Netflix released a photo of the new cast of Pride and Prejudice, starring Olivia Colman, Emma Corrin, Freya Mavor, Hollie Avery and Hopey Parish. Rufus Sewell will play Mr. Bennet and Jack Lowden was cast as Mr. Darcy! Anyway, people are saying the vibes are already off here. I’ll give it a chance. Netflix’s adaptation of Persuasion was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen though, so I hope they learned from that. [Hollywood Life]
Taron Egerton isn’t interested in playing James Bond, he thinks he’s way too messy for 007. That might be one of the best ways to get cast, though. [Just Jared]
What are the hot, trendy purses for celebrities this summer? [RCFA]
Lainey’s take on Justin Trudeau & Katy Perry: a romance built on no longer being cool? Instead of a joint slay, they’re united in flopping? [LaineyGossip]
Why wasn’t there a new South Park episode this week? [Pajiba]
Alison Brie & her bangs are outside. [Go Fug Yourself]
Barbie Ferreiras went to the Criterion Collection. [OMG Blog]
Aw, a Shemar Moore baby pic. [Seriously OMG]
A Love After Lockup star has been convicted of murder. [Starcasm]
Monica Lewinsky chimed in on Jay Leno’s BS. [Buzzfeed]
We know you've been yearning for a sneak peek. Pride & Prejudice is officially in production.
Here's a first look featuring Emma Corrin, Freya Mavor, Olivia Colman, Hopey Parish, Rhea Norwood, and Hollie Avery as the Bennet women. pic.twitter.com/c1x9SNNfgS
— Netflix (@netflix) July 29, 2025
Not persuaded by Emma Corrin as Elizabeth but yes, willing to give it a chance. Still love the 2005 film best.
I liked the movie but wish it would have been a 2-parter. It was too short in my opinion.
And I didn’t love Keira Knightly as Elizabeth. She was an it girl at the time, so I know why they cast her, because they wanted a name. But in my opinion, she was good, not great.
Matthew McFadyen, on the other hand, was an amazing Darcy. I adored him.
Agreed. She always came across as Keira Knightly playing Keira Knightly playing Elizabeth. She was much more convincing as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire IMHO.
I’m an Austen lover for over 50 years, the movie was not good. Totally unconvincing. But for people of a certain age, they certainly liked it. Far too Mary Sue. The language was ridiculous. It’s like no one read the book.
I have such PTSD from the disaster that was Persuasion…but I’ll give it a chance. If its awful, we still have the best version to entertain us (aka the 1995 version.)
Since the executive producer and director of the two adaptations are totally different, I’m hoping this one is watchable. Mostly I’m hoping it is because I’m really intrigues about Jack Lowden as Darcy.
I know, I’m still twitching all over just thinking about it. The best Persuasion was from 1995, too – Anne Eliot’s father was just priceless. I suppose, just like every generation has it’s Hamlet, every one will have it’s Pride and Prejudice.
The acting in that version was sublime. Amanda Root transformed from a lonely, homely, neglected little waif into a beautiful, strong woman who got her man. One of my all-time fave movies.
After I watched the Persuasion with Dakota Johnson, I had to IMMEDIATELY watch the 1995 version. Like a palate cleanser lol.
Thank you for knowing the best version of P and P.
I’m not sure about Lowden as Darcy. I don’t hate him in Slow Horses but not sure if he can do the broody but not in a Bronte way.
That said nothing is worse than the atrocity of casting Dakota Johnson as Anne Elliot. After that mess no American should ever be cast again in an Austen adaptation.
I hate when remakes are done in a “feminist” tone totally untrue to the era. 1995 was the only P&P as far as I am concerned…I just rewatch that one when wanted.
Agreed. Although I enjoyed the movie version too. I just don’t get it though. Why do we need to do it again???
I think people are as fascinated with Jane Austen as they are with Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s plays are over 500 years old and they are put on again and again and again in all different kinds of settings. I think you just don’t see Shakespeare as much in films as you do on stage because they are very much meant for the stage. Lots of people want to interpret these works for themselves. Same goes for all the Bronte adaptations.
