User reviews

This film version of Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice is generally pleasant to watch. The cast is certainly glamorous and a slight change in the period moved the story into one with fancier costumes to look at. At a few places the plot had to be rushed a little to make it fit into two hours and the ending is also a touch happier than in the novel. Some critics lamented the slightly changed ending but this works actually very well for this medium. The rushed plot elements increase the overall pace but compromises somewhat the credibility of the characters, while the increased pace is at odds with the much more tranquil way of life in days gone by.

Therefore, this is really watchable, but the definite version is the 1995 BBC mini series which is much closer to the novel as well.

Like most early Hollywood films based on classic novels, the script alters the novel considerably, but not as much as much as they usually were. As it happens, even with the changes this is a charming and endearing film.

Mary Boland as Mrs. Bennet, Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine De Burgh, and Melville Cooper as Mr. Collins eat the scenery in their respective roles. They give some of the best supporting player performances that I ever remember seeing in early films. They manage to steal scenes from the greatest actor of the 20th century and making him look good at the same time!

Maureen O'Sullivan is charming as Jane, but of course Greer Garson is fabulous as Elizabeth even if she doesn't fit my idea of Elizabeth.

I recommend this movie highly as a nice addition to any classical movie collection.

Pride and Prejudice is a familiar story - if not read in high school literature class, one can see the theme in dozens of other films: A meddling mother tries to marry off her daughter(s) to "suitable" man, the man and woman fight and all turns out at the end with mayhem ensuing between the first and final acts.

There have been several versions of Pride and Prejudice, two of which I had seen before this film and after viewing the 1940 version starring Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier it is clear that this is the standard. Is there a better actor than Olivier in these period dramas? And Greer Garson is radiant as Elizabeth. Their performances and the pace of the film is such that while I knew the story I was still sucked into the romance and laughter - not an easy task for a hard-core cynic like me. This movie garnered 4 stars and for good reason - if you are looking for a charming, witty and romantic film, this is a must-see.

--Shelly

Jane Austen's novel 'Pride and Prejudice' was probably ripe for MGM adaptation during WWII, even with the inevitable changes and rewrites from what she intended (for example, there are hints of romance for all the Bennet daughters by the end, even Mary).

What's good about it? Mainly the casting - Greer Garson is a feisty and cheeky Elizabeth (and this was more than 50 years before Jennifer Ehle played her in a similar way for BBC TV); Laurence Olivier never looked more attractive or brooded with greater effect than here as Darcy; Edna May Oliver is a memorable and prickly Catherine de Bourgh; Edmund Gwenn and Mary Boland are the Bennet parents; and the other Bennet girls are eye-catching and fun (Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane, Ann Rutherford as flighty Lydia, Heather Angel as Kitty, and Marsha Hunt as Mary).

Austen's barbs and fangs are removed from this adaptation, making it a romantic sugar gloop like many other films of the period. Still, providing you expect this, enjoy what's on the screen. MGM did this kind of thing better than other studios of the time, after all.

To my mind, Pride and Prejudice was Jane Austen's most engaging novel. And to take it a step further, this 1940 production is perfection. There are so many literary dilettantes commenting here, taking off points because it isn't a total echo of the novel, the costuming doesn't gibe with the era it's set in, and that later films of P & P are far superior. Perhaps they do include more of the novel, but the bottom line is that this first version works so well because of the far superior players--both stars and character roles--that the modern-day actors can't hold a candle to. Every single one of them puts their line readings, their facial expressions, and even their physical movements on glorious display. There's nothing wooden in their performances, and you are swept up from the very first moments of the movie. None of the omissions from novel to script matter; This is high-quality entertainment to love and enjoy no matter how many times you watch it.

This is golden age cinema at its best. And these are actors whose talent still shines brightly 81 years on, long after they've passed away. They are unforgettable and so is this movie. We will never see their like again...not even close.

This film is really just 'based on' the novel and enthusiastically takes liberties with the costumes, characters, time period, etc. But if you can set aside your expectations of accuracy, and imagine this film as a stand-alone piece, you won't be disappointed. After all, if the basic Pyramus and Thisbe romance can be remade and reworked a hundred different ways, why shouldn't Bennet and Darcy? Aldous Huxley's screenplay is razor sharp, the plot gallops along, the characters are wisecracking and witty, and though I have probably watched this film more often than any other film I own, It still feels fresh and surprisingly modern. Only 'His Girl Friday' can best the deliciously quick dialog Huxley penned for his female lead.

