Emma (1996) Poster

(1996)

User Reviews

Review this title
173 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Great flick!
blackberrybabe24 May 2004
This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.

If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten!
45 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Austen Austen Austen, with some Paltrow sprinkled on
secondtake17 January 2014
Emma (1996)

I like Gwyneth Paltrow, and I love Jane Austen. (That sounds bad. Sorry Gwyneth.)

And this is a great movie for its writing, and a stiff and imperfect movie for its acting. And for Austen fans (and fans is an understatement for some of them) this is almost awful movie. Awful if you love sublime writing and can't stand to see it so wooden.

Paltrow is good. She's pretty. She's appropriately upright. But she insists on "delivering" her lines. She has them memorized, yes. But she doesn't inhabit the character. And Emma, the character, is one of the best of all literature, filled with sassy individualism and social blindness due to ordinary teenage arrogance. The material is there, and it's a great story (if you like early 19th Century melodramas bordering on soap opera of the highest level).

So, it's not a terrible presentation of the movie, but it is, to be sure, a presentation. I honestly think (and don't tremble in rage here) that Alisha Silverstone in "Clueless" gets the spirit of Emma much closer. There is of course a gap of sensibilities here that I'm ignoring—a girl in 1995 (Silverstone) is no match for a girl in Austen's time. I'll leave that one vague.

About "Emma" it's worth saying that the sets and costumes are so convincing you don't really think about them. Everything is brightly lit (which I suppose is a reasonable choice, though it flattens the film emotionally as opposed to, say, the Merchant-Ivory approach). The whole spectacle is spread before the camera lovingly, if a bit predictably.

In the end it's Austen who wins. The writing, both in the specific dialog and in the general plot outline, are delicate and witty and insightful. Nothing sensational here, just drawing room observation at its best. Kudos for that much, and a reasonable translation to film. It's Austen who wins all those stars.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good, but not brilliant
SMK-48 December 2002
This is a good adaptation of Austen's novel. Good, but not brilliant.

The cinematography is inventive, crossing at times the border to gimmickry, but it certainly avoids the trap of making this look like a boring TV soap in costumes, given that the entire story is dialogue-driven.

The acting is competent. Ms Paltrow is aloof, as her character requires, but the required distance from the other characters is accompanied by a much less appropriate detachment from her own actions. In other words, she does not seem to care enough of the results of her match-making endeavours. Some of the supporting cast is guilty of over-acting - very much in the style that is appreciated on stage but out of place in motion pictures. Personally, I had problems accepting Alan Cumming as Mr Elton - to no fault of his own, except for having left such an impression as a gay trolley-dolly in "The High Life" that it is now difficult to accept him playing any serious part. Acting honours go to Toni Collette who manages to radiate warmth, and Jeremy Northam who pitches his character at just the right level.
22 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stop making comparisons and just enjoy it...
Swangirl16 January 2001
For those JASNA devotees (Jane Austen Society of North America), this adaptation of Jane Austen's "Emma" will truly send them running for the hills.

But if you're willing to view Emma with the belief that this movie is loosely based on the novel, and enjoy it on its own merits, you'll truly enjoy yourself.

Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the apple of her aged father's eye and spends her ample free time trying to play matchmaker. Having achieved some success by matching her own governess with the widowed Mr. Weston, Emma sets out to match easily persuaded, impoverished newcomer Harriet Smith (Toni Collete) with hilarious results.

Some have complained that the casting is "all wrong" but I don't agree. I think for the comedic spirit of the film, the actors were well chosen. Sophie Thompson nearly steals the show as the muddled but happy Miss Bates. Her silent mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Sophie Thompson's real-life mother Phyllida Law), also steals a few scenes. In my humble opinion, anybody who prefers Mark Strong (the A&E version) over Jeremy Northam in the role of Mr. Knightley has to be "addled in the attic" as it were. Not tall enough? I'm sorry but I wasn't watching how tall he was but that mesmerizing smile. I'm sure I wasn't the only one swooning in my seat.

This is no literary classic (the movie NOT the book!) so let's not make it something it isn't. What Emma truly IS..is an enjoyable romp with a healthy dollop of romance. Viewed in this light, you're in for a good time.

