2. Fans of Daniel Gillis!!!
3. Cons (little, but there are)
4. My assessment
This is my opinion of the film:
1. The film is good. Pretty good. There are funny moments, there are many. Music and dancing! The actors are amazing!
If you are a fan of Indian films, music, customs, dances - this film is for you.
It is also suitable for those who like very simple dramas about love. The story is very simple and clear.
Even for those who have not read the novel by Jane Austen, which is based on the film, you can enjoy the feelings of love hatred, and then the beauty of true love, as well as the beauty of India, London, Hollywood and the United States.
The film mentions the movie, Everything in Life Happens' with actor Shah Rukh Khan - the sign was straight. There is a sense of pride in these two films, and the sophistication of Indian cinema is emphasized. Respectfully)
Costumes, decorations - everything is fine!
I really liked the design of the film, the shooting (this is of course not important, but for the color and atmosphere – even more so). Although in some moments there is a rapid change of frames at different angles and approximations of faces, which is more suited to modern weak comedies.
And of course, showing how the film was shot at the end of the credits is very useful. You can see how much fun it was for the actors on the set, see funny takes, laugh. Very atmospheric!
All music is translated, which is very convenient and immediately understandable.
In the film, the first part is Bollywood, the second is London + Hollywood, and the third is Indian romance (right at the end of the film). Diversity attracts, intrigues, and provokes resentment. Even there are, the old customs of India and then modern discotheques.
There is shyness and then sexuality (but this is only for the hero of Daniel).
Special respect for actors:
The acting is just on top! A little confused at first reaction of the main character, Darcy (American), too frightened look, but it is even funny, well played.
The main character is great and her sisters too. Her father is an instructive man. But the mother is infuriating (I personally infuriate when they marry out of love). The actress herself, who plays it, just perfectly played! Showed all the emotions. As I say, the film makes you love and hate.
Secondary heroes - I would say that all the characters were in this film the main, and played perfectly.
2. And the one for whom I started watching this movie is the actor Daniel Gillis! He's gorgeous and sweet! That's cute. I recommend it to all fans! He’s not in the lead roles, but his appearances are not uncommon, and I’d put him in third place. How he plays! His smile makes him love the whole movie. Sweetie. He is shown in the credits (there are funny takes) - just myiil. Too bad he's playing the bad guy. Although I initially thought he would be the groom for the main character. Very nice couple. Honestly, he's not the bad guy he says (if I understand correctly). He just wanted to get married for money, which is what many people do, and Darcy didn't let him. And now he has taken revenge, and continued to be a scoundrel. The hero is good. Daniel is fire! His hair is so disheveled, straight to look and admire.
There are no more words about him.
3. The following is a detailed analysis of the film, in which you will find its disadvantages, some of which you may notice when watching:
The disadvantages may seem small, but still.
Again, I’m talking about quick shooting – some people will find it not very funny, and others – funny, like me.
Simple story. The story is not trivial, but simple.
Name confusion. In the end, I didn’t know who was who. But if you have a good memory of such Indian names, then this will not be a problem for you.
The relationship between the main characters broke out. Their love adventures and passions are quickly shown. At the beginning of the film, all sisters and mother. Of course, there is a plus: the relationship in such a family.
Lots of love lines. It would be better to make two, one and spin the story around them. And more romance.
No kiss. So waited (to be honest, I do not remember if there are kisses in Indian films, so this minus is just for lovers of a sharp novel).
The story of Daniel’s hero is also too simple, I would like to learn more about him and see him.
The film does not correspond to the book: plot moments, names, surnames, characters of the characters.
4. So... Score: 6.9 (the plot is only 6, but the atmosphere of India, music, dance - plus a point)
BUT: Because of Daniel: 7 (of course, if you don't know him, but you love other actors, you'll also bet a plus point).
7 out of 10
To admit, having read reviews about this film (this is my long-standing habit, before and after watching the film to read reviews of people who have already watched it, and not the best habit, by the way), I experienced conflicting feelings. On the one hand, the Indians tried to film the great work of Jane Austen in their own way, on the other hand, insane curiosity to necessarily watch this action. Continuing “his path through filmography” Aishwarya Rai, this film saw for the first time. I'll tell you, it's impressive.
In this film, "Bride and Prejudice" shows a very good combination of Indian songs and dances with American musical and British literature. The film was shot based on the novel "Pride and Prejudice", but it largely does not correspond to the book, rather taken as a basis. The plot is very simple and at first glance quite primitive. A mother tries to find good husbands for her daughters. But girls dream of bright and mutual love. And one day a wedding comes to a small town, and with it comes love or hate. Songs, dances, drive mixed with dramas of love and hatred intrigue from the beginning and do not let go until the end. It's beautiful. Bright. Wonderful. This is a rare case where three different countries have found that rare harmony that suits everyone. The film is pleasant, bright and leaves a sea of positive emotions. This is not exactly India and not quite America, but the reunion is simply grandiose.
