Roland Sun

The narrator is terrible and the use of what appears to be a death mask continuously throughout the movie is creepy. A lot of the interviews seem to be of people that would be much too young to be contemporaries. The entire film tries too hard to be dramatic and mysterious and instead comes across as a boring work of fiction. And the narrator is so awful I have to say it again.

My preferences after watching each adaptation once: 1. 1995 2. 1980 3. 2005 4. 1940 After re-reading the novel multiple times and rewatching each adaptation multiple times thanks to DVDs and TCM: 1. 1980- Best Elizabeth... played as smart, lively, introspective and with a sense of humor...pert but never rude. This adaptation is most true to the novel and the dialog. Loses points for staging and low budget production. 2. 1995- Best visualization of the story. Second best at staying true to the novel. Elizabeth is portrayed as a bit too peevish for my taste. She comes across as a bit mean and condescending. Best Darcy... brooding, silent and proud. I wish they hadn't given away Darcy's assistance in finding Lydia before it was disclosed to Elizabeth. 3. 1940- Greer Garson is a charming Elizabeth with bright smiling eyes...she is smart and playful. Although this strays the most from the book, Elizabeth and Darcy have a nice rapport. The movie is fun. 4. 2005- Kiera Knightley plays Elizabeth as childish, spoiled and rude... like a petulant teenager. Although the cinematography is beautiful, the portrayal of the Bennetts as a step above poor farmers is not in line with the book. By exaggerating the class difference and by simplifying the dialog, we lose the subtlety of Jane Austen's social commentary. The filmmakers don't seem to trust that the audience is will "get" the story without dumbing it down. Upon my latest watch...I find my main reason for disliking the 2005 movie is that it gives us zero reason for Mr. Darcy to like Elizabeth, beyond her being the protaganist portrayed by Kiera Knightley. Why does this man fall in love with her? This movie never shows her to be the smart, witty, charming and accomplished woman who shows spirit and independence of thought without pretension or ever being rude. These are the reasons that she catches Mr. Darcy's attention, but we never see this in the 2005 movie. Instead we get Elizabeth as rude, petulant and sarcastic teenager. Would Mr. Darcy really fall in love with her?

I found the movie to be good, but very overrated. I loved the show and the book upon which the story is based, but the movie feels a bit unnecessary despite good performances by Erivo and Grande. The production, rather than transporting one to a fantasy world like Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings, felt like glorified stage sets enhanced with CGI (Wonka had the same problem). At no point did it feel like people lived in this world. Despite added length, the movie doesn't add anything to the story or character development and the dialog feels very much written for the stage. I feel like filming a stage production of the show for Great Performances on PBS would have been equally, if not more enjoyable.

It's a good movie almost ruined by a terrible soundtrack. Good story, cinematography, and acting. This is better than most period pieces/fantasy movies being made today. Michelle Pfeiffer is ethereal, Rutger Hauer is heroic and Matthew Broderick is snarky... and the villain is convincingly evil. The location shots are beautiful and the fantasy relies on imagination rather thanks CGI. The BIG elephant in the room is the soundtrack. It's late 70s early 80s TV series music. Think Charlie's Angels and Six Million Dollar Man and Wonder Woman. What were they thinking? All things considered, it's still a good watch.

Not particularly good. The story is very simplistic, even for a child's movie. Surprisingly Timothee Chalamet is not good. His portrayal lacks the complexity and dark edge of Gene Wilder and he doesn't buy into the quirkiness and sell it like Johnny Depp. It comes across like someone imitating a character, rather than being the character. The best part of this movie is Olivia Coleman. Compared to her Timothee Chalamet's portrayal comes across amateurish. On the plus side, he has a pleasant and likeable singing voice. It's too bad there are no good original songs. The best song is the one from the original movie.

The lead actress let's this movie down. She is neither believable as a fund manager, nor as an opera singer. Otherwise, the movie is entertaining, even though the story is pretty basic.

BARBIE starts out fun, and creative, but falls apart a bit in the last third. In the end, the movie steps on its own message of female empowerment and stereotypes when it has a character rant out a laundry list of inequities. I found this to be lazy movie making. Rather than showing double standards and inequities thru visuals and dialog, they just made a list and had someone read it angrily. This is a movie... Show, don't tell. Another problem is the Mattel execs in the film play no role in moving the plot. The 10 to 15 mins of screen time they inhabit could have been put to better use. Finally, I don't get the criticism that this movie is "woke". This isn't 1950...the idea of women's equality shouldn't be considered some how disruptive and it certainly isn't a revolutionary concept.

Excellent movie. For a 3 hour movie that was mostly dialog, it was riveting and the time flew by. Excellent performances all around. My only criticism is there could have been more nuance in the musical score. Not every scene required loud intense music. Hollywood... please make more movies like this that are original... and less sequels, remakes and animated to live action (looking at you Disney!)

The story outline was good, but the execution left something to be desired. If I were to narrow my issues with the movie down to 3 things, I would say: 1. Too long. A good edit down to 120 mins would have helped a lot. 2. Unlikeable protagonists. Phoebe Waller-Bridge plays a very flawed person, but without charm and a wink of humor, it's difficult to like or root for her character. I blame the director, because the performance is almost there, but a few tweaks in delivery would have made all the difference. 3. Collateral damage. The cold blooded murders of bystanders and minor characters made this movie feel mean-spirited in a way none of the other movies felt. Despite the above criticisms, I don't regret seeing this movie and will probably watch it many times when it goes to streaming. It's always good to see Harrison Ford inhabit this character and nothing in this movie changes that.

***SPOILERS*** I found this to be lazy attempt at storytelling with lots of special effects to mask the lack of imagination. In retrospect this plot feels ripped off from Harry Potter. The quest, the "it's not where you come from, but the choices you make..." lesson, the redemption of a villain (Ben/Snape), the resurrection of jedi, etc... Even if Abrams was dead set on walking back some of the plot lines in TLJ, it could have been done in a creative way. This felt like Dallas' dream season... forget the last movie. We were just kidding. Rose and Finn... Just kidding. The Resistance down to a handful of refugees that all fit on the MF... Just kidding... There is another base with more fighters and ships and people. Instead of bringing in so many new characters, why not develop the existing ones to give more impact to the end of the series? Spend less time searching for the lost diadem, I mean amulet, whatever it was and develop HOW Rey's heritage came to pass. One last thing... Even if one doesn't like TLJ, you have to admit that visually it was more creative and stunning. This movie gave us nothing new. The movie was entertaining, but left a lot to be desired. Thinking about the film afterwards... It just was not very good. FYI... I saw the original Star Wars 13 times in the theater during its original run, so I guess you can call me a fan. Also, although I believe TLJ had its flaws, it was a better film by far.