And yes, Ewan McGregor's wig IS hideous. My friends compared it to a dead cat but that would do the cat an injustice.
41 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Truly Accomplished, but Tolerable
KurotsutaMurasaki7 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sophisticated Regency Rom-Com
JamesHitchcock26 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Emma" was a product of what might be called by the First Great Jane Austen Cycle of the mid-nineties, and it was recently shown on British television, doubtless because of the interest in the author created by the Second Great Jane Austen Cycle which started with "Pride and Prejudice" two years ago. We currently have in the cinemas the Austen biopic "Becoming Jane", and ITV have recently produced three TV movies based on Austen novels. These include "Northanger Abbey", the only one of the six major novels not to have been filmed previously, so the cycle should now be complete. No doubt, however, there will be more to come in the near future. (There is, after all, her juvenile "Love and Freindship" (sic), the short novella "Lady Susan", and someone, somewhere, has doubtless supplied endings to her two unfinished fragments "The Watsons" and "Sanditon". Then there are all those Austen sequels churned out by modern writers………).

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from an aristocratic family in Regency England. (Not, as some reviewers have assumed, Victorian England- Austen died before Queen Victoria was even born). Emma is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Emma always insists that she will not marry without affection, and when she does find a partner, the handsome Mr Knightley, we feel that this will indeed be an affectionate marriage. It does not, however, seem likely to be a very passionate one (unlike, say, that of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy). Knightley, who is sixteen years older than Emma (she is 21, he 37), and related to her by marriage, is more like a father-figure than a lover. Much more of a father-figure, in fact, than her actual father, a querulous and selfish old hypochondriac who seems more like her grandfather. When Emma is rude to her unbearably garrulous and tedious friend Miss Bates, it is Knightley who chides her for her lack of manners. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam play their parts very well, but this is not really one of the great screen romances.

Of the other characters, I liked Juliet Stephenson's vulgar Mrs Elton and Toni Collette's Harriet. I know that in the novel Harriet was a naïve young teenager, whereas here she is more like the character Collette played in "Muriel's Wedding"- a gauche, slightly overweight twentysomething, fretting about her chances of finding a man. Nevertheless, I felt that this characterisation worked well in the context of the film and did not detract from Austen's themes.

"Emma" is one of Austen's more light-hearted works, without the darker overtones of "Mansfield Park" or even "Pride and Prejudice", and this is reflected on screen. We see a world of beauty and grace, full of stately homes and elegant costumes and fine manners. Apart from the ruffianly gypsies, who make a very brief appearance, the only "poor" people we see are Mrs Bates and her daughter, and, as they live in the sort of picturesque rose-strewn thatched cottage which today would change hands for over £500,000, we can be sure that their poverty is relative, not absolute. In Emma's world, poverty is defined as not having your own stately home. This is, of course, not a comprehensive picture of early nineteenth-century life, but nobody has ever claimed Austen as the Regency equivalent of a kitchen-sink realist. Sophisticated romantic comedy, combined with a keen eye for analysing human character, was more in her line.

I would not rate this film quite as highly as the 1994 "Sense and Sensibility" or the recent "Pride and Prejudice"- it tends to drag a bit in the middle, although it has a strong beginning and strong ending- but it is, in the main, a highly enjoyable Austen adaptation. 7/10
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Well done, Emma, well done!
Whythorne18 February 2005
I was so impressed with Doug McGrath's film version of the Jane Austen novel "Emma," and I loved the music score by Rachel Portman so much, that when I went to the video store one day and discovered the two had re-united for "Nicholas Nickleby" I immediately rented it without any other consideration.

I have read the book, and for those overly-critical fans of this Jane Austen adaptation, I don't know what else McGrath could have done to more perfectly capture the spirit and major plot elements of Miss Austen's work, especially given the limitations of a two hour movie (which some have complained about being too long!). And as far as Gwen Paltrow's accent is concerned, I must confess I wasn't too familiar with her when I saw this at the theater initially, and I was absolutely convinced at the time that she was an English actress!

I am taken aback by those who criticized the film for its lush scenery. That is one of the things I enjoy and look forward to seeing in period pieces set in the English countryside. The film's beautiful backgrounds are a major contributor to its appeal and success. If your idea of escapist fare is something bleaker, then perhaps you should rent something like "Death Wish III!"

