First time I found out that people had already made a gay themed Pride and Prejudice I was instantly hooked. The whole P&P gay thing was my idea for a novel that I'm working on (in my head), although hadn't had the time to start on it. I've always been a Pride and Prejudice fan. It's the first book in the Austenverse that I've read as a kid. I've fallen in love with the characters especially with the main lead Lizzie Bennet. Mr. Darcy, of course, will always be my fictional boyfriend. I have always identified myself with Elizabeth ever since I've read the novel and watched the 1995 and 2005 version, including the rom-com version, Bridget Jones' Diary. Okay... so about this movie; I am both impressed and disappointed. Let me start off first by saying the "good" stuff about the film. The cinematography is visually stunning. The nature scenes are breathtaking and gorgeous to look at, it felt like you could almost feel and smell the breezy wind right through you, giving that vibe to the audience is an achievement. The storyline's good although it lacked the certain qualities of Austen's novel such as the social satire and wit that made the novel a universal hit. But I'm aware the director (Geisner) is not going for that direction, instead, he's focusing more on the romantic tension between Darcy and Lizzie and what could happen if they were transformed in the 21st Century as a same-sex couple. Darcy is as brooding as ever, in here he is depicted as a closeted gay man struggling to come in terms with his own identity, which is EXACTLY what he would look like if he were reinterpreted as a queer man.As for my bad impressions, sad to say there are more bad moments than good but at least tolerable to bear with. My biggest complaint is the camerawork, it's often shaky here and there. Some angles were great, some angles were okay, some angles were just plain hard to look at. It looks as if it was done by a teenager with minimal knowledge about the basics of filmmaking. The dialogue was okay, but I expected more from it, it is after all an Austen adaptation so I expected it to have more depth and quality in the usage of their words. The two gay men, which are obviously the film's version of Lydia and Kitty, made me flinch in disgust; they're stereotypical and annoying (I get that their original counterparts really are annoying but I did not expect this kind of exasperation), I don't know if the writer of the screenplay intended them to be the comedic relief but it seemed they're just there to mess up the lives of everyone around them, they're like Jar Jar Binks twins in human flesh. Lastly, my second biggest complaint is the main lead, Ben Bennet. I don't see any hint of Lizzie in his character other than the "pride" and "prejudice" part which is obviously the most vital part of the story. He lacks charm, humour, liveliness, and (most importantly) sarcasm. My insult to his character: he resembles more of a Bella Swan than a vivacious woman with a pair of fine eyes. If this wasn't a Pride and Prejudice film, I would've said more nasty stuff about it, my Austen spirit led to forgive it as a whole. I'm used to watching great films and I've seen far better LGBT themed movies than this, but set aside all the flaws and imperfections, I think it's a good film (if not a great one), it is imperative proof that beloved classics like Pride and Prejudice could be "queerified" if done with justice and regard to the original source.

It helps to have read Pride and Prejudice, but that isn't necessary. The film stands on its own.Where it stands fairly well is in its direction and editing. The film is crisp and goes where it needs to without a lot of fuss. Cinematography shows off the scenery quite well.Where it fails is twofold: one, the script -- and, thus, characterizations -- and, two, the chemistry between the leads. The film indulges in embarrassing cliches, such as the two gay best friends who are ostensibly meant to be taken ironically, I suppose; but they come off as a couple of losers. Cringeworthy, even. The women don't fare very well, especially Darcy's girlfriend. Their acting is fine; it's just that the women -- and some of the men -- appear to be in a different movie. The girlfriend is a homophobic shrew....which gives rise to a related problem, that of open homophobia clearly expressed. While it's certainly understandable that these attitudes exist, why this film, ostensibly about a slow-brewing romance, indulges homophobia to the extent it does is problematic. We've all heard these things before; and rather than make us dislike more the characters who are homophobic, you are aghast that the script is so in-your-face about this. Less of this would have been better.The two leads are fine; yet in so far as they are physically quite different so too is there zero chemistry. Bennett is all sincerity and feelings while Darcy is all brooding and impenetrable. They are oil and water and it just does not work. The ending -- and this is a sort of spoiler but not really, as the ending is clearly what you think it will be, especially if you know the novel -- where they kiss has to be the most unromantic moment I've ever witnessed in a film.Huge plot hole: a neighbour believes she sees Darcy hit his girlfriend -- he doesn't -- and hears him threaten to harm her. No one challenges this, not even the police officer, by saying "Where were you when you heard the threat?" She was in her own house next door and all the windows were closed; even if she had been outside she couldn't have heard a thing. This is just sloppy.One final point: the music / soundtrack. It's like you're in a shopping mall. I get that scoring a film costs money. But the producer could have avoided this simply by using less music but of better quality.

First off, let me say, too many people over analyze movies. Movies are supposed to make us feel something, regardless of the emotion. I found this film very touching and beautiful. The characters were believable and genuine. The acting by some in this film was less than stellar, but for a low budget film what do you expect? I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I have known more than a few people like the character of Lee. Some say stereotypical, I say realistic. The scenery was absolutely beautiful. I think most folks can get past a little bit of poor acting to appreciate a deeper meaning.

Before the Fall is bad in every way. Terrible screenplay, terrible direction, terrible acting. Even the potentially beautiful Appalachian Mountains setting (which state it's supposed to be is debatable, but the mountains are not) is ruined by the overwhelming STUPIDITY of everything else. I mean, what lawyer conducts a confidential interview, discussing a third person in a way that would qualify as slander anywhere on earth, in the public hallway of his office, directly in front of the waiting room door, for anybody who may be waiting there to hear?The whole movie is like that: stupid people saying and doing unvaryingly stupid things in the most unrealistic, unbelievable way possible. And there's an extremely annoying, cloying synthesizer-piano muzak soundtrack, the same dull, soporific notes played over and over, oozing its sappy way through every scene, constantly underlining the unrelenting stupidity of everything we see and hear.I HATE this movie! The guy who plays Lee is gorgeous -- and I mean breathtaking -- but, just like the mountains, his beauty is buried in the mudslide of stupidity that swallows everything in its path.Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's best work by far, one of the finest and most deeply satisfying novels ever written. It's so good that it has survived many bad adaptations, including this one. But writer-director Byrum Geisler (whoever he is) really shouldn't have told anybody what he was trying to do, because his failure is so monumental that he SHOULD be too embarrassed now to show his face anywhere. There is no HINT of Pride and Prejudice, or any of its marvelous characters, STILL alive 200 years after she created them -- not the tiniest spark of Austen's genius -- anywhere in this stupid movie.