I haven't read Austin's novel of this name since high school, over four decades ago, so I really have no way of knowing how faithful an adaptation this is.

Nor, frankly, do I particularly care.

If you can divorce the two works and not expect the movie to reproduce the novel, you are left with one really remarkable film.

First and foremost, the script, by Aldous Huxley, no mean novelist himself, is brilliant. I don't know how much of it is borrowed or adapted from Austin and how much is Huxley's clever creation, but it's just plain wonderful. Witty without being nasty or supercilious, it's a joy from beginning to end.

Second, the script's wonderful dialogue is delivered with zest and nuance by great actors, chief among them Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. They seem to the manner born - which evidently they were.

Then there is Edna May Oliver. She did so many different things so well, such as Pross in *A Tale of Two Cities.* She steals every scene in which she appears here, sending even Olivier into the shade. She's just a joy to watch.

As, frankly, is this whole movie.

----------------------------------------------------

I just watched this movie again, and once again I marveled at the brilliance of the script and the acting. Garson and Olivier deliver their biting lines with perfect timing and understatement. But they also know how to suggest, with just the slightest movements, very deep feelings. They are both so afraid of losing the other, yet too proud to show it. Edmund Gwenn and Mary Boland make a wonderful study in contrasts, one all understatement and the other all uncontrolled exaggeration.

This 1940 film is not my favourite Pride and Prejudice, that's the 1980 and 1995 mini-series. However, I do consider it a good movie on its own terms(as an adaptation it is one of the least faithful adaptations of the story out there), though the costumes made my eyes hurt(very like Gone With the Wind meets the Victorian era) and the film is very rushed consequently the characters are not as empathetic and fleshed out in personality as in the timeless story. The script is on the whole witty and moving, but there are some noticeable(and quite distracting) anachronisms. However, the cinematography is truly lovely as is the scenery, and the music is of sweeping romanticism. Greer Garson is a beautiful and spirited Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier is a dashing Darcy(though I much prefer his Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, he positively smolders in that). Their chemistry is enough to warm the heart. The support cast are even better though. Edmund Gwenn is a beautifully played and droll Mr Bennett and Mary Boland matches him perfectly as a sincere Mrs Bennett. Edna May Oliver is an outstanding Lady Catherine, Melville Cooper is an amusing Mr Collins and Frieda Inescourt is a splendidly withering Caroline Bingley. Maureen O'Sullivan is also good, though Jane was one of the characters who could have been fleshed out more. Overall though, I did enjoy it, I just don't consider it the ultimate Pride and Prejudice. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Two years after the BBC had broadcast their first small-screen version of Jane Austen's novel, MGM released theirs to the movie theaters. There are some problems with the production, centering around Greer Garson as Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier as Darcy; both seem uncomfortable with the formality and distaste of their scenes together. No such cavils apply to the secondary characters, particularly Edmund Gwenn as Mr. Bennett, Mary Boland as the hilariously predatory Mrs. Bennett, and the inimitable Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. All of the characters seem sharply drawn and the lines are witty, except, of course, for those uttered by Melville Cooper.

The story has been softened a touch from Austen's satire, to appeal to contemporary audiences, but the MGM gloss is apparent in every shot. It seems bizarre to realize that Karl Freund was the cinematographer; one thinks of him in charge of the camera in 1920s German films, and 1930s ur-noir. That's the thing about great, and even good cameramen; Freund would wind up in charge of the camerawork for I Love Lucy. With Robert Leonard's steady hand, the result is an eminently watchable movie, distinguished more for individual scenes than overall impact.

