Emma (1996)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The makers of the ITV and A&E TV film of Jane Austen's "Emma" may have had fits in 1996. An independent group was making a film for the silver screen about the same time (to be distributed by Miramax), and it was ahead of ITV's film in production and its release. This has happened a few times in film history when different groups plan on and actually film the same novel or story for a movie. Both films had new rising stars as their leads. Gwyneth Paltrow in the theater film and Kate Beckinsale in this ITV/A&E film. The only other widely known cast member here is Prunella Scales as Miss Bates. Scales will be remembered always for her Sybil in "Fawlty Towers." But the theater film had more recognizable cast members – including Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightly and Ewan McGregor as Frank Church.Both films won awards – this one received two Emmys, and the theater film received on Oscar and one more nomination. The critics seem divided on these two films, mostly over the lead role. Those who prefer the girlish, romantic Emma gave the nod to Beckinsale in this TV film. Those who prefer the more lofty, class conscious Emma gave the nod to Paltrow. Each actress does a very good job in her respective role for the script she had. And, that's where I think the theater film screenplay was truer to the character as Austen portrayed her. The ITV script is more serious and somewhat dark. The theater film has its serious moments but they don't suppress the lightness and humor. So, Paltrow's character seems to more closely embody the Emma we read on the pages of the novel. That will likely remain a matter of taste between viewers of two camps, but an important aspect to consider is the rest of the cast and the screenplays. For those, this TV film falls behind the theater movie. The two-hour theater movie was able to better cover the main scenarios of the novel. This TV film is more serious and more of a drama, where I think Austen wanted the humor to be more apparent. And the casting was far better in the theater film. Mark Strong is a fine actor, but his Mr. Knightley was not the gentle soul and good-natured teacher and sparring partner to Emma. His was far more serious, bold and nearly belligerent in his protestations. The rest of the cast are a mix. Scales was fine as Miss Bates, but she couldn't equal Sophie Thompson's role in the theater movie. Some of the other characters seemed quite weak in this rendition. Anyone who enjoys Jane Austen should enjoy this film. But if one has a choice, the best and most entertaining film of "Emma" is the 1996 theater movie that stars Gwyneth Paltrow.

Emma Woodhouse (Kate Beckinsale) has a rigid sense of propriety as regards matrimonial alliances. Unfortunately she insists on matchmaking for her less forceful friend, Harriet, and so causes her to come to grief.Inevitably, this must be compared to the other "Emma", starring Gwyneth Paltrow, as they came out around the same time. For what it is worth, I think they both have their strengths. Paltrow's "Emma" has the benefit of a bigger budget, so everything looks better and makes for a stronger film. Beckinsale's "Emma" looks cheap, but has one thing in its favor: Beckinsale, who seems to really get into the character.Both have the familiar lines (I'm sure neither deviated too far from the novel). Had Beckinsale been cast in the Paltrow version, we may have seen the ultimate presentation of this literary classic.

Having recently enjoyed reading the novel, I immediately went out and got hold of both 1996 versions of Emma. Having read many comments which supposed this version better than the Gwyneth Paltrow version, I had high hopes for it, but unfortunately I was left a bit underwhelmed by it.It is commendable that it does stick more closely to the plot detail of the book, the attention given to the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax storyline is rather good compared to the GP version. However, I wish the same attention had been given to Mr. Knightley/Emma's relationship. For me there was just something lacking; there were not enough scenes that reinforced the idea that they were old friends, and indeed, I found it difficult to believe Emma's sudden revelation at the end as to her feelings. There were other areas which I felt were lacking too, particularly the beginning with Harriet and Mr. Elton's subplot, the whole thing felt rushed.That said, for fans of the book I think it is definitely worth viewing, but when pressed I would suggest the GP version over this.

Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.