#vue cinemas when i catch you... . .. (for legal reasons this is a joke)

[bennetsbonnet]

I got very excited when I discovered that Pride and Prejudice (2005) will be shown here in cinemas for its twentieth anniversary next month, because it is a visually stunning film and it deserves to be watched on the big screen.

But then I read the description and... that is certainly a choice of how to summarise the story. Even for the film, which diverged a lot from the novel, I still think this is kind of ridiculous.

'Sparks fly,' hmmm are we sure? Pretty sure a man dismissing a woman as 'tolerable' at their first meeting isn't the height of romance.

Yes, Elizabeth is 'spirited' and Mr Darcy is 'single, rich and proud.' Sure, 'reluctant' is maybe a little harsh but I can see what they mean but... 'beneath his class'?? 'BENEATH HIS CLASS'????

Such an accusation is levelled at Elizabeth by Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who calls her an 'upstart...without family, connections, or fortune,' and warns her, 'if you were sensible of your own good, you would not wish to quit the sphere in which you have been brought up.'

But Elizabeth shuts that notion down at once, and I'll leave it to her to explain why she is not beneath Mr Darcy:

'In marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal.'

No, Pride and Prejudice is not an enemies to lovers romance; nor are Elizabeth and Mr Darcy star-crossed lovers tragically doomed by their circumstances. They are hindered by their pride and their prejudice... that's quite important.

I just... how do you manage to irritate me this much with only two sentences?! Mind-boggling. I'll still go and I'm honestly quite excited to watch it in the cinema, but I needed to rant.