Thanks Julie and nice to hear about the first time you saw it! I also think the best way to enjoy it is to accept what it is tryying to do, and not to compare it to the book or the other adaptions, but since I love the 1995 series and the book like you, then I know it is hard. But to be honest one of my favorite scenes in this film is the one where Elizabeth is using a bow, and even though the scene isnt in the book and doesn't make much sense, I still have to admit I found the scene to be very funny. And I really think the films sense of humor makes it better, even though the film overall is a bit of a mess.

This move came out a year after Gone With The Wind, which was such a blow-away blockbuster, this movie was updated from the early 19th century to mid-century, to get the same type of hoop skirts as GWTW. On the other hand, when fashion had such wide shirts, above the waist was kept very tight. The dresses in this movie makes the women look like they have the shoulders of football players. The musical background is from Pictures At An Exhibition, by Modest Mussorgsky, which is supposed to represent 10 paintings in an art gallery. One of them is supposed to represent a town square with a gaggle of geese strutting around (I think, at least that is what I heard) and the 1940 movie uses this theme when all the women are scurrying about the town. This creates a sort of mocking effect to the overall sense of the movie, making it a bit more tongue-in-check. Hope you watch the 2005 version.

@@johnnehrich9601 Thanks for the your comment! I have watch the 2005 version. I am not so keen on that film unfortunately.

@@thefilmclassic4210 I hadn't been too impressed by the actual storyline after having seen the two earlier movies (and not having read the book). I happened to watch a reaction video on the 2005 version done by three guys who came across as "meathead" jocks (just from their appearance). I was expecting them to mock it as being too much of a "chick flick" but instead they were rolling in the aisle with laughter. After seeing the actual movie itself, I understood the other versions and went back to watch them again. I think each version performs a different role in bring Austen's story to life. I think the 2005 version is sort of an entry-level one, which appeals to a wider audience, some of whom like me will go on to see the other ones. And I expect that true-blue Austen fans will find the most recent version strays too far. (Let's not even discuss Bridget Jones's Diary.) I became intrigued by all the ways P&P was put on screen because of Red, White & Royal Blue. It was a best-selling book a few years ago and the movie tried to be as faithful to the beloved book as a two-hour movie could be. (They even included the author in the product to get additional input.) Even so, many fans of the book were aghast at the movie because by being so short - the book was over 400 pages - so much HAD to be left out. The printed page and the story projected onto the screen simply can't be the same if the same impact is desired. The author can let us in on the characters' thoughts but that doesn't translate well to live action. The book had pages and pages of text messages between the two guys and the movie did a brilliant way of depicting it but this still was far short of what the novel could show. The movie, on the other hand, could accomplish with a quick glance would took a few pages to describe. I don't think there is a right answer and I think different versions work together in the long run

@@johnnehrich9601 You have an interesting perspective on it and I agree, that is always fascinating to see how each version tells the same story in a different way

I understand you completely Janet! Like I says in the video, then I know many fans of the book doesn't like this one for good reasons. For me I can accept what it is trying to do, and therefor I enjoy most of it. But I agree the Plot- Twist near the end doesn't work for me either.