source: Emma

This is a warm-hearted, fine adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. The film accentuates the harmonious side of the story, entering not too deep into the psychologically complex layers of the plot. It is an entertaining movie with fine actors: Gwyneth Paltrow is better than in Shakespeare In Love, Jeremy Northam is convincing as a fine specimen of a gentleman of the English gentry, the always reliable Toni Collette, Juliet Stevenson and especially Sophie Thompson support convincingly. The only thing I disliked was the music (which ironically won an Oscar): the composer seems to say "Hey, let's be jolly, it's a comedy, you know?" all the time. But that's the only thing that bothered me. The rest is fine, nice entertainment.

This was the first movie to introduce us to Gwyneth Paltrow's perfect English accent, but this adaptation of Austen's book is memorable for no other reason. The actors overall are by far too good looking for their parts, and the film deviats from the book in too many ways to make it very enjoyable to a true Austen fan. Overall, Paltrow is good, and the rest is passable, but if you want to see a good adaptation of this novel, watch the UK's ITV adaptation from 1997, starring Kate Beckinsale.

While most of the actors in "Emma" played their parts well, the film spent far too much time and effort presenting "pretty scenes." Shot after shot of the characters, especially Emma, sitting in magnificently arranged venues impossible to achieve in real life. At one point, Emma checks the mail sitting on a little couch with two perfectly pruned miniature trees on each side. Top it off with impossibly delicate, warm lighting and it's annoying and unnecessary. I felt like yelling to the screen, "I get it, she's magnificent, now leave it alone and concentrate on the story!" I also felt that Paltrow's ravishing good looks were a detriment to the film. It makes it hard to imagine why she would feel threatened by Jane Fairfax, who is supposed to be the statuesque one in the book. Toni Collette and Ewan MacGregor are also miscast; it's especially hard to understand why Emma would be so enamored with the latter.

I rented this film because I had read the book, and while I enjoyed it, I found it difficult to follow at times. I'm sure most have read the book, but I will just say that the book was very talky, and it was hard to follow all the convoluted family relationships (e.g., staying with a cousin's aunt's best friend, etc., etc.) "Emma" the movie, however was much easier to follow, and appeared to be very faithful to the book. The casting was just about perfect, particularly Paltrow, as Emma is described in the book by Mr. Knightley as an attractive woman, but someone who does not rely at all on her looks in her dealings and relationships.

These people (and the plot!) need REAL problems to deal with besides social alliances and tiffs - who will marry who? Needs a good death midway through to shake things up! But the comedy is delightful and the misconceptions intriguing. If only there had been more tenderness displayed along the way. Only way to film Austen is to simplify and modernise the dialogue. Couldn't fault Paltrow's and Collette's English accents.

i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.

Seeing this recently for the first time in 15 years, I was disappointed by its mediocrity. A talented cast is largely wasted, and among their number I do not include Paltrow, who hardly qualifies as talented on this evidence. Her stilted, mannered, plodding approach to her lines suggests that her energy was sapped by the effort of achieving an appropriate accent. However, this was clearly not a problem a few years later in Shakespeare in Love, and the faults of her performance here merely exemplify those of the production as a whole -- faults for which, one imagines, McGrath is largely to blame, though his Nicholas Nickleby a few years later shows that he too was capable of better. The movie is to be cherished for Juliet Stevenson's marvellous (though sadly truncated) turn as Mrs. Elton, but on the whole the film falls far short of the lively, sensitive, and above all natural, TV version of 2009, in which Christina Cole's Mrs Elton is only one of several outstanding performances.

If you like the musical "Grease", and I don't, and if you think 19th century British upper crust culture was exciting and vibrant, and I don't, then you might like this movie. This is a view of young people, totally devoid of responsibility, trying to decide who to take to the prom. Wait! ... not the prom, the altar. We constantly see evidence of actual work: the meals are elegantly set, various outdoor venues for embroidery or archery are set, but we only see one servant in the entire movie. He stands perfectly still, out of focus in the background, and has no lines. When the "lower classes" actually move around, they immediately attack 2 defenseless ladies. I'm giving it 3 stars for sets and costumes. The actors mostly hit their marks and remember their lines. There is no passion whatsoever in anything they do. I say, lock them all in their elegantly appointed staterooms in the Titanic.

How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).