Love or hate. That seems to be the unofficial verdict. Most of the hate, it appears, emanates from those who love the novel. I can fully understand that and sympathize with it. If one has a passion for a work of literature, it is very, very hard to see its purity tampered with in a filmed version. I have never, and will never, watch a movie of Thomas Hardy's "The Mayor of Casterbridge." Never. I can't bear to replace the image I have in my head from the novel - the tears in my eyes - reading the death of Michael Henchard. I made the mistake once (only once) of watching Jean Renoir's supposedly classic filming of Emile Zola's "La Bete Humaine" with Jean Gabin no less in the title role. Quel massacre! Absolutely, indescribably eviscerated. Far worse than anything this film may have done to Jane Austen's work. So I know and I appreciate the sentiments of Jane Austen connoisseurs. Probably I can only overlook their chagrin because I am not a devotee of Jane Austen. I like her novels, including this one. But I far prefer, as you may have surmised, Thomas Hardy, also George Eliot and, for French literature (though they are complete opposites in form and idea), Zola and Victor Hugo.

What to do, Jane Austen devotees? Impossible to turn a blind eye. I know. But a slightly bleary eye? Try this. Find a recipe and mix a bowl of whatever early-nineteenth century alcoholic punch or hard liquor Jane might have favored. Drink a sufficient quantity. Then watch the movie as a movie. Watch it without prejudice (no pun intended). It is really, seen in no literary context, a wonderful film. Regard it not as a filmed version of "P & P" but as a film based on "P & P." Then, when you are sufficiently mellow, relish the marvelous acting, as only the great old Hollywood studios could provide it. I can't get enough especially of Melville Cooper who, for my money, steals the film. Enjoy Edmund Gwen's sardonic turn at the role of Mr. Bennett. (His very next film cast him as the sinister professional assassin in "Foreign Correspondent.") Or, my favorite, watch the delicious subtleties of Marsha Hunt as the gawky, myopic daughter. According to an interview she gave decades later, she said it took weeks to learn to sing out of tune. (If that is so, I can only imagine how hard it must be for a true opera singer to do the same purposefully-out-of-tune singing in the last act of Donizetti's "La Fille du Regiment.") She also said she had a ball playing the part, and it was a career-rescuing role. Olivier, in my opinion, sleep-walks through his role. Greer Garson is radiant. It's odd. Olivier wanted in the worst way for Vivian Leigh to do the part. Instead he got Greer Garson, who shines. Just the previous year Ronald Coleman almost quit "The Light That Failed" because he too wanted Vivian Leigh. William Wellman insisted on Ida Lupino, whose shining performance launched her to stardom. Not that Vivian wouldn't have done those roles justice. Sometimes directors and studios know better than the leading man.

A last remark to Jane Austen fans. Don't worry about the temporal shift of the story, from the era of the Napoleonic Wars to the 1840s. Take it as a compliment to Jane Austen, that her novels have a timeless quality; they can be transposed to other eras and still have meaning. It's done to Shakespeare all the time. I've seen "Richard III" transposed from the 15th century to the 20th, with the king mutated into a Nazi-style dictator. Only the great works can be moved in time and yet retain their greatness.

Some interesting tidbits surrounding the making of this film, in the trivia section here on imdb. Laurence olivier is the eligible bachelor darcy; when he meets the bennet family, he has met his match. The bennets have five unmarried daughters, all vying for attention. So many barriers to be overcome. The girls over-heard darcy trash talking the family. Customs must be followed. There are other single men in the hood. And darcy's sister is determined to stand up for him, not knowing all the facts. Co-stars edna oliver, mary boland, maureen osullivan. Boland had just made the women; P & P came out the same year as olivier's rebecca ( a great film!). Garson, who plays the eldest daughter, had just made mister chips, and was about to make mrs. Miniver. Some pretty big names in this one. Directed by robert leonard. From the epic by jane austen. Probably the only time we will hear anyone say the words polka mazurka. Word on the street is they made many changes from the novel. The music is always whimsical, almost cartoonish and fluffy, much more upbeat than the novel.

Viewed solely as a movie, this version of "Pride and Prejudice" is quite enjoyable, and has plenty of strengths. Since it was adapted from a stage play that was in turn based on the novel, it is perhaps inevitable that there would be a lot of differences from the original, both in the characters and in the events (plus a few anachronisms). Most of the time, these fit in all right with the story, but it is hard not to feel that it would have been an even better film if they had stayed closer to the original in the later parts. In all honesty, though, none of this prevents it from being a very good movie in its own right.

