Customer Reviews

Emma

5 star:		(110)
4 star:		(51)
3 star:		(23)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This version is true to the book and the acting is superb. The novel's complexities are brought out by the actors in subtle ways. Kate Beckinsale was the perfect choice for Emma because she played her duel layers so wonderfully. Beckinsale played Emma's intelligence against her lack of knowledge of the world, without being dumb. She showed that Emma thought she was superior and had to learn that someone's rank in society does not make them a better person. Mark Strong is great as Mr. Knightley. He plays it serious and heartfelt. Strong brought out Knightley's strong beliefs and feelings with grace. Everyone else was also cast perfectly. The story was very loyal to the novel. Emma is funny, but really a serious novel about women's place in society. This version showed all these conplexities with ease and grace. It was beautifully shot and directed. This is truly an adaptation to be proud of and lots of fun to watch over and over. Emma is my second favorite Austen novel on behind Persuasion. I am glad Austen's less popular works had such great adaptations. Emma got the right treatment here concidering it was Austen's longest novel... I am happy to say that enough people liked it to make this great adaptation of her work.

This is a production which is enjoyable to watch if not entirely memorable after the fact. I personally think Kate Beckinsale makes the perfect Emma. (I find it hard to imagine Gwyneth Paltrow in the same role, but I'm curious to see that production as well.) Raymond Coulthard is also perfectly cast as Frank Churchill, the quintessential Jane Austen deceptive young cad (and I mean that as a compliment!). Mr Knightley, the eventual romantic interest for Emma, is played by Mark Strong, who does a very good job in the role although I must admit I had trouble seeing him as a romantic lead. Samantha Morton is very appealing as Emma's shy friend, Harriet.

All in all, I give this production four stars. Although it is nowhere near as compelling as the Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth, or the Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson, it's still a well done film adaptation of a Jane Austen book - and that's not easy. :)

How interesting to have two films based on the same novel be released within months of each other! "Emma" is considered by many to be Jane Austen's finest work and has a level of complexity that is more suited to a mini-series than a mere movie of two or three hours. I don't know how the screenwriters and directors decided on what to keep, what to cut, and what to re-work, but the two film versions are different enough that I didn't mind seeing them both. I do, however, greatly prefer the one with Kate Bickensale as the title character, which was originally aired on the cable channel A&E. It is a more faithful adaptation of the novel and has a more structured and cohesive storyline. Bickensale's interpretation of Emma has been criticized for being "too dark," but I believe her Emma is a more accurate portrayal of the novel's heroine than Gwyneth Paltrow's is in the other "Emma." In fact, all the characters (e.g., Jane Fairfax, Frank Churchill)in this version are handle with more care and detail, and that is enough to make this "Emma" a more satisfying experience for me.

I thought that this adaptation showed much better the stories of the supporting characters -- most especially the Jane/Frank storyline which was quite engaging. (To a certain degree, I wish they had been the lead characters in this adaptation.) I also thought Mr. Woodhouse was a lot of fun and his characterization right on the money with the book. Also very good was the portrayal of Miss Bates.

That being said, my problem with this adaptation (and it's a big one) is that I didn't particularly care for the way Emma and Mr. Knightley were played/characterized in this one. Perhaps it's the writing and perhaps its the actors (but really, Beckinsale was so good in Cold Comfort Farm, so why couldn't she have pulled this one off?), however, I just didn't very much care for the way the lead characters were portrayed. First of all, as annoying as Emma can be in the book, I always liked her (even if I didn't approve of what she was doing). In this adaptation, I just didn't LIKE Emma. She was too snooty, too spoiled and seemed much too selfish. As for Mr. Knightley, he was always the embodiment of a perfect gentleman to me. Even though he was the only who would find fault with Emma and tell her so, he was graciousness and politeness itself to everybody else. Here, his scolding of Emma was just too heated and beyond anything I would call gentlemanly and to the extent he did it in front of everyone else (as in one scene), would definitely not be gracious nor polite.

