I have to start with a disclosure, here. I love the Jane Austen novels (or at least five of the six) as do also two of my daughters, age twenty-four and nineteen. If a movie either adapts a Jane Austen novel or is based on it, you can bet that I am going to see that film at least once no matter how poorly rated it might be. My nineteen-year-old daughter and I had been eagerly awaiting the arrival of the DVD of the latest version of Pride & Prejudice, despite limited expectations for it, so it even took precedence over a number of great and near great films awaiting viewing in my film queue. I mention this background because this film may seem outside my usual range to my regular readers. Now you understand my special interest, here.

As both a viewer and a critic, I make a distinction between movies that are adaptations versus those based on Jane Austen novels (e.g., Clueless, Bridget Jones's Diary, and the present film). For a more complete summary of the widely available films adapted from or based on Jane Austen novels, see my review of Emma. The adaptations I hold to a higher standard of literary quality. I would prefer that a serious adaptation be reasonably faithful to the original, though I will tolerate minor additions or alterations that make the stories more cinematic. By contrast, I don't expect films based on one of the Jane Austen novels to be faithful either to the language or the plotline of the original. If I did, I would have to reject summarily all of the films in the "based on" category. Instead, when watching a film like Clueless or the present one, I untie my shoes, remove my fussing cap, settle back, and let the film's own style and ambiance wash over me on its own terms. My standard for comparison for this film is definitely not the great A&E rendition of Pride and Prejudice, but films like Clueless and Bridget Jones's Diary. I found this new Pride & Prejudice the most enjoyable, by a narrow margin, of the three popular films in the "based on" category.

Historical Background: Around the year 2000, a Mormon (Latter Day Saints or LDS hereafter) independent film movement began in Utah, resulting, thus far, in over a dozen films that either feature LDS themes or are, at a minimum, consistent with LDS values. (Disclosure: although I am not a Mormon or, even, a Christian, I have had some contact with the LDS centers through my work as a genealogist and have the utmost respect for some of the LDS activities.) Some of the films produced through this initiative, such as Richard Dutcher's God's Army, have pervasive LDS themes and will therefore appeal mainly only to the target audience. The present film, the full title of which is Pride and Prejudice: A Latter-day Comedy, has only fleeting allusions to the LDS lifestyle and little, if any, doctrinal specificity, so its "crossover" potential should be pretty good. It is also, reputedly, the best of the Mormon independent films made to date. I found nothing in the film that was either incomprehensible or propagandistic for me as someone not belonging to the Mormon faith.

Pride & Prejudice (2003) was directed by Andrew Black, who was born in Midlothian, Scotland in 1972. Black studied at the Edinburgh College of Art before taking up Film Studies at Brigham Young University. Pride and Prejudice was his first feature film and stands up well to comparison with other first films by young directors. Black had previously directed a few short films, including Rights, Respect, Responsibility (2002), Avernus (2002), based on the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, and, most notably, The Snell Show (2002). The last of those films, an eight-minute black comedy, won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Short at the 2003 Slamdance Film Festival (which rarely even accepts student films). The film was also selected for competition at about a half-dozen other film festivals.

The Story: Elizabeth Bennet (Kim Heskin) is a blonde graduate student at Brigham Young University and an aspiring novelist. She works in a bookstore where she has a run-in with a snobbish young British-born businessman, Darcy (Orlando Seale), who is shopping there. Elizabeth's love-life is generally pretty much in the toilet. Her recent dates have ranged mainly from lowlifes to creeps, like the delightfully nerdish Morman missionary, Collins (Hubbel Palmer). Delightful for viewers, that is, but not for Elizabeth. The best of the lot seems to be Jack Wickham (Henry Maguire), who is charming but undependable. Elizabeth views him as a friend but no more.

Elizabeth lives with four roommates. Her best friend, Jane (Lucila Solà), a pretty brunette, sent a copy of one of Elizabeth's manuscripts to a publisher, without Elizabeth's knowledge, but the result is just a rejection. Jane's beauty typically results in her attracting the best guy at each party. The other roommates include a pair of sisters, the irrepressible Lydia (Kelly Stables) and the tag-along Kitty (Nicole Hamilton), and the plain and bookish Mary (Rainy Kerwin). Lydia and Kitty are single minded in their pursuit of guys. Elizabeth wants a guy, too, but also has some serious plans for herself.

When Jane hits it off with a wealthy, handsome, and personable young man named Charles Bingley (Ben Gourley), Elizabeth is delighted for her, though less so after she discovers that Bingley's best friend is the acerbic Darcy and she'll be thrown into his company now and again. Elizabeth likes Darcy even less after he drops a faux-compliment and, later, when he and Wickham get into a tense standoff. Wickham, it seems, had once been involved with Darcy's sister, Anna (Honor Bliss). Another drawback that comes with the otherwise delightful Bingley is his snooty, gold-digging sister, Caroline (Kara Holden).

