Pride and Prejudice

 (1,229)1 h 43 min2003PG
Jane Austen's classic is transplanted to modern-day. While her college roommates search for love, aspiring writer Elizabeth Bennet focuses on her career but constantly finds herself fighting haughty businessman Will Darcy.
Andrew Black
Kam HeskinOrlando SealeKelly Stables
English [CC]
Audio languages
Playing the video isn't supported on this device/operating system version. Please update or watch on Kindle Fire, mobile devices, game consoles, or other compatible devices.
Add to Watchlist
Add to
By ordering or viewing, you agree to our Terms. Sold by Services LLC.
Write review

More details

Supporting actors
Benjamin Gourley
Camera 40 Productions
PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Purchase rights
Stream instantly Details
Prime Video (streaming online video)
Available to watch on supported devices

Other formats


3.1 out of 5 stars

1229 global ratings

  1. 34% of reviews have 5 stars
  2. 11% of reviews have 4 stars
  3. 11% of reviews have 3 stars
  4. 12% of reviews have 2 stars
  5. 31% of reviews have 1 stars
Write a customer review
Sorted by:

Top reviews from the United States

HRiNs40Reviewed in the United States on December 2, 2016
5.0 out of 5 stars
So bad it's good... but still bad... but it grows on you
Verified purchase
The first time I watched this movie, I found it super heavy handed with the P&P references, at times INCREDIBLY cringey, and the acting is uneven. I didn't realize it was an LDS movie initially, but then it started making sense. I think I had expectations of this being cute and witty rather than total farce. The 2003 nostalgia is sometimes PAINFUL at times (probably because I wore way too many of those trends), but it's also what makes this movie so funny as well. It is absolutely, unapologetically, over the top, campy, and absurd, not unlike Napoleon Dynamite or Austenland (also made by LDS writer/directors). Either you get that kind of wacky humor, or you just think it's weird and unfunny. Most of the parts are played for laughs, and depending on the acting chops of the particular performer, you will either be laughing or rolling your eyes. The "Wickham" character was SUPER cringey, but the actor playing Bingley was just spot on...he was playing a complete imbecile, but he totally went for it in a way that had me rolling. Also, the actor playing Collins was superb. Just NAILED it. There was something likeable about him, even though everything he was saying was awful. Maybe it was just the delivery and the total commitment to playing the part to it's absurdly nutty potential. On second viewing, I really enjoyed the movie right up until the end. I actually hated it. lol.

If you like Deep Blue Sea, Sharknado, Napoleon Dynamite, and other movies that somehow work even though they really shouldn't and are actually pretty awful, but then realize how silly they are, so then the awful actually works, then I highly recommend this one. Go in with 0 expectations, maybe a glass of wine, and you should have a pretty good time.
43 people found this helpful
EMMYReviewed in the United States on February 17, 2019
1.0 out of 5 stars
You can’t judge a movie by it’s title
Verified purchase
There was something off about this movie from the opening credits. I couldn’t put my finger on it right away but it became very apparent that this movie was to push the Mormon religion into everything. The story was painful to watch as these modern women make complete fools of themselves. Every reference to Mormonism made me cringe and make this teeth grinding movie an experience not to repeat.
The fact that they took a classic and turned it into a Mormon joke is not the least of the problems with this insane movie. I wish that if movies were going to push religion that hard it would say so somewhere in the description. At least that way I could make an informed decision regarding what I choose to watch.
12 people found this helpful
Nick FardianiReviewed in the United States on August 23, 2021
5.0 out of 5 stars
Celebration of early 2000s fashion, cheesiness, and music!! CHARLES BINGLEY!! SISTERHOOD!!!!!!
Verified purchase
Better than Scents and Sensibility (see our review about this one, c. January 2021). Charles Bingley is an adorable airhead and the BEST character in the movie. Hes not all that bright, but very sweet and you find yourself rooting for him in the end. Jane is also very sweet. Gotta love how they played flamenco music every time she appeared on screen. Loved the ice cream obsession and the grocery store scenes-- major pandemic fashion/lifestyle vibes. I wish Lizzie's daydreams were real. They were pretty marvelous. She tends to overreact, but overall is a pretty good Elizabeth Bennet. She looks just a little bit like Julie Gonzalo (see Hallmark's "Pumpkin Pie Wars"). Movie is churchy in a pretty subtle way. Relatively faithful to novel. Cute quotes sprinkled in. You're like "was that really in the book" and then "huh i guess it was." When Darcy enters ur like "hes a complete jerk, how am i gonna watch a whole movie of him!" then you're like "oh he's kinda sweet and a little overreager but sweet." Kinda like Darcy in Bride and Prejudice (highly recommend). SHOW ME THE WAY, TAKE MEEEE TO LOVE!! (oh OH oh oh oh). In what world does sweet, but slightly dumb Charles Bingley become best buds with the British, slightly awkward Mr. Darcy? I want to live in that world. The roommate dynamics were sweet. Wickham was extremely slimy, and OH! The fistfight! The slow motion! You don't really see the punches, but still!! Collins was appropriately cringey and prob worst character w/ Wickham, though we're glad Mary got a happy ending (even if it was not faithful to the book). Actually, come to think of it, Lydia's ending is happier too. You go girl. Appreciate how Lizzie is in grad school, nice how she puts fries in her burger-- although i would not eat it, i appreciate her attention to fries and ketchup. To summarize: Very G, Very cheesy, but Very watchable. If you're looking for late 90s/early 2000s nostalgia, this is your movie. MILES better than "Unleashing Mr Darcy" (another Hallmark). Do not even try with that one.
3 people found this helpful
KarenBBHReviewed in the United States on April 9, 2017
2.0 out of 5 stars
So 2 stars mean: "I don't like it", which I did not, and I'll tell you why.....
Verified purchase
I am so not going to proof read this review, I doubt anyone will even read it lol

