour and minor characters are also quite faithful to Austen's spirit. The minor characters are exaggerated and it works, because the atmosphere is light. Plus Mr. Bingley isn't a complete doofus. He's sociable, polite and rather affable (which is more than we can say about the new one), although he's not on screen much . The bookish dialogue suits the theatrical settings of the film. The makers were aware that they had changed the essence of the book and that's what makes it at least an enjoyable experience. In addition, the relationship between Lizzy and Mr. Darcy, while occasionally stiff, is quite believable as they actually interact with each other in a sensible manner. 

Cons

It's based on a play which is based on the book, so no wonder the story got lost in between. Whereas the theatrical elements fit the movie, they do not work in regards with the original story. Furthermore, there are much better theatrical movies around (eg. The Shop Around the Corner). This version has all the same cosmetic mistakes as the 2005 one (lack of etiquette, costumes etc). There's some pretty deep rooted sexism here as well (especially the whole "you must learn to dream about men" scene). Though looking at the time it was made, that's nothing out of the ordinary. Ah, the time when women could only be homemakers. The dialogue isn't always smooth and it can be a bit wooden at times. It deviates a lot from the source material, which isn't exactly a bad thing though. It's a con only in the sense that we'd love to see an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice on the big screen done right. 

All in all, if you're looking for a butchered version of the book that doesn't make you gag, pick this one. Unless you really can't stand "old" movies. But then there's something very wrong with you.

2005 Pros

This is going to be a short list. Some casting choices were good, eg. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Charlotte. The music sounds good. Some scenes where you see Lizzy separate from others are nice. There are two moments and one scene that wouldn't make Austen turn in her grave (when Mr. Collins gives Lizzy the flower, when Bingley leaves the room and Mr. Darcy says "excuse me" awkwardly and them practising proposing after that moment). In connection with those, the cinematography can be quite stunning. We're paraphrasing our oldest sister: When you're watching the movie and the characters are silent and it looks good, you start thinking "hey, maybe it's not that bad after all". But then they open their mouths and you simply go "no, god!! Please, just make it stop!!" The film does look very pretty, we admit.

Cons

There are too many to count, it would have to be a separate post. Believe it or not, this is the concise version of our distaste. Our main problem is with the script. For us it's not even a good movie. Forget that they completely assassinated the source material and turned Austen's masterpiece into overly dramatic unrecognisable fluff, but they took away the subtle, smart and witty content that is the heart of the story and left us with a fucking poster picture. A good example of ruining Austen's delicate social commentary is when Charlotte tells Lizzy about her marrying Mr. Collins. The Chris Nolan effect strikes again. Because viewers couldn't possibly understand what's going on unless a character verbally conveys every little detail. The cosmetic mistakes wouldn't bother us in the least, if only the film was any good. 
The serious tone of the movie ruins the main characters and is a major hindrance in their interaction. There's literally only a few seconds of credible and good dialogue between the two. Obviously some humour is needed, but the exaggerations don't work because of the tone and also they seemed to have focused on the wrong character. Poor Mr. Bingley, what a ridiculous buffoon they made you. Because now it's totally plausible that you'd be Mr. Darcy's best friend. 
When we went to see this in the cinema, the scene that completely turned us against the film was the first proposal scene. It's an atrocious travesty. It's pretty much the epitome of everything that's wrong with this movie. Imagine every possible romantic cliche and insert them here and you're not too far off. "It's raining". Check. "Our love guided us here/serendipity". Check. "I really hate you, but still, come closer". Check. In addition, Joe Wright insists on using language from the book that doesn't work on screen (eg. "prevailed upon to marry"). The actors have to deliver their lines way too fast and that in turn makes the dialogue even more unnatural. Wright clearly wanted to make a distinction from the '95 series, but instead of giving the old story a new spin, he ended up creating a totally different story, and not even a very good one at that. 
If the proposal scene was where this movie jumped the shark for us, the ending truly cemented the film as unsalvageable. The mystical elements that they're trying to push on the viewer are too sappy and a sacrilege even to the name of Jane Austen. If the movie was better those elements might actually be interesting and romantic in the true sense of the word. Like some fairytale films or Brontë. We have to wonder why they wanted to adapt Austen who is a very unromantic author and make a film that has nothing more than the appearance of romance. 
Suggestion: if you feel like watching the attempted storyline better done, watch BBC's North & South, which they basically ripped off for this movie anyway.

In conclusion, if you want to find a good version of the original storyline in film form, we'd recommend Disney's Beauty & the Beast.