5 Reasons Why You Should Watch Pride And Prejudice (Photo Credit –Facebook)
Advertisement
It’s the time of year to bundle up, grab a hot beverage, and rewatch Pride and Prejudice (2005) for the umpteenth time. 20 years have passed since the Keira Knightley-Matthew Macfadyen starrer was released, and it happens to be one of the few adaptations that was critically acclaimed then, and receives praise to date— the film’s Rotten Tomatoes score is 87%, certified fresh.
Here are five reasons why the Joe Wright film adaptation of Jane Austen’s most famous novel remains a classic, twenty years on.
Advertising
Advertising
1. The Actors Being Close To The Ages Of The Book Characters
Elizabeth Bennet from the book is approximately 21 years old, which is around the same age Jane Austen was when she wrote Pride and Prejudice. True to the book, Keira Knightley was 20 in 2005, when the film was released, and Matthew Macfadyen was 31, which is close to Austen’s characterisation of Darcy as 28 years old.
The novel explores how Lizzy Bennet is considered mature for her age, but her prejudice clouds her judgment of Darcy, who allows his pride (which can often accompany age) to overshadow his feelings for Elizabeth. It fits perfectly with their ages, in our humble opinion.
Advertisement
Keira Knightley at the “Pride and Prejudice” NYC Premiere. She was twenty (20!!!!) years old at the time. pic.twitter.com/jqVkwKwAoy
2. The Exquisite Cinematography Elevates Every Scene
If a movie necessitates rewatching, it must be beautiful to look at. From the set-up that shows off the magnanimity of the Darcy house to the grand gardens when Lizzy sees them for the first time, the visuals of the 2005 picturisation draw viewers in gently. Moving the time period to later in the 19th century, cinematographer Roman Osin expertly weaves together gorgeous ballrooms and astounding scenery, and we can’t stop watching.
3. The HAND FLEX
Yearning never looked so subtle yet so obvious as in Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice. Let’s set the scene— Fitzwilliam Darcy runs into the woman he swears he does not have feelings for at his estate. While assisting her ascent onto her carriage, he touches her bare hand. Stinging with the weight of this touch and his internal turmoil, he stretches the fingers of his hand while walking back. Matthew Macfadyen improvised this hand flex, and it is arguably the most important reason that this adaptation works.
Advertisement
4. Remarkable Cast Members
While Rosamund Pike added depth to her Jane Bennet, a yet unknown Carey Mulligan, Talulah Riley, and Jena Malone were cast as the other Bennet sisters. Simon Woods played the lovable Mr. Bingley, while Tamzin Merchant was Georgiana Darcy. Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn were cast as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, respectively, while Dame Judi Dench played Lady Catherine de Bourgh. This casting made Pride and Prejudice the gold standard for Austen adaptations.
Advertisement
the cast of the bennet family with director joe wright behind the scenes of pride & prejudice (2005) pic.twitter.com/vwmoMtYQDx
— pride and prejudice archive (@pandparchive) June 25, 2024
Advertisement
5. Unmatched Chemistry Of The Lead Pair
Another very obvious reason to love this adaptation in hindsight, but Keira Knightley was known for Pirates of the Caribbean and Bend It Like Beckham before this film whereas Matthew Macfadyen was in his pre- Succession era. Apart from the age difference, the two main leads were very different, but this worked in their favor to create the push-and-pull chemistry of Lizzy and Mr. Darcy. Simply lovely.
Advertisement
“There were a few Darcys and it was very clear that it was Matthew from the get-go.”
— Keira Knightley on her chemistry with Matthew Macfadyen in Pride & Prejudice. pic.twitter.com/vNdPCOl4qi
— pride and prejudice archive (@pandparchive) June 18, 2025
In conclusion
A lot must be forsaken when translating a 300-something-word novel onto celluloid. Plotlines, unimportant characters, and even beautiful dialogues were sacrificed to ensure that Pride and Prejudice fit into its run-time of 127 minutes. However, the above reasons compensate for these discrepancies between the novel and the film, which is a true classic, even 20 years after its release!
Note: All the opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.
For more such recommendations, explore What to Watch!