The English country settings are as attractive and charming as the cast, and combine with the story and soundtrack for entertainment that makes you not tire of repeat viewings. McGrath is a wonder at choreographing the interplay of subtle expressions that are so essential in conveying the complicated romantic intrigue that occurs in this story.

This refreshing movie could also be a clinic on how enjoyable a film can be minus sex, violence or even a villainous antagonist. The story is often amusing, endearing, and at times, quite touching.

I have seen many competent Jane Austen book adaptations but this is without question my favorite.
104 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The only Austin movie with a completely unlikeable heroine
wlisa85839 March 2014
Emma is one of my least favorite Jane Austen novels, so it took a while for me to get round to watching this version. However, I was pleasantly surprised and found it much more enjoyable than the Kate Beckinsale version.

Gwyneth did a decent job, although I must state that the script portrayed Emma as a terribly spoilt snob, and I rather disliked her in the film and couldn't understand why Mr Knightley would admire her so when really, she was just dreadful. I certainly don't remember finding her so unbearable in the novel.

What I love about Jane Austin's work is that her characters are so witty and endearing, despite their faults, but that was not the case in this film. I certainly didn't care for Emma one bit and would have preferred it had the totally bland but sweet Harriet ended up with him instead.

Mr Knightley was a far better character in the film; far less critical, more gentle and appealing, and not the stiff, critical bore I found him to be in the novel. And the casting of Jeremy Northam was pure genius, for every girl knows that having a hunky romantic lead is essential in an Austen movie.

This film was well made and did justice to the novel. The acting was rather good, but I didn't love this film the way I do other Jane Austen film's, and wouldn't be compelled to watch it again.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A very pleasant adaptation. And Northam is a real find!
AnaR26 February 2002
By no means my favourite Austen novel, and Paltrow is by no means my favourite actress, but I found the film almost totally delightful. Paltrow does a good job, and Cummings, Stevenson and the one who plays 'Miss Bates' are all absolutely terrific. The period detail is not alienating; the feel of the movie is just right, in fact. But the real 'find' is Jeremy Northam as Mr Knightley. There could not be more perfect casting, IMO. I hated Mr K in the novel, but found him wonderfully human and humane in the film. Northam's good looks and smiling eyes are no hindrance to enjoyment, either! Highly recommended. AnaR
78 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
American England
pma97dr-229 November 2000
This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.

The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.

My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.

Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Do I smell ham?
shaundrahstrailer29 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film is bad, bad, bad. I love Jane Austen books and movies. I loved Clueless. But I honestly can't see why this gets so many good reviews.

Gwyneth Paltrow spends the movie with pursed lips and an expression like she's smelled something foul. Emma is supposed to be condescending, yes - but she's also supposed to be silly, fun, and devoted to her family. You don't get ANY of that from Paltrow. She's just mean and arrogant. Moreover, you don't get the underlying melancholy subtext about Emma - that she is likely to end up like poor Miss Bates. I must say Paltrow did well with the accent, and only obviously dropped it a couple of times.

Sophie Thompson - usually a talented actress - is a total ham and turns Miss Bates into a caricature. She sounds like a stuttering Bugs Bunny.

Ewan McGregor is wasted as Frank Churchill; somehow, the director managed to entirely erase his magnetic charm. Alan Cumming is also wasted as a hammy, clownish version of Elton.

Toni Collette is terribly miscast as Harriet Smith. Harriet Smith is supposed to be a sweet-tempered, beautiful young idiot. Toni Collette couldn't be described as girlish; worse, she acts like an intelligent and confident woman obviously trying to play the fool.

Jane Fairfax doesn't look like a girl of twenty who is the equal in age and background to Emma. Jane Fairfax looks like a sultry older bombshell and acts like it, too.

That said, I thought Denys Hawthorne was charming as the hypochondriacal Mr. Woodhouse. And Jeremy Northam was perfect - charming, handsome, and he turned in a brooding and understated performance that was in stark contrast to the rest of the cast.