The actors are great. Aishwarya above all praise. Martin Henderson has seen it for the first time, so I can’t compare it to playing in other films. But I liked it here. Well done. The other actors were just as good. I enjoyed watching this movie, laughed and was sad with my heart.
I wonder what my favorite work of all time, Gone with the Wind, would have looked like in the Indian version if it had been tried in Bollywood? I can't even imagine. Which of the actors could play the main roles? By beauty, suitable actresses are not few, but possessing such incredible charm and charisma as the unsurpassed Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable, no one even comes to mind. Although ... I think Dipika Padukone would do great, and Ajay Devgan would be no worse than Clark. But, it is so ... reasoning on the topic. It is unlikely that even in modern Bollywood, one of the actresses will dare to play the role of uninhibited, freedom-loving and insanely frank Scarlett O’Hara. Although... if you do with a purely Indian flavor, adhering to traditions and customs, I think it will not be bad at all. But that will be a different story.
In general, the film is very peculiar, unusual. The idea of the director pleased, (I confess I expected the worst), the performance of actors at the highest level. Music and dance are always excellent. And the cobra dance is divine.
We have already expelled you imperialists.
I am not an Englishman, I am an American.
What's the difference?
Once a dozen years ago, after watching the film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in 2005, I decided to switch channels and came across this.
The opening credits ended (the titles of the film I did not see), but clinging to my beloved Aishwarya Rai, “stuck”.
For a moment, I began to realize that I was watching Her — the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice ... only without the contradictions that are present in the adaptation with Knightley (although, it would seem, “Bride and Prejudice” should be farther from Austin than Wright’s film).
Yes, this film is a musical, yes - a comedy, yes - it is only a thing based on the novel (only here the creators did not hide it, even, on the contrary, stressed that this is an author's adaptation), yes - tons of plot deviations from the original with a comic bias, BUT.
1) In this film, Mr. Bennett (sorry, Bakshi) is unusually similar to the book and, I’m not afraid to pay attention to the serial image of 1995 (funny, isn’t it?).
2) Most importantly, Aishwarya in Lalit was played by Elizabeth Bennett - an intelligent, attractive, tactful girl, aware of the foundations of the world in which she lives, and all the features of her own family. She doesn't run around a dirty house, she doesn't laugh like a horse, and she doesn't look at Darcy with an expression like she's saying "Kiss-me-right-now" (forgive me, fans of Wright's film adaptation, but Miss Liz was like that). She beautifully parries Darcy's statements and answers the canon in terms of character. This is what smiled, because the era is completely different, the world is different and the country is different. Hence morality: the understanding of decency and norms of behavior at different times is different, but the image of Lizzie Bennett in any of these periods will find its place and reflection. This is a special "+" for the authors-creators of the film, and Paradise - as an actress.
3) It's a gift, Jaya, and getting into Jane's image is 100%. In general, the actors are well-chosen. With the only difference that Bing... sorry, Balraj is one of the rare characters here, very different from the book (he is not that gentle aristocrat and certainly not distinguished by gullibility and excessive good-natured). But in the conditions of this film, such a reading is absolutely logical and not annoying. The whole Bakshi family is a test (to speak modern language).
4) Mr Collins (oh, forgot his name here, yes). He is a very funny and funny Indian. Great solution. I really laughed.
(5) European faces (read - Americans). Darcy is pleasant in dubbing (in the original, his voice is not very). Irritation does not cause and pulls on the main character. He even has pride. This, of course, is not a book Darcy (Darcy Colin Firth is unshakable), but the plot of this film fits perfectly. Wickham is such a nasty typical playboy. Lady Catherine (in this version - the mother) and Georgie - also quite succeeded (according to the feeling - everything within the genre and the general idea).
(6) Paints. Surprisingly, the creators managed to keep this fine line between the Indian and Hollywood musical, while not getting bogged down in either direction excessively. Great music, wonderful dances and colors. It's kind of theme. Applause for the team.
7) Mocking the cliches of Bollywood and Hollywood. This is done with some irony, but not sarcasm. Creators in general, as I understand, do not mind laughing at the cliché of cultures.
(8) The title phrase is now one of my favorites. It reflects a lot of things.
The result: an excellent musical, light and unobtrusive, which, despite its seemingly secondary, and pulls to reconsider.