I am so torn here. Ok, so if you compare this amateurish production to a real production then you get a rating of "WTF did I just watch???" But this is an obviously amateur attempt at one of the finest novels ever written. I have seen every version/interpretation of P&P and yes, this is by far the worst. But as far as an amateur goody two shoes attempt its not HORRIBLE. Don't get me wrong, it is bad but it is not painfully bad. More like lame and forgettable bad.
Sound: soundtrack forgettable and I cringed every time I heard a squeaky shoe
camera work: too many awkward closeups, bad framing
makeup: horrible. Practically every chicks skin looked horrible and if an actor does have bad skin then it is up to makeup to know how to camouflage that the actress who played Elizabeth had this gross weird mark on her neck the entire time. During a scene at the bowling alley they attempted to conceal it... it looked like a 8 year old color blind boy applied the concealer. So embarrassing and I couldn't stop staring. Note to makeup, red marks on the skin are incredibly distracting on camera. Its embarrassing for an actor to be forever captured on film with red swollen zits on her face. get it together!
Hair: not bad actually, although I was so NOT a fan of Darcy's giant curls
script: as far as a modern adaptation, it was decent. I don't mind the Mormon aspect at all and if anything it was a cool idea as a way to keep the Regency era ideals relevant in a modern world. As far as the attempts at humor, the reason they failed was because of casting. Basically, the characters who were supposed to be funny were just really, really bad actors and lousy actors should never attempt funny. A good comedic actor could have delivered some laughs, but there were non of those on this particular film.
Which brings me to casting:
Elizabeth: very pretty and decent enough of an actor (compared to the rest of the cast). I think she is supposed to be 26? Looked more like early 30's and besides, why would she be in college? I mean grad school makes sense at 26, as a matter of fact grad school makes way more sense considering the fact she is already writing novels. Everyone looked too old to be in college except for Kitty, Mary, Wickam and Bingly
Darcy: The other decent actor in this crazy movie but I don't like his dumb hair and he is not really dashing enough (hair didn't help) but his piercing blue eyes and sexy accent save him.
Jane: soo, was this the producers attempt at diversity? lol? She was very pretty, not a very good actor but at least she wasn't horrible
Lydia: She was actually well cast, she wasn't great but as far as pulling off an actual character-personality by using her actual acting skills, she was one of the better actors
Kitty:Kind of funny actually. she was able to pull off awkward and dumb without being irritating. Not a good actress by any stretch but she was cute
Mary: forgettable and all around lousy actress
Bingley: im sorry but he was one of the worst. another non comedic actor trying to pull off funny , even worse,"funny airhead", and failing miserably. I mean Charles is supposed to be pretty and just a bit shallow/ non intellectual. This guy delivered weird and stupid. The hell was up with his dancing? The infomercial could have been funny had someone else delivered his lines. Too bad, because he is pretty hot but between his facial expressions and just horrible line delivery...well, his sex appeal quickly drops to 0
Wickam: as far as looks, casting was right on, but he was also forgettable and a lousy actor, although not as bad as Bingley.
Collins: he wins the worst actor award for this movie. Just awful
Caroline and Anna:.... i can't remember because their presence was that forgettable, not because they were bad actors but it was like at the end of shooting the producers were like "oh crap, we forgot to include the sisters! Really, in this adaptation, Anna was actually an unnecessary character. But they should have spent more time with Carolines character. She was a decent actor and she could have brought some much needed conflict or interest to this dull movie
So was this worse than I expected? Yes, the answer to that question is a resounding YES it was actually worse than I expected and I knew going into this it was an independent Mormon of all things, production. But while i didn't enjoy it, I still like the concept and at least Darcy and Elizabeth didn't suck..
25 people found this helpful
Jamie M.Reviewed in the United States on January 1, 2018
5.0 out of 5 stars
Modern twist on Pride and Prejudice
Verified purchase
I love this adaption of Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice. Although it does not follow Jane Austen novel per say, it is a lively adaption. It is actually a Mormon released production but it does not distract from the storyline too bad, although the scenes in the "worship" services were unique for me since they were lead primarily by "church" members which I have never seen before. But it wasn't bad just different to what I was used to seeing. I just put it in my Huh!! Category and filed it away; and continued watching the movie. I love how the "Bennett sisters" were not all actual sisters but college roommates which really updates the storyline to embrace the younger generation. I also liked that Elizabeth was an aspiring writer and that Darcy was a prospective book publisher - a new twist and angst to the storyline not in the original. I also though it was cute that Jane was a foreign exchange student and Charles was a dog behavioral entrepreneur, another twist to keep it interesting. Overall, I really liked this movie just don't expect a true Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice literal adaptation because you will be disappointed.