Watch the version starring Romola Garai or even Clueless. Both are much better acted and plotted than this version.
25 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Jeremy Northam - a delectable Mr. Knightley
sweetrupturedlight5 April 2002
Emma is a true romance. If you love the soppy stuff, charged with wit and folly, you will love this movie! Its true to the novel, which is very important, with a few twists added for pleasure. Gwen is not one of my fave actreesess but she does justice to a role that required everything that she had to offer in spades. She shines in a role i think no other actress could have done proper justice to.

Jeremy Northam, as the hero. how shocked are you? I never looked upon him as overtly handsome but heck! What the right role can do for you! He looks so good as the sensible, regal Mr. K, that i am literally looking at him in a new light. He makes and excellent romantic lead. The charm and character that he brings to his role is wonderful!

Ewan McGregor, Greta Sacchi brings in the rest. a good cast. A good movie. If you are a fan of Jane Austen, see this movie, along with Pride and Prejudice - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, buy the books. It enhances the movie to heights that are extraordinary
46 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A good romantic comedy (!)
Psycho Mantis23 October 2001
Rich girl Emma Woodhouse (Paltrow) feels very unsecure about life when her nanny, and best friend, gets married and has to move away. Emma doesn´t really now who to talk to about her problems with her love life. Instead she tries to be a matchmaker for her friend Harriet (Collette). She tries to get her together with the nice young reverend Elton (Cumming), but it turns out he was only interested in Emma! Problems ahead for everyone involved.

I normally don´t enjoy romantic comedies, especially not those which take place in the 19th century, with costumes and everything that comes with it. But Emma was different. After a slow first half-hour, the story got started and I found that this was actually a funny, smart and beautiful tale.

The main reason I liked this movie must be Gwyneth Paltrow. She looked lovely and did her best performance yet. She´s actually better here than in `Shakesphere in Love', which gave her an Oscar. Every scene she´s in is a pleasure to watch, especially since she nails that English accent perfectly! The supporting actors and actresses are superb as well. Jeremy Northam is in his best role yet, and Toni Collette and Alan Cumming are perfectly cast.

I actually tried to read the book by Jane Austen at first, but I got tired of the slow pace and watched the movie instead. Which saved me a lot of time, and it was way above expectation.

The story is a bit slow, yes. But in the end Emma still feels like a winner. I usually don't like these kind of movies, but I liked this. Which means it must be above average.

* * * ½
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A synthetic adaptation
Cathz13 May 2000
I was surprised when I saw this film. I'd heard it was the best ever filmed of the novel. How disappointed I was.

How any true Jane Austen fan can rate this adaptation is a mystery to my eyes. The scriptwriters have decided to stick in bits of ridiculous humour which are embarrassing at the best of times, but also ruin the feel of the period. As for the cast: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a rather shallow heroine (but then any 'hot' American star would be questionable in the role), Toni Collette is miscast, and poor Ewan McGregor is made to look laughable!

I really could not say a good thing about this film. I seem to be among the very few who don't rate it, but if you want my advice, see instead the TV production starring Kate Beckinsale - believe me, that is far preferable to this superficial trash.
19 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transitions
tedg5 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.

Doug McGrath did poor work before and after this, as have all his support crew. So I am at a loss to explain how it was that such refined and apt staging was accomplished. There are some very adroit transitions between scenes, which alone make this actual cinema rather than mere illustrated text. There is an accomplished use of architecture in framing shots that similarly transports us from the page. And there are simple frames (maps and globes) that subtly remove us from literature.

I think the casting is masterful. Paltrow has never been so good. She gets more assured as she gets older, but she will never be as committed as she is here. Her cadence in reading the lines is striking -- again, something that seems engineered to transport the words from the page. As with Gwyneth, all the actors might have narrow range (especially Northam), but that range is centered on what is needed.

It all works so damned well. It is not as biting an misanthropic as I recall Austen, instead recast as more mildly comic. That's a flaw. But the execution, the eye and the actor's coordination with that eye, really impresses.

Note that Ewan came from one great experimental director (Greenaway "Pillow Book") before this and went to another (Luhrmann "Moulin Rouge") later; these two films are in my top ten of all time. Juliet Stevenson had also worked with Greenaway ("Numbers") -- Collette and Walker would also go together to work on his "8 1/2 Women." Scacci had worked with Altman on his greatest film. I believe that McGrath sought out the Greenaway style which also influenced Altman...you can see it here, much toned down of course.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than the 2005 production, but the British 1996 production is best
steiner-sam1 June 2023
It's a comedy set in rural England in the early 19th century. It follows an attractive but meddling young woman who misunderstands her ability to judge the wants and desires of others.