10 out of 10
This is the 5th edition of the Austin novel I’m watching. And to be honest, after Pride and Prejudice in 2003, this film did not cause any sympathy in absentia. The action of the film is not only shifted in time to the present, so even from foggy England moved to sunny India! Unheard of audacity! And the first thought was, of course, that we wouldn't see an echo of Austin in this product of Bollywood's mixed work with Hollywood. To say that I was thrilled after watching the movie is to say nothing. I am in a mute admiration, about the same as after reading the above novel.
+ Indian color - undoubtedly became a huge plus, stunning dances, costumes, food, entertainment ... I don’t think that’s how Austin saw balls and weddings, but I don’t think even she would be against such a metamorphosis.
Mr. Darcy - for him a special thank you to the writers, the director and, of course, Martin Henderson, for such a convincing and realistic image. This is what Darcy should be: confident, proud, impeccably polite. Just the ideal of male nobility. But at the same time charming and truly in love.
Mr. Wickham – I would really like to see Daniel Gillis as Mr. Darcy, of course, because I have been madly in love with this actor for a very, very long time. But, honestly, I was not sure that he could become Wickham, a kind of shirt-guy who in life seeks primarily benefits and nothing more. To reach this state Daniel and could not, we see half-in love with Lalita Joni Wickham. And I am completely at the mercy of his spell.
I am very glad that the directors once again did not remake everyone and everything around. Elizabeth, even under the name of Lalita, is still the same Miss Bennett, intelligent, well-read, insanely beautiful. Mr. Collins acquired Indian roots, but remained the same chatterbox and lick. Miss Lydia has become a little more docile and homely, but she is still drawn to adventure and romance. Marie changed the piano to belly dancing, but she is still far from a master.
The movie turned out to be 100. Even constant songs and dances in the best traditions of Bollywood did not anger or distract from the main action, but maintained the entourage throughout the film. And if you remember that 10 is the ideal, then
9 out of 10
Among avid moviegoers there is an opinion about Indian cinema as not very high-quality products. Firstly, most often these films are too sentimental and oversaturated with not short songs; secondly, scenes of fights always cause an involuntary smile; thirdly, the number of films shot involuntarily suggests the idea of the relationship between quantity and quality. You can list it for a long time, and all this, by and large, is fair. And yet there is one Indian film I try not to miss.
In 2004, director Gurinder Chadha filmed the author's interpretation of Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice - Bride and Prejudice. From the very title of the film, it becomes clear that this is a subtle self-ironic film. And if in the Russian translation the pun of the title can not be understood immediately, the original title "Bride & Prejudice" (compare with the original title of the book "Pride and Prejudice") immediately adjusts to the appropriate mood. The film in general constantly appeals to history, to the plot of the novel and stereotypes about Indian cinema.
Jealouss of the novel and its classic productions (to which I include myself) need not worry: this film will not offend their feelings. The filmmakers, in my opinion, did not claim to conform to the literary source, did not set ambitious goals for themselves. They made a film based on their favorite novel, adapting it to the realities of their lives. And they got a great pleasure from it - it is felt in every frame!
The action of the novel is transferred to our days, and even in Amritsar - the city of the Indian province. Here, four daughters live in the family of a poor farmer, and the main task of their mother is to give them off to a profitable marriage, preferably to America. The writers and director beat the names of the main characters: Jane turned into Jaya, Lizzie into Lalita, Mary into Maya, and Lydia into Luckhi. Bingley, now an Indian named Balraj living in London, is probably the ultimate dream of any Indian girl. Only Darcy and Wickham keep their names. Fabula, perhaps, everyone knows - I will not dwell on it. What, then, is the implication of "The Bride and Prejudice"?
The film is very colorful, without going into tastelessness: dresses, landscapes, even the city market are filled with unforgettable shades and purely Indian calorite. Dancing and songs subtly play not the facets of a typical Indian film and a Hollywood musical. Well, the brilliant hits of artists in the images: Aishwarya Rai, Namrata Shirodkar, Martin Henderson, Nitin Chandra Ganatra and support the overall atmosphere of the film - self-irony and optimism, but their characters do not turn into caricatures. Of course, it feels like they’ve all watched and watched the 1995 film – much of their play is recognizable, but what a wonderful interpretation of the characters are presented to us!
Of course, this is a film created in a frivolous genre, but it is done quite carefully and, it seems, with great pleasure from the process. Perhaps that is why it is a great way to relax, with it it is very easy to disconnect for a while from the hustle and bustle and daily affairs and immerse yourself in the world of Indian passions, English humor and American happy ending.
I don’t know why I went to see this movie. Why: I do not like Indian films, I almost cannot stand it, and even more so, the mere thought that the creation of Jane Austen was remade in an Indian way could bring me to white heat. However, under some strange inner force, I still watch it. And then I didn't regret watching it.