Wait, wut? Have you read Austen? Her books are absolute treatises on feminism and class warfare. She herself chose never to marry and she wrote about the absurd position of women who were denied the ability to inherit. There’s a privileged angle of course because she and her characters were of a class who didn’t have to work. Women of less economic means did work in that era. But in Emma, she actually addresses class differences in women’s opportunities. Just because the word feminism didn’t exist at that time doesn’t mean the sentiment was a real thing.
I don’t think Constance meant that Austen’s works aren’t feminist. She said that remakes tend to be done in a feminist way that’s totally untrue to the era. I agree. In my opinion, the 1995 miniseries totally got the original feminist message across using Austen’s dialogue, Austen’s “direction,” body language, etc. They didn’t need to use modern language or actions — it was pretty clear what Elizabeth was angry about/rebelling against. On the other hand, the Dakota Johnson version of Persuasion felt inauthentic because everything she did and said was far too 21st century.
Thank you for the clarification, and that’s absolutely fair. But most adaptations strip Austen of all social meaning and reduce them to romcoms (looking at you Gwenyth). I actually consider Clueless one of the best Austen adaptions because it is so faithful to the class warfare of Emma.
TL;DR: Austen knew financial struggles.
Thank you, MIghtyMolly. Jane Austen, her mother, and her sisters were reduced financially after the death of Rev’d Austen, her father. Of course the good old C of C did not provide pensions for widows and children. For a few years, Jane, Cassandra, and their mother moved from one lodging to another. Their aunt was arrested for shoplifting. They had to depend on money from Austen’s older brothers, not all of whom prospered. One brother was adopted by a wealthy family under condition that he change his name from Austen to Knight. That was, ultimately, a rather random thing that elevated him financially but also allowed him to help support his female family members.
So it’s no wonder how thrilled she was to get a paycheck!
The 6 part 1980 BBC version starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul is charming and I expected her to become a major star as a result. Jennifer Ehle also didn’t have a major career either and yet Colin Firth later won an Oscar and is every where? It’s weird that both actresses played well received star parts but neither ended up with huge careers?
Thank you for that! – Just discovered in streaming on tubi
Oooh, you’re in for a treat.
I don’t see how any version can trump the Colin Firth/Jennfer Ehle version. The cast was so perfect. As horrible as character as Mr. Collins is, David Bramble made him the MOST obsequious character ever. Perfection.
I loved the bit where Mr. Bennet asks of Mr. Collins if his witticisms are spontaneous or practiced at home.
He makes the commentary about shelving work. No other Mr Collins has matched him.
I loathe that version. I find it unwatchable. It is most definitely not perfectly cast.
Agree. And the scene @Euydice describes is one of the best in the series. Poor Lizzie and her dad can hardly contain their snickering.
I love the Firth/Ehle version, too.
I’ll take this opportunity to again recommend “Bride and Prejudice,” a Bollywood version. It’s a joy.
I’ll have to check. it out. I never saw the version with Keira Knightley as I was Keira’s out at that point.
It looks a bit sad beige. Not sure I want gloomy in a Jane Austen adaptation (except for Persuasion, which has that melancholy thing going on).
Yes does not look “bright light and sparkling”
My thoughts as well. It’s like they took the regency style and blended it with the earthier wet hem 2000s version. But it just looks depressing.imo.
I also consider the Firth/Ehle version the definitive one. Loved it! The casting was great and it captured Austen’s irony.
Yes, the 1995 version is far superior imo. I’m one of the few who hated the Keira Knightley version. To me it’s a very well made hallmark movie. I cringe when I see Macfadyen’s Darcy.
I’ll give anything with Olivia Coleman and Rufus Sewell a watch!
Same.
Same here, anything with Olivia and Rufus! And Jack Lowden… yes, please. That said, I too am wondering if Jack can pull off reserved brooding but not Bronte brooding. I always think of Darcy as dark not blondish.
And more votes for the Ehle-Firth P & P and the 1995 Persuasion.
Jack Lowdon is so damn attractive to me, but as Darcy?? No. Also, he and Emma Corrin look similar enough that they could be related and that’s a big ick. No, no, no.
I have ordered the 1995 version and then came to love the 2005 version (hated it at first). And I agree with Colin Firth that Matthew is the definitive Darcy.
But … I love that they keep putting out new versions! Don’t get why people are upset about having a bounty of options!
I’m hoping for one more in 2040s in my lifetime!
“adored” not “ordered” 🙂
Yes, keep the versions coming. Love watching marathons of Austen adaptations. I still read the books once a year.
My perfect version would be a blend of the 1995 series with the 2005 film. Keira Knightley was not even close to my favourite Lizzy, but the landscape was so beautifully filmed and the sets were great. Also really liked Matthew McFadyen as Darcy.
This! I adore having more than one version of Austen adaptations to watch! I’d watch as many as I could, minus the Netflix P&P, though that might be interesting with a bit of (legal where I live) weed the same way the disastrous Cats movie was.
I still hate the movie.. Absurd dialogue and the characters were – not great. Mathew mumbles mcfadyen thinks mumbling his way through dialogue is sexy. Also keira? Yeah, no.
Agree 100% – the more the merrier! I also love when authors come up with new adaptations of the story as well – I’ve read a few great ones.
yes! all of the versions, and more please!! Thank you 🙂
I’ll watch this. I am always curious to see the next iteration of a perennial favorite like P&P. Olivia Coleman is kind of a no-brainer for Mrs. Bennett. I love Jack Lowden so I’ll watch his Darcy any day. I liked both Firth’s and McFadyen’s. They were very different but both worked for me, so I see no reason why Lowden can’t pull it off. He’s handsome and he can act. I’m not quite as confident about Emma Coryn but she was pretty good in the Lady Chatterly film so hopefully she’ll rise to the occasion as Lizzie.
I prefer the Keira Knightley film version to the 1990s BBC version, overall. I liked the natural quality of the conversations and the settings. It felt dynamic and the music was gorgeous. I actually watched the mini-series after seeing the film, and it seemed sort of staid and prim by comparison. And maybe that’s more Austen-esque, but I’m not a purist. As great as Jennifer Ehle is, I didn’t feel like she captured the part of Lizzie that Austen described as having a “lively disposition” or “finding delight in the ridiculous.” She was a little brittle or something. She didn’t seem yearn-worthy the way Knightley’s Lizzie did. Unpopular opinion, I know.
oh see I think the primness and staidness is part of what makes the 1995 version so perfect. Austen is making a commentary on the primness and the importance of manners and how manners are often seen to indicate morality or character (with Darcy being the one with poor manners but still a good man which is why he’s so insulted when Lizzie makes the quip about behaving in a more gentlemanly manner). That gets lost a lot in the 2005 version.
And I am 100% team Ehle over team Keira but we never really debate the Lizzies! Its always about the Darcys lol.
And both were so much better in an Austen adaptation than Dakota Johnson lmao.
Masiesmom, have you read any Austen? The dialogue in the movie was bizarre and totally wrong. Lizzie in the series absolutely had a lively disposition. Why do we need to modernise everything rather than think through what it means in context? Classics are classics for a reason.
I’ll give P & P a chance, but film adaptations nearly always mis represent it as a romance and not a masterpiece of feminist outrage.
Speaking of feminist outrage, I adore Monica Lewinsky and I always have. I’m about her age and had a huge crush on Clinton at that time. Would I have done what she did given the chance? Effing yeah I would. (Don’t come at me with cheating. It’s well documented the Clintons had/have an open marriage). I did much more with much less worthy partners in my college years. But of course I didn’t know that Clinton was a pedophile and rapist back then. Nor did Lewinsky I’m sure.
P and P is my favorite Austen novel. I watched every adaptation. I am not a fan of the 1995 mini series. I thought Jennifer looked very mature for her age and didn’t fit the version Austen described in her book. I am intrigued by the new Mr. Darcy can’t help but to compare him to Matthew. I think Matthew was a great for the movie and it will be hard to picture someone else in that role.
This comment section is giving me life. Not that I agree with everything but most of you all seem to have actually read some Austen. And of course 1995 is the best version of P & P. To be fair, they didn’t have to cut much because it was a series, not a feature film, but the 2005’s costumes are way off — that slip dress Miss Bingley is wearing at the ball was like underwear for the time. Also, the social class it placed the Bennetts in is way too low. They weren’t super-wealthy it’s true, but none of the girls would have been working on the farm.
What girls worked on the farm?
I would watch Rufus Sewell read the white pages. 😅❤
If you’re an Austen lover, check out the new movie Jane Austen Wrecked my Life. A smart, funny JA themed romance. Loved it!
Once again, actors who are too old to play their characters…