If you like unique adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, you might want to give these other movies a try too. But again strictly speaking they are not a literal novel adaptation either but they capture Darcy and Elizabeth spirit if the novel.

Pride and Prejudice (2004) - Kam Heskin' and Orlando Seals

Bride and Prejudice (2012) - Aishywra Rai' Buchanan and Martin Henderson

Hallmark Channel Unleashing Mr. Darcy (2017) - Cindy Busby and Ryan Paevey'
3 people found this helpful
Carolyn MichaelReviewed in the United States on May 19, 2017
2.0 out of 5 stars
the good: I think the concept was spot-on
Verified purchase
As a Jane Austen fanatic, I feel I have to say a few things about this movie.

First of all, the good: I think the concept was spot-on. I have never seen such an accurate portrayal of Mr. Collins. I also think the character of Elizabeth Bennett was translated very well into a more modern woman; the movie shows how very differently she thinks than all the women around her, which is what makes her such a worthy character in the first place. The whole "I've wanted to be a writer my whole life" bit is a little overused, but then, so were many things in the movie. Overall, she was clearly a woman with her own mind and her own convictions, and she stuck to them. Bravo.

Then, the bad: the acting. Stiff and uncomfortable and unnatural. The dialogue. A bit of a departure from the finesse of the brilliant Miss Jane Austen. The plot - forced at times, wooden, and highly dependent on the original for any kind of brilliance at all. And I understand the temptation to bring Collins and Mary together (didn't we all think that would have been better in the end?) and let Lydia off the hook of marrying Wickham, but I think you'll find the "mistakes" the characters make were there intentionally because things don't always end up the way we think they should, and that's a more compelling ending after all. I find it ironic that much of the very criticism that the main character received for her novel could have easily been applied to this movie, as if the writer already knew how flawed the script was long before the movie was made.

And, the ugly: Oh my goodness, people, Bingley was NOT a bumbling idiot. Collins was a bumbling idiot! Bingley was well-educated, well-mannered, kind-hearted, and "just what a young man ought to be." He may have lacked the zest of our dear Mr. Darcy and been a "nice guy," but that does not make him an idiot! Quite the opposite, in fact, Bingley lacked many of the flaws Darcy possessed and was altogether a more perfect character, hence why the story is not about him.

Overall, there were some things in this movie that were done very well, but they could not make up for the awkwardness of the rest of the film. Not a movie I would recommend except maybe as a class discussion piece for English teachers.
4 people found this helpful
Caryl WynterReviewed in the United States on March 10, 2018
3.0 out of 5 stars
3-1/2 Stars, needs a new title
Verified purchase
It's better than okay. Fairly clever modernization, the acting was fine. It wasn't embarrassing to watch, so everyone acquitted themselves well in this. Where the producers blew it was in not modifying the name. Most can live quite happily with puns on the title of Austen's book to signal what we're getting--or complete renamings like Clueless (for Austen's Emma)--but the film is just asking to be savaged when using the original name of Austen's work. There's no way it can hold up in comparison to plot, dialog, freshness or nuance of characterization. That's a shame because, although it may not be able to easily compete on its own in the romantic comedy field without reference to the novel, it's generally fun for Austen admirers to see a new slant on the classic--and this film was well conceived, well written. I was pleased with all the casting choices. The camera work was good. Lovely shots of the Utah countryside and some very sweet and real interactions among the roommates. I'd be giving away some modifications in plot to say more, but I like how Lydia, Kitty and Mary find joy. And it's nice to be given some variations.
Estelle RobertsReviewed in the United States on November 9, 2016
4.0 out of 5 stars
Escapist Romance with Some Exceptional Film Qualities
Verified purchase
First: this movie was made much more interesting than the typical romance movie by its the pacing, music and the camera work . I'm not sure about the responsibility for this-- director? producer? cinematographer?-- whoever made this happen brought this retelling of a classic a cut above.

Otherwise: Pleasant romance story. Not really a Jane Austen plot, since Austen was a moralist, rather than a romance writer. Still, the translation of character types from Regency era to nowadays was creative. The sisters of the original Pride and Prejudice were here conceived of as roommates. Jane, Elizabeth's sister, was presented as a Latin beauty with great warmth. Kitty and Lydia were stereotypical college airheads; Charles Bingley a jock&entreprener, modern hail-fellow-well-met. The lead actors were attractive and reasonable in their roles. Standing out especially (for me) were the Lucila Sola (Jane) and the imbed-uncredited actress who played Georgiana. Orlando Seale (Darcy) was suitably dreamy, prideful, and prejudiced.
One person found this helpful
See all reviews