Anyway, I own practically all the recent Jane Austen adaptations (A&E's -Pride and Prejudice (the best IMO), Sense & Sensibility, Emma and Mansfield Park, and this adaptation may be the only one I will not buy because I just can't see myself deciding to see it again and again like the others. Don't get me wrong, it has some good points (especially the supporting characters), but I don't really come away from it with the feeling that I want to know more about what happens to the main characters after the movie is finished.

I was thrilled when the Gwenyth Paltrow version of "Emma" came out. After all, I knew from reading the book that it was a great story and I was one of those Austenites reveling in the rich array of Austen adaptations created in the mid to late 90's. When my husband bought me this version, my first thought was, "Emma doesn't look gorgeous." She was supposed to be breathtakingly so. But as soon as I stopped looking at the cover and popped the movie into the VCR, I was hooked (as I realized that the beautiful Ms. Beckinsale might have just taken a less-than-worthy photograph for the cover). Not was I only hooked, but this version became by far my favorite.

For one thing, it is much truer to the book. It baffled me that the screenwriters of the Paltrow version had the chutzpah to think they could improve on Jane Austen. This major flaw somehow slipped past me during my adaptation-induced euphoria and became apparent only after I watched the Paltrow film again after viewing the A&E, a film that remains wonderfully faithful to the book in every possible way. And although much had to be cut, one never gets that sense of choppiness that inevitably comes with the adaptation territory. There is genuine inventiveness involved in shortening the story; it moves quickly, but never feels rushed or cut up and pasted.

Some of the characters in the Gwenyth Paltrow version at times seem either ill-cast or two-dimensional. Jane Fairfax is supposed to be reserved but generally admired. Emma doesn't like her, but that is simply because Emma is still maturing. In the A&E version, you can see why Emma dislikes her: she's elegant, poised, musically skilled and yes, rather reserved, but there is nothing in her personality that would generally give cause to complaint. Jane, in the Paltrow version, appears sneaky and suspicious in a very two-dimensional way, as if desperate to show the audience that she's hiding something.

Harriet Smith is only slightly miscast in the Paltrow film but the actress's biggest problem here are the writers who felt the need to create gratuitously ridiculous scenes for her which added nothing but a few laughs. How hysterical!: Harriet is helping Emma minister to the poor and sick and she's freaking out so badly she's falling over! Now she's posing for her portrait dressed in a ridiculous outfit and looking confused!

Samantha Morton, A&E's Harriet, is exactly as I pictured her: attractive, innocent, naive and because these screenwriters had more respect for the book, she is always placed exactly where Austen meant her to be.

Sophie Thompson is a wonderful actress and does a humorous, if somewhat two-dimensional portrayal of the chattery Miss Bates in the Paltrow version. But just putting some spectacles on her face and tying up her hair in a bun can't hide the fact that she's much too young for the part. The Paltrow version also erroneously shows her snubbing Emma after the infamously rude comment on Box Hill. Miss Bates was much more gracious and forgiving than that, a fact well portrayed by the more accurate A&E version, whose Miss Bates is perfectly cast and who gives a wonderful performance.

Who is the superior Emma? My opinion is Kate Beckensale. My husband, a Jane Austen fan by marriage, would vote for Paltrow. Paltrow does bring a certain ditziness to the character which is very much in keeping with the book. Beckensale comes off more sure of herself, but Emma was quite headstrong in her wrong-headness, so both potrayals are valid.

One very nice touch, not in the book, mind you, but nice all the same is the ending: a supper/engagement party/dance at Mr. Knightly's. All the major players are there and it wraps up the story perfectly.

I have watched three adaptations of Emma: the 1972 BBC adaptation, the 1996 Hollywood version, and the 1997 A&E production. Of the three, the 1997 adaptation starring Kate Beckinsale in the title role is my favorite of all time. Kate Beckinsale's Emma is vivacious, witty, and charmingly infuriating all at the same time. As the main character she breathes life into Jane Austen's most lovable heroine. The 1972 BBC version had Goran Godwin play Emma Woodhouse, and though it was the most faithful adaptation of Ms Austen's work, the title character appeared too old to play Emma, lacked the vibrancy that was Emma Woodhouse, and appeared cold at times. The 1996 version with Gwyneth Paltrow, although not fully faithful to the novel [due to time constraints] had a fairly lovable Emma [though Gwyneth's attempts at an English accent left much to be desired]...the Hollywood version was entertaining though as it had a stellar cast in Jeremy Northam as the dashing Mr Knightley, Alan Cumming as the loathsome vicar, and even Ewan McGregor...BUT, my favorite version is still this 1997 A&E adaptation as Kate Beckinsale[a true English rose] truly plays Emma Woodhouse to perfection!