In this production, Emma Woodhouse (Gwyneth Paltrow) is more nuanced than in 2005's Anya Taylor-Joy but is still more superficial than Kate Beckinsale in the 1996 British production. On the other hand, Jeremy Northam is a worthy George Knightley. Differences in script emphasis make Alan Cumming's Rev. Elton less significant in this production, but it does heighten the role of Rev. Elton's new wife, Augusta (Juliet Stevenson). Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) is somewhat better in the British production. There are differences in the evolution of the various romantic relationships, and a few scenes are uniquely portrayed here.

This film is better than the 2005 production, but I prefer the British 1996 production as the most well-rounded and realistic of the three productions. It was the least flashy (2005 wins on flashiness) with the lowest production values, but the script wins the day. So I rank this one between the British 1996 and 2005 production.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Hazards of Tangled Romance
jzappa2 June 2010
Emma is not about very much except the utopian espionage of a limited clique of people who will all basically have to marry each other at some point, if they haven't already. Either you are on a wavelength with this material or you are not. It may be that the majority of my generation, in a lenient time, do not have much to immediately relate to in a movie in which an aristocratic matchmaker spends her days scheming to couple reluctant contenders for marriage. But what is timeless is Emma's personality. I'm sure everybody's met a busybody drama queen who's so sweet and likable, even crush-worthy, but somehow conflict is everywhere apparent when she's around. We don't want to accept that she doesn't really care as much about us as she so convincingly seems to and probably believes she does herself, but instead is just very talented at manufacturing drama that she can appear in the middle of to mediate and make peace with those opposed. How sweet.

Gwyneth Paltrow shimmers in this title role, as young Miss Emma Woodhouse, who feels a need to be puppetmaster in her own petite township of England. Paltrow is pitch-perfect as we see her eyes tending the room, deliberating on whose lives she can control, or make better, which is more the way she sees it. She undertakes Harriet Smith, played by Toni Collette, who evokes humble sympathy as an honest young woman of flawed breeding, standing firm that she marry the Rev. Elton, played by the cheerfully foolish Alan Cumming. Miss Smith would much sooner marry a provincial farmer. Emma won't permit it. When the meager cropper sends Miss Smith a letter of proposal. Miss Smith is so unsure of herself that she rejects the farmer, just to find that the Reverend doesn't love her. He loves Emma. This should be a helpful example of the uncontrollable nature of people for Emma, who in her mind feels capable of controlling everyone. But, like most people who live in their head, she'll need more than one.

Plots like this are about etiquette, detail and the manner in which genuine personalities strain against the strait-jacket demands of the social order. In an age when transportation was significantly limited and entertainment was predominantly confined to community affairs, three-volume novels and church services, rumors were the favorite leisure activity. Neighborhood personas were precious, as they gave you someone about whom to speculate and judge, and this Austen farce has its allotment, most enjoyably Mrs. Elton (Juliet Stevenson), who commends herself constantly by quoting others.

Other community intrigue is supplied by Miss Bates and her deaf mother, Mrs. Bates. They are played by Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law, who are Emma Thompson's sister and mother, both sharing the great writer-actress' understatedly quirky Brit sense of humor. Miss Bates says everything three times and Mrs. Bates never hears it, and when Emma is disgracefully mean to poor Miss Bates it is the honorable Mr. Knightley, her brother-in-law, in a warm and observant performance by Jeremy Northam, who rakes her over the coals, giving her a hard-line lesson on her moral duties under the class system. Emma views Knightley as a brother. She is not by any means attracted to the Reverend. There is a dapper young bachelor in the community, Ewan McGregor with an essential flirtatious glow, who appears destined to be her squire. However, he has other intentions as well, and in due time Austen sees that everyone gets what they have coming, or for Emma maybe a bit more.