I will not retell the story, everyone knows it well. If you don't know, you've heard.
Like all Indian films, Bride and Prejudice is full of cheerfulness, colors and happiness, everyone who flashes at least once in the screen radiates such a positive that you can envy. And every song makes you blow up and dance with them, or even sing along if you have a voice.
Bright costumes, loud and fast-paced songs, Indian dances, culture and numerous landscapes of London and India - you could say, I fell in love with this country, with this culture, with this film. But what really surprised me was that after the film I couldn't pull any other Indian film. Apparently, "Bride and Prejudice" is something special. Thank you Gurinder Chadha for such an amazing film, unlike any of the Indian ones, which I still watch for the first time.
10 out of 10
Show me the way
Take me to love
Things only heard now I want to feel
My soul caressed by silken breeze
This is not my first time watching this movie and I can’t miss it. I love Indian cinema and Indian culture, and Jane Austen’s novel is very exciting to me. I have to admit, I fell in love with this story! This has happened more than once, and still with a smile I look at familiar scenes, episodes.
Very beautiful, colorful, romantic, with a bit of humor. Nice Indian music, dancing and of course love. There were many memorable and now beloved moments: the first meeting of Lalita and Darcy, on the plane, the sisters dancing to the song No life without wife (I wanted to go dancing with them!), the search for Lakha, dancing at the very beginning, and at the end, when Jaya married Balraj, she saw him. You know, the views of Lalita and Will, addressed to each other, so penetrating, simple, they have so much tenderness.
Aishwarya Rai and Martin Hendersen looked very organic and cute in the image of Lalita and Will. I also liked the pair, Jaya and Bal Raj. They look good together! And Naveen Andrews is very good as an Indian! What a dancer! The film delivers a lot of pleasant emotions, impressions, gives a smile.
10 out of 10
I really liked the movie at first. A fun, dynamic, easy to understand story about the fates and lives of young unmarried girls from India, within the culture and morality of their majestic country. Both the British, with their restraint and conservativeness, and the Americans, with their promiscuity and rigid influence, intervene here, as can be seen from Mr. Kohli Saab. It's funny to watch him try to be an American, even though his national identity is written on his forehead. It's interesting to see who Lalitta chooses, how she's attracted and at the same time repulsed by Darcy. It is quite funny to watch the “neck” of the family – a mad mother who sleeps and sees to give her daughters married.
As for the cast, I can say that Aishwarya Rai rightfully bears the title of Miss Universe. She is beautiful as a woman and as an actress. Her pair with Martin Henderson looks very organic. Played like no one else.
Martin Henderson is very similar to an Englishman, which is nice, as it is rare to see the really right face for a similar role.
The music in the movie is amazing! Maybe it was too Indian, but I liked it.
But... It was disappointing that the story was written off from Jane Austen’s Pride and Warning. They copied everything: the characters of the sisters, the fanaticism of the mother and the calmness of the father, a certain hostility of Darcy. Even the names: Darcy, Mr. Collins - Koli Saab, who got married to Elizabeth-Lalita. And the older sister of the groom was copied, too. It's okay, but there's still some unpleasant aftertaste.
Therefore, for Aishwarya Rai, for the music, for the positivity of the film and for the original conclusion a la "think-it-yourself-no-younger-run-from-Wickham"
Indian cinema is a separate direction in the industry. This is a different world, where everything is bright and colorful, even suffering is transmitted in song and dance movements.
As for this film, I liked it. Everything is fun, beautiful and dynamic. If we move away from the classical work, then such an interpretation takes place. Attributing the bride and prejudices to the film adaptation of the famous novel can only indirectly. This is a different time and culture, but something from Jane Austen is still unchanged. This is a family, a mother obsessed with the idea of having daughters, a girl with her views on life and, of course, love.
The script is not much different from the original, except for a few moments and scenery. In general, it is fun to watch the mixture of American and Indian cultures against the background of the plot of 19th century England. The film turned out to be more Indian with the whole set of stamps to which we are accustomed. songs dance shine of gold and local flavor. But the presence of Americans on the site does its job, a significant role in the picture is played by the competition of the West and the East, which actually prevents the characters from finding a common language.
Melodrama this creation is difficult to call. Rather, “The Bride...” is a romantic comedy with a hint of classics. But there is something to look at and who. actors perfectly cope with their tasks, each in his place the gamut of emotions and passions transferred as much as necessary. No more, no less. Plus extras and beautiful landscapes that set the atmosphere.
The film is decent and interesting. A little naive, in places you feel playfulness and not always justified lyrical retreats, but you can watch. If you don’t try to find the depth of Austin’s novel, just watch the picture.