Darcy, who is put off by the empty-headedness of most of the women he meets, can't help but notice Elizabeth's fierce independence and wit. She's even well read. He screws up the courage to ask her for a dinner date, but she turns him down flat. Later, Elizabeth gets an offer for the purchase of the rights to her novel manuscript from D&G Publishers and is delighted. She has a car problem on the way to the meeting with the publisher's rep and shows up in a white business jacket smeared with grease. Lo and Behold, the publisher's rep turns out to be Darcy, who is none other than the "D" in D&G Publishers. He informs her that the offer is for the rights to the novel, which they consider too rough and amateurish for publication, but plan to have reworked by a more experienced writer. His critique of the manuscript is so harsh that Elizabeth finally storms off in a huff, after chewing Darcy out for his insensitivity as well as his previous rude treatment of Wickham. Back home, Elizabeth gets an e-mail from Darcy, through which he attempts to defend himself against the Wickham charge and apologize for the harshness of his critical remarks about her work.

The equivalent of the great Pemberley scene plays out at a ski lodge. After Elizabeth gets caught in the rain and darkness, she stumbles her way to the only home in sight. She finds nobody home, initially, although there's a fire burning in the fireplace. She accidentally breaks a pot and ends up hanging from the elevated deck in the rain, while trying to hide. She is ultimately found and rescued by the occupants of the ski lodge, who are none other than Darcy and his sweet sister, Anna. Anna not only provides dry clothes for Elizabeth but, ever attentive to her brother's interests, also plays matchmaker, having previously listened to Darcy's musing about the charming girl who would have nothing to do with him. The two potential lovebirds are starting to hit it off until the malicious Caroline Bingley shows up, determined to excise her competition.

Well, Austen's readers will already know the general parameters of the outcome and others are probably best left in the dark. Obviously, in this type of fare, love will have its way.

Themes: A woman in Utah not married by age twenty-six is in want of a husband. Hey, don't blame me, ladies. That's the premise of the film and, to an extent and with a little license, the novel. Then, secondly, one has all the goodness and the other all the appearance of goodness (referring, of course, to Darcy and Wickham), otherwise known as you can't tell a book from its cover.

Production Values: Any comparison of this film to the original Jane Austen novel would be ludicrous, akin to comparing my pitiful basketball game to that of Wilt Chamberlain in his prime. I don't say that to disparage this film, but only to state the obvious. My one most pressing critique of this film is the shallowness and trite wording of the dialog, which stands in stark contrast to what might be the single greatest aspect of Jane Austen's writing. One interesting script device were periodic written quotes from the book to keep the story rooted in the Austen original. It was a nice touch in one respect, but it also served to remind me how poor the film's dialog was in comparison to the novel's elevated language.

The plot modifications never improved on the original but were intriguing by virtue of presenting alternative ideas. Nearly all of the older characters of the novel disappeared from this film version. There were no Bennett parents, no Sir William Lucas, and no Lady Catherine. As a result, the story was light and breezy, emphasizing mainly youthful exuberance. There are plenty of goofy, delightful moments, such as a supermarket shopping scene and a decadent binge-eating and sleeping-away-the-blues scene, after Bingley disappears on Jane.

The strength of this film, in my opinion, was generally strong casting for the various parts. Kam Heskin was attractive and lovable as Elizabeth Bennet. Orlando Seale hits just the right tone with Darcy, playing him as mainly a nice guy with some difficulties expressing himself with sensitivity for others. Hubbel Palmer is outstanding as the oafish Collins and Henry Maguire was a practically perfect Jack Wickham. Kelly Stables was another standout as Lydia, in the role that is probably the most altered from the original story (other than ones that were dropped entirely). I thought Gourley a bit too goofy as Bingley and Solá lacking the serenity required of Jane. They were adequate, at best, and the weakest of the principals. In a couple of less important roles, I liked Kara Holden as the stuffy Caroline Bingley and Honor Bliss as the charming Anna Darcy. Overall, the cast members are fun people to spend a couple of hours with, which is one of the main reasons to see this film.

Bottom-Line: I found this film fun and entertaining. If nothing else, the film reinforces the timelessness of the Jane Austen stories and the romantic elements in particular. I really only have two excuses for liking this slightly cheesy film: the enjoyability of the cast of characters and the sometimes interesting twists on the great Austen novel. This film is more like Clueless than Bridget Jones's Diary. It is neither substantially better nor substantially worse than either of those two. The running time is 104 minutes.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 9 - 12