The movie tapers the crevice between deftly manipulated social satire and soap opera, but it feeds on a spry intellect and a resilient comic tone. Writer-director Douglas McGrath, who wrote the immaculate Bullets Over Broadway with Woody Allen and moved from Saturday Night Live to Jane Austen with uncanny dexterity, is snug letting the comic features of Austen's work dominate its scholarly heritage. Realizing the broad comic prospects of Emma and the humorous facets of an embellished ceremonial pace, McGrath boasts competently good humor. If this Austen adaptation is ultimately less affecting than, for example, Ang Lee's atmospherically ornate adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, it is more fit to deliver an unexpected sight gag or an audaciously contemporary touch.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Matchmaker, match thyself...
patrickdc2028 February 2002
What a delightful film...

Accompanied by Oscar-winning Composer RACHEL PORTMAN's lush, emotional and dreamy music, this film remains a pure delight worthy of viewing more than once a year.

Incredible casting...

Gwyneth Paltrow was perfect for the role of Emma. Toni Collette was great as Harriett Smith.

The character who stole the film was MISS BATES!!! She was mesmerizing to watch, one finds oneself on the edge of ones' seat just hanging on her every word and laughing hysterically WITH her. One of the most endearing characters I have come across in ages. From one of the opening scenes when she is thanking Mr. Woodhouse for sending "that lovely quarter-hind of pork... PORK, MOTHER!!!" she shouts into her daffy and clearly hearing impaired Mother, Mrs. Bates (played by Emma Thompson's mother, Phyllida Law) who looks forlorn and lost.

The comical ways that Emma would avoid the grating Miss Bates builds itself up for one truly gut-wrenching scene at the picnic when Emma insults Miss Bates who takes her cruel dig to her heart. We then see poor Miss Bates stammering and on the verge of tears and just so crushed one can not help but feel one's heart ripped out to her on her behalf. It is a classic scene, one to be rewound and played over & over...

The ending is right up there with "Sense & Sensibility" and provides one of life's greatest lessons about how one should marry one's best friend...

I hope that this film delights you all as much as it has myself.

I ADORED it!
80 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Vanity working on a weak mind produces every kind of mischief."
classicsoncall6 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
What I liked most about this film was the dialog, perhaps a bit too sugary much of the time, but entertaining as it reaches one's ear. It has almost a Shakespearean touch, and as such, I can't imagine that within any set group of characters, that everyone would be as accomplished in their speech as the person they were talking to. I have the same reaction to any of the plays turned into movies like "Much Ado About Nothing" or "Hamlet", because it weren't for the talent of the writer, there would be a wider variance in speech pattern. That's not meant to be a put down, but an observation I thought worth mentioning.

Anyway, this picture turned out to be somewhat better than I was expecting, not being part of a target audience that the film makers would have been trying to reach. In any other movie, Emma (Gwyneth Paltrow) would have struck me as the town busybody, and in fact she was here too, but the flow of the story masked a lot of her negative qualities, like gossiping incessantly and attempting to be the local matchmaker. I felt a bit sorry for her friend Harriet (Toni Collette), not because she couldn't find an adequate suitor, but because she felt compelled to follow Emma's advice in matters of romance rather than her own true feelings. Fortunately that was resolved by the time the picture was over, and most satisfactorily on her own behalf.

LIke many other reviewers on this board, I had a unique fascination for the character of the young Miss Bates (Sophie Thompson), who's attitude often fell just short of annoying, but with a goodhearted quality if you know what I mean. I did feel out of sorts when Emma insulted her most unkindly, and felt even better when Emma got her comeuppance from the opinionated Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam). It was just the right touch at just the right moment to put Miss Woodhouse in her place.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Gwyneth surprises
bliss6615 May 2003
I have no idea how a Texan (the director, Douglas McGrath) and the American actress Gwyneth Paltrow ever pulled this off but seeing this again will remind you what all the fuss about Ms. Paltrow was in the first place! I had long since gone off the woman and still feel she is rather dull in her Oscar-winning "Shakespeare In Love" performance but she gets all the beats right here--she is nigh on perfect as Emma Woodhouse. She may have won her Oscar for Shakespeare but she should be remembered for this.