For the most part, the main story is the familiar one, following the hopes and anxieties of the Bennet family as they look for husbands for their five daughters. Greer Garson might be slightly different from the Elizabeth of the novel, but she is very appealing, and her character is quite effective. Laurence Olivier works very well as the prideful Darcy. Most of the supporting cast also is good, especially Edmund Gwenn as the perpetually bemused Mr. Bennet. It does a good job of illustrating the main themes in the relationships amongst the characters, while also providing many light and humorous moments. It's an entertaining and effective mix that makes it a satisfying movie despite the departures from the novel.

Although some of the wit and commentary of Jane Austen's novel has been left out of this MGM production of Pride and Prejudice, what remains is a nice romantic story of the five Bennett sisters and their efforts to find husbands.

Remember this is 19th century Great Britain with all those class distinctions and a crazy law that the Bennett family estate cannot pass through a female. This puts Edmund Gwenn and Mary Boland in a real pickle. They've got five daughters and they'd better get them all wed to respectable people before the Bennetts take leave of this world.

Their closest male heir is Melville Cooper, a cousin who is one ghastly boor of an individual. In the novel, Cooper is a clergyman, not unlike Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne in Kind Hearts and Coronets. But in the days of the Code you could not show a clergyman in a bad light or make him a figure of fun. Still without his profession noted, Cooper turns in a performance that for him is one of two career roles, the other being the sheriff of Nottingham in The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Edmund Gwenn has a wonderful part as the patient Mr. Bennett. Eddie Cantor could have identified with him because he was the father of five daughters and learned patience the hard way also. In addition to the daughters he has Mary Boland and her pretensions to deal with. The chemistry they have is very similar to that which she had with Charlie Ruggles when they were paired in bunch of films in the Thirties.

Mary Boland is perfect casting for Mrs. Bennett, she truly imprints her personality on the part. So does Edna May Oliver as the formidable Lady Catherine DeBoerg. She's a patroness of Melville Cooper, why I can't figure out, but he genuflects at the mention of her name. And he uses her name the way Mattie Ross used her lawyer J. Noble Daggett's name in True Grit.

Lady Catherine is a part also just written for Edna May Oliver. When that woman wasn't formidable on the screen I don't remember. She's also the aunt of Laurence Olivier who is trying to overcome his own class snobbery in courting Greer Garson, one of the five Bennett sisters.

Of course Olivier and Garson are the leads, but Pride and Prejudice depends more and succeeds on the strength of its ensemble of great character players perfectly cast. Olivier himself was not happy during the production as he expected to do this film with his wife Vivien Leigh. Still he's fine in the part as is Garson. She's got more sass in her makeup than her crinolined sisters and Olivier also shows more character than when we first meet him as a typical Regency snob.

I like Pride and Prejudice, but I like it for the performances of Cooper, Boland, Gwenn, and Oliver than for either of the leads. They're good, but they're support is fabulous.

My wife and I read Pride and Prejudice together about thirty years ago. I have since read it several more times as has she. There are very few books that I have read more than once, so my love for the book is evidenced. There are many radical departures of this movie from the book, the most regrettable being the omission of the Pemberley Estate scenes. But I still must give it a 10/10. Some of the changes seem to be actually preferable from an entertainment point of view. But as I reread the novel (as I have two or three times since first seeing the movie) I appreciate both versions.

This is a movie that sits in its case on our entertainment center in our bedroom. Once or twice a year, when the offerings on the tube become unbearable, it's popped into the VCR and never fails to entertain.

This book and the movie have been a launching pad for us on the road of entertainment. We have both since read most of the Austen novels. The only other one we have enjoyed on the screen is Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow), though we have tried several other screen versions including the 5 hour version of P&P. It also was a starting point for searching out more Greer Garson & Lawrence Olivier movies. It was the first movie we saw with either of these great stars in it. Then of course, you can't be a Greer Garson fan without becoming a Walter Pidgeon fan - and it goes on and on. And this was the beautiful starting point for all of this fun.

The 1940 "Pride and Prejudice" is a good, if 'Hollywoodized' version of Jane Austin's famous novel. Greer Garson is at least 15 years too old to play Elizabeth Bennet, the film is set 30 years later than the novel (supposedly to allow use of the sumptuous gowns left over from "Gone with the Wind") and the ending has been sweetened. Never-the-less, the film remains quite enjoyable. Although not really looking the ingénue, Garson is quite good, as is Olivier, who plays the misunderstood Mr. Darcy. The rest of the cast are fine, especially Ed Quinn as Mr. Bennet. All in all, a good version of the oft-filmed romance.