This adaptation was FAR superior to the Hollywood version by Gwyneth Paltrow. For one thing, Kate Beckinsale truly "was" Emma. Intelligent, yet misguided, wanting to do the right thing, yet blinded by her own prejudices. This woman can act, unlike the "other" Emma, plus she looked like my ideal version of Emma.

The writing was much closer to the book, particularly in the prominence of the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill story, which was virtually ignored in the other movie (maybe because the lovely Polly Walker who played Jane in the Hollywood version was too much competition for Gwyneth Paltrow). The village and the sets also seemed much less fake-looking than in the Hollywood film. If you want to see a great adaptation of a beloved novel, this is the one to pick.

I have to say that I love Jane Austen's book "Emma". I like it much better then her other works like Pride & Prejudice. So I'm glad that A&E did a version of "Emma" since they do such a good job at making great movies.
Anyway, this adaption of Emma is perfect! Much better then the Gwyneth Paltrow version.
Kate Beckinsale IS Emma. She was nice yet had that snotty air about her that Emma is suppost to have. Paltrow's Emma was to goody-goody. I thought the point of Emma was that she was a sort of a brat.
I love Mark Strong as Knightly. He was just PERFECT! I think Jeremy Northam did very well as Knightly in the GP's version of Emma but he looked to young. And I missed the scolding that Strong's Knightly did to Emma. JN's Knightly was to soft.
Raymond Coulthard is great as Frank Churchill. He's handsome and very charming. I can see why Emma found him pleasing. Ewan MaGregor who played Churchill in other version didn't seem to be right to play the part. And what was with his hair??? That's NOT cute!
I'm so glad that A&E did the whole Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax thing that they DIDN'T show in the GP version.

Take my advise and buy this version. If you are a TRUE Jane Austen lover, you won't be disappointed.

One hour and forty six minutes is not nearly enough time for this video to convey the nuances of the Jane Austen book. Too bad A&E et. al. didn't have the courage to develop it further, as they did previously with Pride and Prejudice.

That aside, however, everything contained within the 106 minutes of this video is superbly presented and wonderfully true to the book. Superior to the Gwyteth Paltrow version, in my humble opinion, which came out the same year. This film rightly understands that the book is not simply about a self-deluded matchmaker, but about a spoiled yet good hearted rich girl growing into responsibility and womanhood.

I loved every page of the book, and aside from its brevity, this movie did not disappoint as an adaptation.

Finally having watched all 3 "Emma", I am quite sure that all 3 versions have had qualities that one might hope to find in movies in differnet time and mind setting:
Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma is more humoruos/comical quite excellent for a good laugh--Jeremy Northam and Gwyneth Paltrow make a perfect charming couple--. NOw for JA's Emma, it is much more a drama than a comedy and I found intense and strong chemistery between Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale. Both couples in both "Emma" carry the show perfectly well. All other characters in JA's Emma show more deep of emotions, if you wish.
It is just up to your mood and what you are looking for any particular time while you are watching Emma: So; take your pick accordingly(I myself planning to get both Emma, they both are really charming and interesting in their own way; no need to say I ma a fanatic of JA's work on TV and big screen)
But I have one strong recommendation for "Emma" lovers: go and rent(if you haven't done yet) "Emma" of 1972 BBC version on Video.
Doran Goodwin is the best and most charming Emma I have watched by now. Together with John Carson who brought an excellent Mr. Knightley on TV, Ms. Goodwin's Emma is more succesfull than others IMO; I wish we could have 1972 Emma on DVD too, any chance?