Of course, she's surrounded by a great supporting cast including Toni Collette, Greta Scacchi, Juliette Stevenson et al...Jeremy Northam is very appealing as the love interest, even if the script wallows a bit in his declaration of love to Paltrow (in the process, allowing all of the tension to drain out of their relationship); several years on, Ewan's hair is a little easier to take than it was in '96 and, personally, I find puckish Alan Cumming a grating presence in anything nowadays. But the standout is, without a doubt, Sophie Thompson (sister of Emma Thompson, daughter of Phyllida Law) as Miss Bates; what this version needs is a scene where Emma reconciles with Miss Bates, as she is the character to whose fate we are drawn. The film is worth watching (again even) for her performance alone.

All in all, this has aged wonderfully with charm to spare and more than enough subtlety to sort out the British class system. Well worth a rental (because its unlikely that Paltrow will ever be this good again--but we'll always have Emma).
47 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The best emma
Lily_hoho23 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Emma is delightful, a breezy romance comedy of complication and confusion, with Gwynneth Paltrow a winning delight as the titular Ms. Woodhouse, meddling in the romantic lives of her friends and associates.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dull, dull, dull!
Goon-29 February 1999
I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!

First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which "Emma" most certainly did. Now "Sense and Sensibility" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!

That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be "upper-class", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.

#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were "ugly", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, "just to make her laugh?" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her "Emma" did not exactly change my opinion.

Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and "Emma" is one of them.
21 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Paltrow Perfect
jhclues19 November 2001
Romance is in the air and love is in bloom in Victorian era England, in this light-hearted story set against a society in a time in which manners were still in vogue, the ladies were charming and elegant, and the gentlemen dashing. `Emma,' based on the novel by Jane Austen and written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath, stars the lovely Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role. A self-appointed matchmaker, Emma takes great delight in the romantic notion of playing Cupid and attempting to pair up those she feels are suited to one another. Coming off a successful matching that ended in marriage, she next sets her sights on finding a mate for her friend, Harriet (Toni Collette), but the outcome of her initial attempt proves to be less than satisfying. Meanwhile, her endeavors are tempered by by the handsome Mr. Knightley (Jeremy Northam), whose insights into matters of the heart often seem to be a bit more astute than Emma's, and lend some needed balance to the proceedings. And Emma, so concerned with what is right for others, neglects the heart that is actually the most important of all: Her own. The world goes ‘round and love abounds, but Emma is about to miss the boat. Luckily for her, however, the is someone just right for her waiting in the wings. Now, if she can but stop long enough to realize it. But as everyone who has known true love knows, matters of the heart can go right or wrong in an instant, depending upon the slightest thing; and while romance is at hand for Emma, she must first recognize it, and seize the moment.

McGrath has crafted and delivered a delightful, feel-good film that is like a breath of fresh air in our often turbulent world. There may be an air of frivolity about it, but in retrospect, this story deals with something that is perhaps the most important thing there is-- in all honesty-- to just about anyone: Love. And with McGrath's impeccable sense of pace and timing, it all plays out here in a way that is entirely entertaining and enjoyable. It's a pleasant, affecting film, with a wonderful cast, that successfully transports the viewer to another time and another place. It's light fare, but absorbing; and the picturesque settings and proceedings offer a sense of well-being and calm that allows you to immerse yourself in it and simply go with the flow.

The winsome Paltrow, who won the Oscar for best actress for `Shakespeare In Love' two years after making this one, seems comfortable and right at home in this genre. She personifies all things British, and does it with such naturalness and facility that it's the kind of performance that is easily taken for granted or overlooked altogether. She's simply so good at what she does and makes it look so easy. She has a charismatic screen presence and an endearing manner, very reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. Yet Paltrow is unique. As an actor, she has a wide range and style and has demonstrated-- with such films as `Hard Eight,' `Hush' and `A Perfect Murder'-- that she can play just about any part effectively, and with that personal touch that makes any role she plays her own. But it's with characters like Emma that she really shines. She is so expressive and open, and her personality is so engaging, that she is someone to whom it is easy to relate and just a joy to watch, regardless of the part she is playing. And for Emma, she is absolutely perfect.

