Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This early BBC mini-series of "Pride and Prejudice" is the first production to flesh out most of the significant characters of Jane Austen's novel. Of course, it needed the nearly 4 ½ hours to do that. The production values are very good. The scenery and filming are excellent. The cast is very capable, but only a couple of the performances seem exceptional. Those would be Sabina Franklyn as Jane Bennett and Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Irene Richard also was quite good as Charlotte Lucas. David Rintoul made a striking figure for Fitzwilliam Darcy. But, in his transformation at the end, his character still seemed to be dour. There was no apparent warming and enthusiasm with his love for Elizabeth. Elizabeth Garvie is good as Elizabeth, but I think her character was too uncertain at times. She sometimes seemed wishy-washy. Whether this was from her interpretation of the role, or the director's lead, it seemed to weaken the character. I don't think that's the image of Elizabeth that Austen had in mind. Overall, I just didn't sense much life or enthusiasm in the characters. Before this 1980 mini-series, the BBC had made three other mini-series of P&P — in 1952, 1958 and 1967. But those were all in the 3-hour range, with 30-minute installments. They barely touched on some of the characters. The interest has been there for Jane Austen since at least the last half of the 20th century. So at intervals the BBC would put out a new production. Yet, none seemed to improve on the story. By that I mean, succeeding versions didn't add much more from the story than the earlier ones. And no exceptional stars or role insights emerged. So, the preferred version for many movie buffs over four decades was likely the 1940 film with its cast of big name stars – Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson, Maureen O'Sullivan, Edmund Gwenn, and Edna May Oliver. But, with the 1980 mini-series, we had the first flushing out of characters that were ignored or barely mentioned in the movies and shorter series. While it's not a particularly exciting rendition, the 1980 mini-series production is a good wholesome treatment of Austen's great novel of pride and prejudice. And, it would retain the foremost position of P&P films until 1995 and the last great mini-series on the story. A word to the wise – for those who may want to acquire or watch all the various versions of Pride and Prejudice. Watch this 1980 mini-series version before you watch the 1995 version. The difference will become pleasantly clear when watching the second series. To do it in reverse invites awareness of the differences that will be not so pleasant and may even lead to uneasiness or lack of interest when watching this series last.

Definitely the worst of the three versions of P&P that I've seen. (The others being the best, the 2005 movie, and in the middle, the Colin Firth TV version.) While it may be somewhat faithful to the book, almost none of the energy, vitality, or even wit of the book comes through here. The production is overcome by too many dull scenes, some bad acting (esp. David Rintoul as Darcy, who provides another answer to the question from Monty Python's Sir Bedivere, "What else is made of wood?"),and way too much inappropriate music. At times I thought I was watching a nature film made in the 60s or 70s.Skip this one. If you want something faithful to the book, try the Firth version. If you want one that captures the feeling, the energy, and the spirit of the book, then definitely try the 2005 Keira Knightly version.

This is TV for the late seventies - faithful to source, stagey, studio-bound, with the odd bit of outdoor filming, so don't go looking for flashy film technique and 'modern' soap-like characterisation with a driving narrative. This is supposed to be Jane Austen on screen, not another ever so modern, emotionally over the top, easily delineated character put into period for modern audiences with the attention span of twenty five minutes.So the pace is leisurely, life revolves around sowing, being gentile, with the odd highlight of dinner with neighbours or a small ball with four and twenty families! This adaptation presents this lifestyle excellently, which means that characters do not rev up for the audience. The acting is a little patchy - for instance, Elizabeth Garvie (of whom we saw too little afterwards) starts hesitantly but improves remarkably, while David Rintoul is left too stiff and starchy throughout (Fay Weldon's feminist revenge?). But the support is good, and not overplayed, except in the case of Natalie Ogle (Lydia). certainly Wickham and Mr Bennet are seen for what they are - the former a lying cheat but smooth, while the latter is totally disdainful of his simpleton wife.Let's face it - those critics of this version do not seem to criticise Ms Austen for ignoring the life and death struggle of Britain facing Napoleonic France, but say that the characters are too passive to be interested in. The words of Ms Austen are there, and she was not writing Barbara Cartland!

I did like this version of Pride and Prejudice. There were just a few things that I didn't care for, especially compared to the 1995 version.I hated Natalie Ogle's Lydia. I don't know why all of these BBC productions of Jane Austen with immature girls have the worst actresses playing them? Sense and Sensibility (1980) is the same way. They choose these young looking actresses on nothing more than their looks and their ability to read a script apparently. The only Lydia I've liked is Julia Sawalha, she played it genuinely, at the right age, and laughed naturally. Everyone else, including Jena Malone, plays her too young and with forced laughter. Like perhaps they are overcompensating for age, even though Sawalha was the oldest to play her, I believe. All the other Lydia's shriek and carry on, and I never really got that impression from the book. I don't think she is that different from other teenagers nowadays, well a middle schooler from now. Ogle played her like a 10-year old.My other problem was that they didn't do any voice-over until the the 3 or 4th episode. It was very strange that everyone was reading their letters that they had written aloud. As I watched I was seriously wondering if they just didn't know how to do them, but then I remembered that they have been doing voice-overs since talkies have been in existence. It is a worthless point but it really bothered me.Other than that, I have very few complaints. I did find it interesting that they used the same girl who played Elinor in Sense and Sensibility (1980) to play Charlotte. I was always under the impression that Elinor was relatively attractive (at least not plain), and I had resigned myself, while watching S & S, into thinking that tastes have changed.. but apparently not, if they used her to play the plain Charlotte. Anyway, that was a big tangent.I do agree with some of the other posters that the levels of beauty in the Bennet girls were better portrayed in this film than the 95 version. I think Susannah Harker is very handsome and I appreciate that now, but when I first saw it I kept thinking how much more attractive Jennifer Ehle was than Harker. I would say that classically speaking and for the time period, Harker would have been the most beautiful girl, she has a lovely neck and profile. Another tangent, sorry.But yes, it is a good film, but for me, the 1995 version will always be my number one. All the actors are great and I prefer the locations much more.