My movie suggestion to react : Atonement (2007) It's another movie by Joe Wright starring Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan

He's just so dumb! He's falling madly in love without even noticing! I absolutely love how the thing he loves about her eyes is how dark they are, and how they flash with intelligence during an argument. We love an adoring and argumentative king.

I read the book for the first time a few years ago and it was just as wonderful as I imagined. My top 5 favorite of all time.

It was great because I was shouting "stop talking about the aunt! Look who is coming!!" and then.. she stoped ☺👍

@@griesi31 I was like "Yeah, he has that effect on people." :))

Mr. Darcy, a 6'3" superstructure, had that determined walk through the moors that said if he had not found Lizzy in the garden, then he was certainly going to the house (even if he had to get her out bed) to have his proposal answered once for all. I would say that his second proposal was completely different from the first. He really put everything he emotionally had left into it.

Warm? He looks like a forlorn puppy someone kicked out in the rain. That doesn't do it for me.

I like vulnerable men@@valkyriesardo278

Didn't we all?🤣🤣🤣🤣

Haha, YES. This!

Yesss. You guys should look for the haggen daas ice cream commercial with the actor who played Darcy, Matthew McFadden oooooh mmmyyy

Agreed! Fanning oneself and smiling like a smitten schoolgirl for a solid minute after watching this movie is such a mood 🥰

And I always had a feeling he came to profess his love but chickened out:)

@Margo Kms , and notice that every time she had a complaint against him, or a suggestion for his improvement, he showed her he was trying to improve. And you may be correct. I think he already knew he loved her by that time.

@@MargoKms same! He looks so scared and he's clearly barely taking in what Lizzie is saying. I think in the movie they almost imply he wanted to be along to profess his love and then runs off when Charlotte returns

in the book he had sat with her and started conversing...at some point he realized he had started to lean close towards her because he was so engaged in the conversation and he checked himself...it was so funny how he was reading more than there is to it in their conversation...in Darcy's head at that point they were basically engaged hahahaha

So true. It's one of the reasons I love Elizabeth so much though, she's such a flawed character.

It gives similar energy to when Penelope says “not everyone can be a pretty Bridgerton” to Eloise.

I love Jane's reaction in the BBC version when she tells Lizzie she must allow for differences in situation and temper. That Collins isn't vicious and he will give Charlotte a comfortable home. But I also think that Lizzie wasn't actually judging Charlotte, she thought she was too good for Collins and deserved better. Yes, she was forgetting that Charlotte wouldn't be able to find better given her class and age, but there's a difference between judging her for her choices and feeling angry that she's settling for a man like Collins.

@@mamaseesa3122 I believe I read somewhere too that she was hurt because she thought Charlotte would hold out for love (and had expressed she would) but ultimately couldn't pass up the safety Collins would provide. It was a betrayal of a sort in her eyes.

​@@tticusFinch Yes. But as her friend, she should have respected her decision, which she didn't...

LOL

Yes! Totally understand you needing a fan! 🔥🔥

Very kind of you to say

​@ScenecrlyK.S.O. she's so right tho, I've seen other reactions from people who are not able to understand that there's a lot about the story that can't be taken out of the context of the time period, and to see you just *get it* was really neat

💯 agree

100x☝️…if you take it in todays context you would be lost and wonder why people act the way they do and say the things they said. But to realize the difference in the time is to truly appreciate everything about this whole story. And I have to say, when Darcy walks across that lawn it was enough to stop my heart and it does so every time I see it! It was great to see you take a pause too❤ I have see a few reactions and had to stop watching because they spoke during the movie as opposed to stopping and discussing it-I really felt as if I was watching with a friend who appreciated it as much as I do!

Who married outside of their class?

Lizzie was not outside of Darcy's class, however.

@@jonathanparks207 Jane KIND OF did. The Bingleys were new money rich. They made their fortune in trade, which wasn't considered genteel, and they also didn't own land. The Bennets were landed gentry and from old money, so technically Jane was socially higher than the Bingleys, even though her family had less money. Lizzie and Darcy are in the same social, class, though, but because of the difference in their wealth and the fact that Darcy was related to nobility, he was at the higher end of the scale. Dr. Octavia Cox does a fantastic breakdown about the class differences- along with a ton of other really interesting breakdowns of Jane Austen's novels.

@@HuntingViolets Mr. Darcy brings up their difference in station when he first proposes marriage to Elizabeth.

LMAO YES. They had me sweating over a hand hold i caaaant

You're so welcome!

Good observation. I think a lot of the most solid relationships (romantic or familial or platonic) are between people who are similar deep down, but have surface differences. It’s a nice balance of being different enough to compliment each other, but similar enough to understand each other.

Thank you so much - I truly felt connected to her defence for him.

Very kind of you to say

And so true!!! You and Cinema Therapy are the only reaction channels I can watch without being annoyed and frustrated but being entertained and happy bc especially you are so sweet and lovely and smart and and and... I'm happy I found your channel ❤

Oh, yes. I’ve watched every adaptation of P&P out there. Nothing compares to 1995 Mr.Collins! And I think I also prefer 1995’s Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. And Kitty and Lydia. And it’s a shame that this(2005) version scarcely showed Mr. Wickham. They chose such a handsome actor but didn’t leave him enough room to display his manipulative charms and how much time he spent with the Bennet sisters. But this was still a charming adaptation. And the tension between Keira Knightly and the actor who plays Darcy is just….whew, it makes Hell feel like the North Pole!

My mind gets so confused when a lovely actor is portraying an unlikable character. Mr Collins seems like a nightmare to be around (let alone marry), but on the other hand I absolutely adore Tom Hollander...

Glad you enjoyed it

😊 thank you

Yes! Like you, even though I 💕 Colin Firth, I am just more partial to Matthew and the movie version. She should do Sense and Sensibility as these two movies are my faves and brought me out of my "tough girl all action/horror" phase. 😂😂😂

I agree. Although the 1995 mini series is my all time favorite P&P on screen depiction, I’ve always thought that Colin Firth played Darcy as more of a rude and condescending man than the socially awkward, taciturn yet good hearted character he’s supposed to be. But I will admit that the infamous pond scene was…well, nice to see!

The problem is Darcy WAS harsh. McFadyen is too puppyish and boy-like in this.

@@stefannydvorak7919 The thing is, this is how Darcy is supposed to be, he isn't socially awkward, he is a proud man, so, even tho Matthew's portrayal is more endearing and releatable he is straying a bit from the real Darcy ..wich is understanble, if you are doing your version of a well knwon character you need to bring something fresh to it, otherwise why do it at all

@@samantharamos276 Perhaps it’s because English isn’t my first language (and I knew even less English when I first read P&P than I do now) but in my mind, Darcy was kind of like a mix between the 1995 version and the 2005 version. A man who is prideful and judges others based on his prejudiced worldview. And who’s social awkwardness really comes out when he is taken out of his comfort zone. His comfort zone being the strict late 18th/early 19th century social etiquette and classes.

@@stefannydvorak7919 very good and accurate assessment. I love it! I think you caught him exactly!

I love Persuasion because it's the most mature love story among her novels, and the characters so well developed.

Persuasion is my second favorite Austen. I think it's a great second chance romance, but for some reason Mary is my favorite character. I can't explain it and I wouldn't want to be around her all the time, but I enjoy her in every adaptation. Not Netflix's adaptation, but all the others.

I love this one too.

Yes. And the older I get the more I appreciate the maturity of the story in Persuasion. While I do really enjoy the movie version that you indicated, I appreciate the book even more. The prose is just so beautiful. And the development of the main character Anne throughout the story is absolutely lovely.

Absolutely loved this reaction! I highly recommend the book. Jane Austen’s witty dialogue and social commentary is a joy to read or listen to. If you’re someone who doesn’t like to take the time to sit down the book, I would recommend the audio version. The actress who plays Jane in this version of the movie narrates one of the audio versions of this book. And she does a wonderful job.

Good one my Darling... good one.