Jeremy Northam also acquits himself extremely well in the role of Knightley, and like Paltrow, seems suited to the genre-- in the right role, that is; his performance in the more recent `The Golden Bowl,' in which he played an Italian Prince, was less than satisfying. Here, however, he is perfect; he is handsome, and carries himself in such a way that makes Knightley believable and very real. Like Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy in the miniseries `Pride and Prejudice,' Northam has created a memorable character with his own Mr. Knightley.

Also excellent in supporting roles and worthy of mention are Toni Collette, as Emma's friend Harriet Smith; and Alan Cumming, as the Reverend Elton. Respectively, Collette and Cumming create characters who are very real people, and as such become a vital asset to the overall success of this film. And it demonstrates just how invaluable the supporting players are in the world of the cinema, and to films of any genre.

The supporting cast includes Greta Scacchi (Mrs. Weston), Denys Hawthorne (Mr. Woodhouse), Sophie Thompson (Miss Bates), Kathleen Byron (Mrs. Goddard), Phyllida Law (Mrs. Bates), Polly Walker (Jane Fairfax) and Ewan McGregor (Frank Churchill). An uplifting, elegant film, `Emma' is a reminder of civilized behavior and the value of gentleness and grace in a world too often beset with unpleasantness. And even if it's only through the magic of the silver screen, it's nice to be able to escape to such a world as this, if only for a couple of hours, as it fulfills the need for that renewal of faith in the human spirit. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.
38 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good but lets compare!!!!!
mjarvis017 February 2009
This first thing to say about Jane Austen's Emma is that to really have done it justice it should have been over six episodes like the great 1995 Pride and Prejudice! What we have instead is two versions of Emma that came out within a year of each other. The Gwyneth Paltrow (GP) version and the Kate Beckinsale (KB) version. Both are feature film length with the GP version being approximately five minutes longer. So how did it do? Well the important thing about cramming a five hour story into 1 hour fifty is to know what to leave out and what to keep in obviously. There are several aspects of the story that must be brought to the viewers attention. First is that Emma is a match maker and both the GP and KB versions did this. Second is that Emma takes Harriet Smith under her wing and again both versions managed this. Thirdly that Miss Bates is a bit of a chatterbox and both versions managed this and then there is a divergence. An important part of the story is the arrival of Frank Churchill and his seemingly indifference to Jane Fairfax and his caring for Emma. In the KB version this is accurately portrayed with him seemingly reluctant to call on Miss Bates hence Jane Fairfax and his adverse comments about Jane's complexion and his hints that Jane had a thing for Mr Dixon. However in the GP version it was barely touched on and he did not appear to favour Emma over Jane. For instance he sang with both Emma and Jane and at the picnic he sat by Jane and not Emma whereas in the KB version he only sang with Emma and at box hill he sat with Emma. Another telling divergence is that Harriet Smith's liking for Mr Knightly is not properly shown to us in the GP version. In the KB version at the dance we see Harriet quite clearly being blanked by Mr Elton and then Knightly seeing this and making a point of dancing with Harriet and Harriet's happiness that Mr Knightly did dance with her. In the GP version we saw the blanking but it was not made clear that Knightly then danced with Harriet himself. This is important because it reveals why Harriet thinks that Knightly cares for her. I gave the GP version 7 out of ten because of Sophie Thompsons portrayal of Miss Bates. The scene at box hill when she is insulted by Emma was brilliant. I had a tear in my eye when Miss Bates realised she had been insulted by Emma. So while the GP version of Emma was good in my opinion the KB version is superior because it does bring out the points in the story that need to be brought out.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
grows more tedious
onepotato228 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Emma is Jane Austin's 19th c. comic heroine who takes delight in meddling in the lives of her young, single friends. And her class allows her to wile away hours gossiping idly. Back in the day, I found it breezy, clever and surprising enough to watch it several times. As I watch it now for free online, I'm struck by how artless it is. How dull and how long. How unstructured. How on earth can you kill this much time, moving so few plot points so very little? There are almost no dramatic stakes. Paltrow is not talented enough to hang an entire movie on... too much petulance and whining. A viewer tires of her three mannerisms, mere minutes before they tire of the character of Emma herself. And Paltrow has moved on since 1996 to become the world's biggest drag. I can't find in it now, anything I saw in it originally. Alan Cummins is unrecognizable. Northam still represents some type of poised, suave zenith for anything in breeches in Romance films.
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed