I just watched Pride and Prejudice (the one with Kiera Knightly).

I really want to grab the screenwriter by the throat and throttle him/her.

It feels to me like the director took the book and pooped on it.

I know that generally, books to not translate well to movies. Partially because there's so much silent information that's packed into books that cannot be fit into a movie.

Also, the rhythm of books is significantly different than the rhythm of movies.

Thus, editing is a necessary evil.

However!

However.

One can edit without destroying the soul of a book.

Personally, I think the Lord of the Rings movies were well adapted, considering the enormity of information in the books.

Also, I liked Stardust as a movie. Quite different from the book, but it was still a good movie.

Pride and Prejudice, however, was a complete and utter piece of shit.

It felt like the screenwriter(s) did not understand the concept of 'don't tell, show'. *That*, in my opinion, is very important.

Alright, alright. I admit. The book of P+P is very straight up. There's nothing in the book that really makes you *think* or question. However, the characters are believable and entertaining, and that's my base criteria of good entertainment.

Ugh.

Anyway.

I'm not even going to go off about Kiera Knightly's performance, because it makes me want to stab myself in the eye.

Shall I move to direction? Yes, lets!

Actually, I don't know if my next complaint is a problem with direction or design.

What I'm thinking of, is the horrid overblown EVERYTHING.

Okay. So Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingly enter the country dance right at the beginning.

You with me so far? Good.

The whole room stops.

That's right.

The musicians stop playing. The dancers stop dancing. The people stop talking. Everyone stares at the pair.

It's like being hit in the face with the baseball bat of symbolism, except I'm not sure *what* it's supposed to be symbolizing. All I know that's hella uncomfortable.

Secondly, the choice to have almost all the characters half dressed and muddy ninety percent of the time.

It's as if, when faced with the challenge of doing a better job than the four hour version, the director and/or designer decided: "Everyone thinks that scene where Colin Firth goes swimming is sexy? Well, why don't we do that look for the WHOLE MOVIE? It's like sexy times a hundred!"

No.

No, it's not.

I cannot speak for other women, but I know why *I* like that scene.

First of all, it's the vulnerability. It's showing there's a man underneath that impeccable waistcoat and perfectly knotted cravat.

Secondly, it's because I'm not smothered with barely clothed Mr. Darcy through the whole movie. Chocolate is good, but it loses it's appeal if you eat constantly.

Thirdly, it's a damp, barely clothed young Colin Firth. (I can forgive the new movie for that, though, at least until someone invents a time machine. Mr. Darcy in the new one is pretty cute, but looks more like a rumpled poet reading some lines than a proper gentleman wrestling with his emotions.)

*sighs*

I had hopes for the movie. Not high ones, but hopes.

Also, I kind of want to slap Kiera Knightly. I liked her in Bend it Like Beckham, and exactly nothing else.

Ugh. Enough of this. I have a headache.

.

Rosie.

Before&After