1. women could not inherit real property, but the movable things esp after their own mothers or other female relatives they could, but not houses, farms etc... 2. yes :) My own theory why it was like this with the "fallen" sister - it could be becouse at this time there was "high treason" - a treason of country/king/state and there was also "petit treason" - a treason of husband by his wife. which was also pubishable drasticaly. Though the level of punish was different depending on legal systems of a country and times. At the worst moment (AFAIR 17 or 18 century) the legal system in England punishes wife by burning at the stake, like witches. The milder punishes meant divorcing her by banishing her on the street without any property and taking off her children also - eliminating her mothers rights. Why it was like this? Becouse in most of European legal systems up to late 19 century woman citizenry was a derivate of men citizenry, thats why her father, and later husband or adult son or other male from her family was her caretaker. In legal status most women in such countries as England, France (Napoleonic Code), Austria, Prussia, Russia got no their own citizenry, it was like in todays times with children - children have no passports, they are written into passports of their parents. In civil legal systems or family legal systems the male's care of female was called specificaly - for example in Germany or Austrian codes its called authorisation. Becouse he should nave authorised every legal act she did - when she donated money, when she buy something for their children, when she was called before court as a witness, when she wanted to have a bank account, or when she wanted to travel - it was all obligated to get males authorisation, as if women were kids :) And males were responsible for the acts of females - legaly, including that males were responsible for protecting their females phisicaly against attack. Including the honor of women. Thats why there were duels in those times. We should remember that males were also punished legaly if not protecting womens of their family. Esp the males from those classes who could wore the weapons (swords, spades). Thats why the citizenry of female (her rights) was in the care of males citizens. What we today know as general "human's rights" up to the end of 19th century were gathered into cathegory of "citizens rights"of your own country only. So you should not expected that another country gives you the same amount of rights as your homeland. For example when you are traveler, or war fugitive, or war prisoner. And treason of a wife was punishable harshly becouse she didnt cheated only her private husband - she was traitor of a responsible - for her - citizen, she was traitor toward a kind of legal/social officer who maintained her and authorised her buissness. She was under his legal care. And as he was a citizen given obligations toward his country she was given obligations toward him as citizen. And IMHO thats why every "fallen" girl in a family was "taint" for the honor of such family. Becouse if one of them can do it, so such family is not trustful and they could have more of such unresponsible girls between them :) Its not about stupid customs of old times, its about that stupid customs of prejudice toward such families were generated BECOUSE it was real danger that our son can be married into such family with a person of proclivities toward crime - "petit treason" was a crime in legal codes. So women who were seen as not faithful, or women who could be unfaithful were shunned from family and from society. It was not stupid, it was like... prevetion of becoming too close with possible criminal. :)

@@TallisKeeton Though it may all seem harsh to our modern sensibilities, it worked for them and kept our species moving forward and procreating. Families stayed together. The majority of children weren't being raised by single parents. etc. obviously one fallen sister would seem to indicate a loose morality in the upbringing or household and a warning to the nobility to not risk trying to raise your children and build your life with such a partner. It would be risk mitigation.

@@nealm6764 Sometimes we dont understand that older customs whcih we deem as unjust or stupid were also effects of different laws or social situations or religious believes of which we dont have today much knowledge, we only see in popculture or remember from school or from novels or from movies smt like a tip of the iceberg, while the iceberg was bigger near its roots :) When I wrote M.A. of legal history from such topics like these I understood better that our understanding about women's status in pre-modern cultures (not only European cultures) is maintained by popculture like movies and becouse of this we can see only it in narrow view as only a domination of males rights over females rights, but we can not see that most of it got also reasons in law, and in culture and in ideals of society. We are bombed by views about older times as only unjast toward women but it was more complicated than that most of the time. for example punishments and obligations toward women were high in Prussian legal code of 18 th century BUT there was no other legal code of Europe at this time in which women was more cared for as mothers, as workers, and as wifes. I m sure that modern politics or ideologies want to see only this one aspect of the situation of women in those times - only the bad things, they dont like to know that there were also obligations toward women - from the side of country, from the side of church, from the side of husband or parents or even siblings and neighbours. I m sure they dont want to propagate it becouse it collides with their main narration of bad status of women - any time before 20th century. While the legal status of women was different depending on country, age, culture and religion. For example in Russian civil code (18 or 19 century dont remember precisely) there was a part of the code which was sort of villages code, based on old customs of plebs, of villages. And in this code there was a punishment of flaggelation with birch twigs for a woman who well, being wife but, lets say it this way... become too easily accecible for other men :) BUT if the village officials got informed that her accuser (for example a neighbour) was falsely accusing her - HE got this punishment :)

Actually, woman could inherit a property. (Like how Lady Catherine owns a property) It’s just that their land (Bennet’s land) was entailed to the male heir. Mr. Bennet can change who will inherit the land BUT he already signed it probably when he was younger. He was probably forced into agreeing to that rules by his father or maybe it didn’t occur him that he might’ve not produce a male heir. If the Bennet sisters end up having a brother, he could change the rules of the entailed from “passing it down to strictly to the male heir” to “passing it down to the first born either they’re male or female” something like that. Woman could inherit a land but once she gets married, her property and everything she owns would be handed over to her husband. There’s actually a way that she could protect her property so that when her husband die, she could still keep her land like Lady Catherine but I will not get into that because it’s hard to explain. I suggest that y’all should watch Ellie Dashwood talk about entails. I’m not so sure about some details of what I’ve but I’m sure that woman could inherit a land

@@hana3703 Are we entirely certain Lady Catherine owns Rosings? It may be owned by her brother the Earl and she is allowed to hold residence there. I will check out your source, but my understanding is that lines of inheritance went through male heirs. Which is why Mr. Collins will inherit the estate. Either way the point still stands in regards to preparing someone for the film. They need to understand that the Bennet's estate passes to the next male heir, by law. I believe after Jane is married the estate will now pass down to Charles Bingley, so they won't have to worry about being thrown out like with Mr. Collins inheriting it. Jane and Charles will simply allow the mother and any unmarried daughters (Mary probably) to live out their lives there. Which is why the mother exclaimed "We are saved!!!!"

So good!

I'm so glad!

Sorry, but it didn't get a best picture nomination. Keira did get a best actress nomination though :)

It did earn four nominations at the Oscars that year though. It was also nominated 59 times for various other film awards with 13 wins, and it did win the Empire Award (UK) for Best British Film.❤️ I wonder how the academy would have voted that year had they had any inkling and if they had known how much this film would absolutely live on, and catch fire in millions of hearts, with a worldwide following of people who will watch practically anything to do with this 2005 Pride and Prejudice film adaptation to this day! We are many and we are ardent. (And yes, I've read the book (published 1813) four times and still I love, I love, I love this version and wish never to be parted from it. It has bewitched me, body and soul.)

The 1995 version of Persuasion is fabulous. The best imo.

I agree with everything except for Emma. I very much prefer the BBC version of Emma. It took me a little while to get used to Romola Garai, but the production is fabulous.

@@StevesTubes To each his own. Emma is the only one of the 4 oft-adapted Austen novels that I don't feel has a definitive adaptation. There's a lot I like about the miniseries and the 4 hours certainly helps the story, but I love the energy and visual comedy of the 2020 version. It's funnier each time I watch it, and I have to pull out a fan during that ballroom scene. They also didn't try to soften Emma's snobbishness like in Romola Garai's portrayal (although I do like how Garai played up Emma's naïveté). I never cared for Gwyneth Paltrow's affected portrayal, though Jeremy Northam is a great Knightley and Sophie Thompson may still be my favorite Miss Bates. The 1996 version is just so sappy.

you didnt mention it so a little psa - you'll want to watch the bbc version of Jane Eyre and the BBC version of North and South - thank me later!

@@30goals North and South, most definitely! I'm partial to the 2011 Jane Eyre, but the miniseries is also really good, especially Ruth Wilson's performance. I just don't love how so much of the language is modernized.

I would recommend the BBC version over the movie though.

Oh, but the BBC doesn't have the best Colonel Brandon ever put to film. Alan Rickman makes me quiver when he gazes at Marianne. ❤❤❤

Oh yes, crush that pesky entail!

yes 🤗🤗🤗

The version with Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant .

But the Bennets are NOT below his status. They are he same status, landed gentry. It’s just the Bennets are less wealthy than Darcy. The Bingley’s on the other hand are a step below the Bennets in status but more wealthy because they are from the mercantile class. They do not have any land and that is why Bingley is renting Netherfield.

Persuasion is my favourite novel of JA, and then Pride and Prejudice!

You are so kind

Thank you so much!!

Thank you so much!!

❤️❤️❤️

Beautifully said! Bless you for this comment! You nailed Darcy's development perfectly! 🥰

there's a BBC miniseries in 4 parts of Emma with Romola Garai as Emma, that is also wonderful. :)

@@LBrobie OMG I was about to write this down lol I absolutely love those 2 Knightley's and Emma's 96 and miniseries are the best

I love Gwyneth Paltrow version. Her Mr. Knightly is the best!!!!