Does Darcy suck or is it just me

[igorfazlyev]

I finally got round to watching this movie the other day and I must say that apart from numerous other flaws what really disappointed me in this film was Mr. Darcy. When he makes his first appearance he looks convincing enough, but unfortunately as soon as he opens his mouth all the Darcy magic is gone. He comes across not as a man but rather as a stuttering adolescent whose only redeeming personal quality in comparison to Mr. Collins is that he knows to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Otherwise the two come across is little different from each other.
I mean perhaps in today's day and age when men are expected to act like sappy sissies and weep crocodile tears in public every time their 'feelings' are hurt, isn't it supposed to have been a wee bit different in the early 19th century? In this film, however, each time Mr. Darcy opens his mouth I can't help expecting him to break out in tears or throw a conniption like a three year old. Again, am I so wrong or did they pick the wrong guy to play Darcy?

[Eliza101]

I don't think the 2005 Darcy was that bad, he was just different from Colin Firth, that's all. Imho, Mathew McFayden just had a different take on Darcy, yes his Darcy is more sensitive and thus more vulnerable than Colin Firth's but it doesn't mean he's as hopelessly off the mark as you suggest. I think he was just aiming for a different mark.
It also has to be noted that the 2005 movie never set out to be a faithful adaptation of the book, many characters were dropped altogether, locations of a lot of the scenes were changed, thus Darcy confesses his love for Elizabeth against the backdrop of a driving rain, which was probably done to achieve a more powerful dramatic effect. And if you forget about the book for a moment and consider this film on its own, it comes across quite nicely.