Reviews (84)

Wonderful adaptation with classic Kate!
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.

EMMA redux
A week or so back, I enjoyed the 1996 cinematic release of EMMA starring Gwyneth Paltrow. (I shall refer to this version as "E96".) An Austen-obsessive friend of mine said I MUST see this 1997 version ("E97") with Kate Beckinsale in the title role. So, unsolicited, she mailed me her own personal copy to view at my earliest convenience, which I interpreted as immediately. Sigh - friendship's demands are a heavy load. However, since the storyline of E97 is pretty much like E96, I can provide the same synopsis.

Beckinsale plays Emma Woodhouse, who lives with her father at Hartfield, an example of the country manor house common to all Austen storylines. Having just engineered the marriage of her governess to a rich neighbor, the 21- year old Emma decides to take up match making as a career. After all, it's Regency England and there's not much for a genteel single lady to do to allay rural boredom. Drawing pints at the local pub to build up the college fund isn't an option. Anyway, most needful of assistance is best friend Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton), a respectable enough girl of dubious lineage for whom Emma has plans. Perhaps she can maneuver Harriet into marrying the vicar, Reverend Elton (Dominic Rowan), rather than the local hayseed whom she loves. Meddling in affairs of the heart is a sticky wicket, but someone has to do it, especially in the absence of a licensed yenta.

And what of Emma's own romantic prospects? There appear to be none in the virtual hail of misdirected cupid's arrows. True, Hatfield hosts the frequent visits of the 30-something Mr. Knightley (Mark Strong), a well-mannered and well-heeled bachelor from down the carriage road. But he's Emma's brother-in-law, a long standing relationship that seems to preclude anything of prurient interest. And he occasionally scolds Emma for her bratty behavior. Hmm, perhaps they're made for each other. You think?

I'm giving E97 the same number of stars, four, as I gave E96, and for the same reason, which is that the screen versions of Austen's PRIDE & PREJUDICE (1996), SENSE & SENSIBILITY (1995), and MANSFIELD PARK (1999) are better in comparison.

The costuming, sets and props of this EMMA seemed more authentic than the previous, but that's an impression based on no expertise whatsoever. Perhaps it was the lighting, which, in E96, seemed more luminescent. And E97's screenplay did more to develop the nuances of the relationships between the various players, but not so much that it made any difference in my lackadaisical appreciation of Austen's works as a whole. Strong's Knightley was a more interesting character than Jeremy Northam's in E96. While the former was no less a gentleman than the latter, this Knightley had a more smoldering intensity. Some latent kinkiness, perhaps? Morton's Smith was more endearingly pathetic than Toni Collette's in the earlier rendering. And E97 links Emma's final happiness to some imaginary (or not?) chicken thieves. A nice touch, that.

The bottom line to my comparison has to be GP versus KB in the lead. The latter's Emma took herself and her mission much more seriously, and verged on being annoyingly snooty in the process. Paltrow's Emma, on the other hand, had a blithely lighter touch. It's as if she was giving the audience a wink and an elbow's nudge. I would much rather spend an afternoon on the English heath with a picnic basket and GP's Emma than KB's. So, my vote as the film that deserves watching, if you can only see one, is E96.

Excellent adaptation of Austen's work!
This movie is far superior to the one starring Gwyneth Paltrow. Kate Beckinsdale gives the part of Emma a greater depth of character than Ms. Paltrow does...and a great deal more fire and attitude - as Emma should have. Character development in this version is much better than in the Miramax version. Ms. Beckinsdale's Emma is much more lovable and understandable than Ms. Paltrow's. In the end, this makes the audience symphathetic to Emma - she deserves this. Remember, she is only a child, still finding her place in society.

The scene on Box Hill is played quite brilliantly in this version - Emma, you must remember, is very naive and is not really aware of what she is doing. You get a better sense of her blunder and of her remorse in this version than in the Miramax version, in which she seems to be nasty on purpose.

The casting (and acting) in this version is superb - Jane in the Miramax version is saucier than one would expect; her expressions were much harsher than author Jane Austen may have wanted.

A nice nod to the Pride and Prejudice version - the inclusion of Ms. Lucy Robinson (Mrs. Hurst in P&P) in Emma as Mrs. Elton was a great choice. She makes a wonderful, loud, brassy wife.

If you must insist on watching the Emma starring Gwyneth Paltrow, watch that version first, and then watch this version. Otherwise, you will be very disappointed.

Period Pomp But No Panache
If you long for period costumes, genteel conversation and delightful scenery alone, this is your movie. If you long for wit, whim and wonder, this adaptation might disappoint you. Heroine Emma lacks the esential Austen charme and comes off spoiled and even mean with hardly ever a counter-balance which youthful grace, playfulness and whimsical folly might bestow. Mr. Knightly appears as the suprise lover (if you don't know the story line) because there is so little sensual fizz between him and Emma (a lack which I place again at the heroine's feet).
If the comparison with A&E's "Pride And Prejudice" be allowed, Lizzy and Mr Darcy are beguiling and loveable whereas this Emma and Mr Kightly are genteely vexing and never more than that.

Excellent version of Emma
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 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. Not 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 to me only after I watched it again after viewing the A&E. The A&E version remains wonderfully faithful to the book in every possible way. And somehow, although much had to be cut out, you never get that feeling of choppiness that inevitably comes with the adaptation territory. There is genuine inventiveness in shortening the story while keeping true to the storyline; 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 liked and 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, but also why Jane is generally liked: elegant, talented and yes, rather reserved, but there is nothing in her personality that would generally give cause to complaint. Jane, in the Paltrow version, looks sneaky and suspicious, as if she's just committed a crime she's trying to hide.

Another casting question mark is Harriet Smith. She is supposed to be very pretty, but doesn't strike you that way at all in the Paltrow version. The actress was also forced into scenes Jane Austen never put her in which end up being gratuitously comical. How hysterical!: now Harriet is freaking out! Now 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 way too young for the part. The Paltrow version also has her erroneously 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 accurage 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 in keeping with the book, given the storyline. Beckensale comes off more sure of herself, but Emma was quite headstrong in her wrong-headness, so both are valid Emma's in their different portrayals. And Ms. Beckensale must have just been having a bad-face day when she posed for the video jacket picture -- she's just as gorgeous as you would want an Emma to be!

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 very well. ... Read more