Reviews

Please pay attention - this is not the lengthy 19th century novel by the genius Jane Austen, it is not 6 hours of glossy, BBC drama, this is 2 hours of cinematic story telling. Once you realise that you can forgive the omissions - quite a lot of the Wickham subplot, for example. The film-makers have pitched this back a few years and muddied it up a bit. The Bennets are well-off - they have servants and property - but it's all relative and we are encouraged to see the brink on which the fates of these five young daughters teeters. Only Mrs Bennet, often despised, but here much more than a comic caricature, realises how important it is for these girls to make a good marriage. Austen knew this only too well, as she wrote her marvellous novels in the corners of other people's houses, with never a room of her own. The look of the movie is interesting, no glamorous, bust-line enhancing empire-line dresses, no powder on the noses of the genuinely youthful cast (save Ms Knightley, I suspect), and the curls, even when pinned up for parties look a little untidy. I liked this aspect very much. Donald Sutherland's casting was a little eccentric, but he brought out a side of Mr Bennet I had always suspected - a fond, weak man, aware of his daughters' vulnerability, but unable to do anything about it - knowing as he does that marriage may bring more disappointments than mere lack of money. Now to Ms Knightley, whose charms have always bemused me. I am prepared to admit that I may have been wrong, for here she is delightful. She delivers the difficult lines with conviction and passion, her bright eyes watching everywhere for examples of human folly and frailty, her affectionate nature not able to dismiss even her irritating mother from her care and concern. And falling in love. As she pieces together the clues as to Darcy's nature she is beguiled, intrigued and, at last, smitten. And he gains a partner who understands him, something that Mr Bennet knows is far more important than mere physical attraction. Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, suggests severe self-consciousness, arrogance masking his exposed and sensitive heart. Their scenes together are potent and persuasive. The minor characters do their part in expressing the other dimensions of the Georgian world - Lizzie's friend Charlotte making the hard-headed practical choice of marrying a man her inferior in everything except fortune; Wickham's seduction of the youngest Bennet requiring substantial pay-off before she is rescued (along with her family) from debilitating scandal. I didn't think I could come across an actor to top David Bamber's performance in the BBC dramatisation, but Tom Hollander is marvellous, raising even a little pity in the audience. The superior budget of the movie shows in the packed ball scenes, which are carried off with much bounce and energy, shadowed corners for Lizzie to catch her breath in, the sweep of the camera showing other intrigues and liaisons this film could not tell, but at least suggest are going on, in this pre-Victorian society. This film delivers a successful re-telling of an adored book. Which I now intend to re-read. Again.

No military superiority, no frazzle-haired boffins, no mavericks to save us from the evil invaders - just everyone running for their lives. 'The rout of civilisation' indeed. This is what terrified me about the book; ordinary people, familiar landscapes, destroyed, transformed. I can't drive through Surrey without seeing tripods walking across the fields - even now. And at the centre of Spielberg's re-working of Wells' story the increasingly wild-eyed and desperate Everyman played by Tom Cruise. No-one does wild-eyed and desperate like Tom, and he's fine here but completely outclassed by the miraculous Dakota Fanning - if the Hollywood monster doesn't chew her up and spit her out, it would be nice to see what becomes of this nascent talent. It's diverting fare, but unlike Wells' classic and even the earlier movie version, it's hard to see what the message is here. Wells presented a nightmare possibility, Hollywood saw the Red Threat as just as pernicious as the Red Weed. This film makes no more grand statement than a poor father may be transformed into a good one by adversity. Like a friend of mine said after "Jurassic Park' - 'that was a long-winded way to persuade a man he wanted kids after all.' There were plots holes you could drive a Heat ray through - can someone explain why these creatures hid their machines under the ground, but didn't bother to do a little field research at the same time? How did Tom's son survive? I mean, I didn't want the kid to die, but come on ... And the ending - you know there's a reason the human heart is kept on the inside of the body, because it looks rather yucky displayed otherwise. Someone should tell Spielberg to keep his to himself.