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!!!!

The Garson/Olivier version of Austen's Pride and Prejudice takes great liberties with every aspect of the text, not the least of which is the smiling demeanor bestowed upon Edna May Oliver's Lady Catherine. None of this matters: the brilliance of the casting, the gravity-less quality of the acting, the pretty musical score, the lovely anachronistic costumes, and the velocity of the story-telling coalesce to make cinematic caviar. Every scene is memorable, and almost every line is quotable, delivered with immense punch. Freda Inescort in the library describing the accomplished woman, Edna May Oliver quizzing Garson's Elizabeth Bennett, or Ann Rutherford's irresistible and brainless Lydia return once married to Netherfield Park are indelible scenes. Olivier is at the height of his beauty and Garson conveys every drop of brains and beauty that Austen must have intended. If one wants a strict reading of the text, this will disappoint compared to the 1995 A&E version; if one wants all the joy and camp implicit in Austen, this is as good as it gets. If I could take one film to a desert island with me, this would probably be it.

It's a great story so even if you have seen the other versions and/or read the original Jane Austen novel, the 1940's version is worth watching. It features a fine directing effort by Robert Z. Leonard, which largely compensates for the bizarre casting choice of 34 year-old Greer Garson in the Elizabeth Bennet role. Garson was way too old for the role but her performance is solid, so if you can suspend disbelief over the age issue you should connect nicely with her portrayal of Austen's classic heroine.

In direct comparisons with the 2005 version the earlier film does not fair that well. The 2005 screenplay is clearly superior, incorporating considerably more details from the story and better pacing-not being forced to compress the ending. The 2005 additions create a much more satisfactory telling of the actual romance between Elizabeth and Darcy. And unfortunately the 1940 version advances the period in order to incorporate more flamboyant costumes.

On the other hand, the earlier film has a much better handle on the novel's considerable satire and humor. And it manages a hilarious addition to the Bennet household, a parrot that mocks Mrs. Bennet's (Mary Boland) verbal complaining.

Casting comparisons are a mixed bag. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet get more screen time in the 1940 version; and it is put to good use by Boland and Edmund Gwenn. The surprise is how Marsha Hunt (as middle daughter Mary) pretty much steals the film in a relatively minor supporting role. Maureen O'Sullivan's Jane (Bennet-not Tarzan's Jane Parker) was as strong as Rosemead Pike's-both were outstanding in this difficult role. Otherwise I have to pretty much give the nod to the cast of the 2005 version.

The film tells the story of a Hertfordshire family with five marriageable daughters. Jane (O'Sullivan) pairs off with wealthy visitor Mr. Bingley (Bruce Lester). But he abandons the romance on the advice of his sister (Freida Inescourt) and his haughty friend Mr. Darcy (Lawrence Olivier). Her sister's unhappiness over these events and general bad impressions leave Elizabeth prejudiced against the overly proud Darcy (hence the title). Unfortunately far too little attention is paid to the Elizabeth-Darcy dynamic and their relationship jumps ahead unnaturally. Omitted entirely are the key attitude changing events that take place on Dracy's estate.

The sets and costumes are nicely rendered and the cinematography by Karl Freund is first rate by 1940's standards.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

The women's costumes are era indeterminate. I suppose the simple elegance of Regency dress couldn't compete with the splendor of Gone with the Wind, so they went with a Hollywood hodgepodge of Georgian and Victorian.

The altered dialog might have been considered witty in an adaptation of a lesser book. Jane Austen doesn't need any help with humor. Lizzy is too old, and Darcy is too flamboyant. Bless Larry Olivier's heart, but he never impressed me much on screen--his overacting might have been wonderful on stage, however. Only Mr. Collins is well played.

Greer Garson sneers like Darcy is supposed to, and Olivier smiles too much. The only proper bit of casting is Jane who, unlike in other movie versions, is truly prettier than Lizzy.

Both the 1979 or 1995 versions are far superior--albeit longer.