Emma (1996)

Emma was rich and never-wavering entertainment. Having read the book and hated it (Austen's writing just...well, it really bores me) I wasn't sure what to expect when I bought this film. The reason I did buy it, however, was because Paltrow's in it, and I love her as an actress. It was lovely, witty, delightful, light-hearted, and just gorgeous. Gwyneth Paltrow was radiant and beautiful as her infuriating character, and her acting was excellent. In addition, Jeremy Northam was dashing and thoughtful as Mr. Knightley - Emma's eventful love- interest. (On a side note, I thought Emma & Knightley's friendship was beautiful to watch, even before it evolved into romantic love). The rest of the cast were equally brilliant. Everyone seemed to be thoroughly enjoying themselves, and all the acting was whole-hearted and first class. It was perfectly plotted and brilliantly paced. There was so much energy and chemistry on screen and I laughed out loud more than once. The humour was brilliantly funny and the dialogue was rich and witty. This was everything an Austen film should be and I HIGHLY recommend it :)

It's a wonderful adaptation, no doubt about it... but how awful Emma is... i don't know if it is the actress or just the character... i wanted to punch her in the face since minute one. I finished the movie even thou i rolled my eyes every 30 seconds or every time this stupid girl came in the screen... which was always. I loved clueless and even thou they made that "emma" very stupid she was lovely. Gwyneth or whatever her name is on the other hand just come as a stupid brat i hated her and hated the movie because of her. i just gave it a 5 for the effort of the cast, director and everyone involved in this movie and because i love Jane Austen.I know she always uses irony in her work, but how much of a full is this leading lady, she created all the problems and lack of solution. If she would be a real person she would have been this awful noise girl nobody likes except for boys who only wants to get into her pants. again... clueless they made it enjoyble but this lady has the charisma of a dead mouse

I will say this right away: This is not, in my opinion, the best adaptation of Emma... but it is a tolerable one. I thought the tone (which in many cases can make or break a period drama)was pretty good: It was light and warm. The pacing is pretty rushed, and I didn't particularly care for the cinematography, but the costumes were pretty and fairly accurate. The settings were appropriately lavish. I did think the lurid pink walls of Hartfield's parlour and the gold and teal tapestries at Randalls were over-the-top, but the music was pleasant and seemed well composed (if not well placed at times.)Initially I had my doubts about Gwyneth Paltrow being cast as Emma, but I did have faith in Jeremy Northam's ability to portray the mature and exceedingly pleasant character of Mr. Knightly. I wasn't entirely disappointed by either. Gwyneth wasn't stellar as Emma. She didn't fit the image of the character because she looked a bit skinny and she should never have her hair pulled tight against her head.The delivery of her lines was sometimes nasal and she often appeared vapid or vaguely mournful. Worst of all, she failed to make Emma likable, which is possible,and indeed necessary. Jeremy Northam was physically perfect for Mr. Knightly. I did think some of his lines were not delivered as they should have been, but that is probably as much the director's fault as his own. Toni Collette, while a good actress I'm sure, was entirely wrong for Harriet Smith. Harriet is short plump and fair, where Toni (with red hair and wearing almost exclusively pink) was tall plump and rosy.Ewan McGregor was dreadfully miscast as Frank Churchill. An actor such as he should never be in period pieces. And he had that same horrid, frizzy red/brown hair that you see on young Ebenezer Scrooge in the George. C Scott version of "A Christmas Carol". Now we come to Jane Fairfax, played by Polly Walker who I don't particularly care for in general. Don't think that's the only reason why I would say that she's wrong for Jane though. My issue is that she appears to physically and emotionally strong to play a demure character who spends almost the entire story love-sick. Oh and I may have forgotten to mention this about Polly Walker, but she's Beelzebub. Did you see her smile? In her first scene, that red light around her head was not the sunset. It was the glow of hellfire. Alan Cumming as Mr. Elton was as agreeable as he was supposed to be, but not quite handsome enough, Juliet Stevenson was quite annoying as Mrs. Elton, but I don't think some of her lines were as funny as they were supposed to be. Sophie Thompson's Miss Bates was certainly chatty, but I think she was a bit too young. Lastly, I didn't really care for Greta Scacchi as Miss Taylor, and James Cosmo over-acted Mr. Weston. The story got the important plot points across and apart from the re-location of various moments to sceneries other than those described in the book, there were only two things that I majorly objected to. 1) the portrayal of Mr. Woodhouse. So many of his lines seem critical or harsh. In one of the first scenes, during his "Poor Miss Taylor" rhetoric, Mr. Woodhouse says how he cannot understand why Miss Taylor would leave her comfortable place with them to "raise a family of mewling infants that would bring the risk of disease every time the enter or leave the house." and he says this right in front of one of his TWO daughters. In addition, his eldest daughter has quite a good number of children all of them quite young, of whom he is very fond and is always delighted to see.2) The Archery Scene. This is the part where Mr. Knightly and Emma argue over Harriet's rejection of Robert Martin. This is a pretty intense scene in the book because Mr. Knightly's manner goes from astonished, to indignant to truly vexed. In this movie it begins casual enough, which is good, but it stays casual. Not only that, but when Emma protests that "Harriet is a gentleman's daughter," she doesn't seem to be arguing a case so much as complaining. The delivery of the line is high-pitched and insipid, and after she says it she stands there, looking up at Knightly with her mouth hanging open as if there is nothing going on in her head whatever. Then, in her frustration and already shooting poorly Emma's arrow goes wide and into the general direction of Knightly's dogs. As a totally out-of-place comedic moment Knightly says "try not to kill my dogs,". My problem with this is that this further mocks the idea that Knightly is really irritated with Emma; and Knightly should have made sure that his dogs weren't sitting behind the targets BEFORE they started shooting.Apart from those issues it's an okay adaptation of the book, but not the best.

This film just does not end. I know this film doesn't appeal to my tastes, but I've seen other dramas that set out to be historical fiction that are far more entertaining and far less cliché than this. The performances are incredibly dull and wooden, and I don't care if Paltrow is the leading lady. She is an unlikeable character, who is most meddlesome and a simpleton. The rest of the supporting cast is cliché and poorly written as well, earning no high remarks. Even Ewan McGregor fails to impress. Oh, and the script. It makes me cringe. The story and plot is essentially nonexistent, and each scene is entirely too predictable. Even the soundtrack (which was nominated for an Academy Award) is so uninspired and is nothing simple regal score that grows more boring as the film progresses. The only plus are the sets; they are all fairly fantastic and filled with a lot of detail. With such great sets you would think that they would have better cinematography, but this film looks like it was shot by students straight out of film school. So aside from looking past the characters, "plot", and writing to appreciate the scenery, I can't stand this film. It's too cliché, too regal, and too predictable to be entertaining or interesting. I may be stepping on some people's toes, so I apologize. But for me this film just doesn't cut it and is, simply, a lazy effort and an annoying adaptation of a famed novel.