VividSimon Simply Perfect

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

zeek405 This is quite a pleasant version of a great classic story. I found myself comparing it to the Kate Beckinsale version, which had been my favorite up to that time. Here are a few observations I made:Romola Garai makes an outgoing and enthusiastic Emma, more impulsive than Kate Beckinsale's version of the title character (although not necessarily better). The one flaw I found was that her demeanor was sometimes distractingly modern. She was a little too inclined to show her feelings by her posture and facial expressions, which would have been strongly discouraged during that era in history. Other than that, her character was certainly believable.I was looking forward to Michael Gambone in the role of Emma's father, but his performance seemed subdued and humorless. I know he's capable of far better, but perhaps he was encouraged to play it down for this role. That's a shame, because it doesn't provide much motivation for Emma's affectionate behavior toward her father. He comes across as something of an albatross around her neck, rather than a lovable elderly man with a few human frailties. Mr. Knightley in the Kate Beckinsale version is attractive, but seems lacking in humor. Mr. Knightley in this version is less commanding in appearance, but seems to enjoy Emma, even as he rebukes her. I get the impression that she makes him laugh, and I can imagine them living happily ever after. He's less significant on the screen, but that actually makes it more effective, I think, because it's easy to understand why Emma would have taken him for granted.Harriet Smith is quite lovely in this version. She doesn't have Emma's strength of personality, but it's easy to imagine Emma visualizing the possibility of her marrying above her social station, with some careful coaching and matchmaking. Jane Fairfax seems sweet and emotionally vulnerable. It's easy to empathize with her from the onset, whereas Jane in the Kate Beckinsale version is somewhat intimidating in her seamless reserve and composure. I suspect that the latter version comes closer to what Jane Austen envisioned, but both versions are effective in their own way.To sum it up, I like them both in different ways. That's one great thing about Jane Austen's writings: we all have our own ideas about how they should be interpreted on the screen, and it's as much fun to compare the various versions as it is to watch them.

moonmaedyn This adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma is SO much better than that Gwyneth Paltrow mess! I have tried to watch that three times and I just can't get through it.Leave it to the good old BBC to know how to do justice to a classic. Even though this is a mini-series, it is done with more heart, soul and authenticity than any other attempt. The acting is superb--the costumes luxurious and the scenery breathtaking! There is not a better way to spend an afternoon than having a cuppa and watching an episode. I am so happy I came upon this wonder, albeit a bit late (it came out in 2009).A must see for any Austen fan! Kudos!

jjnxn-1 Richly produced, endearing version of the Jane Austen classic, Romola is spirited and charming in the title role with Jonny Lee Miller a most desirable and solid Mr. Knightley. While it is a fine rendering the excellent Gwyneth Paltrow version cast a shadow over this if you've seen it. Again the leads are very good and although different are a fine match who inhabit the characters fully. Where this version falls short is the supporting cast, they are professional but don't really stand out as Polly Walker, Toni Collette and Ewan MacGregor did in the 1996 film. The one who comes closest is Jodhi May as Mrs. Weston but still Greta Scacchi had a knowing stillness that is missing. The one who is really missed is the matchless Sophie Thompson who was a brilliant Miss Bates, it would be impossible to improve on her classic performance and the actress who essays the role here doesn't try, giving a much more recessive interpretation which while good is rather colorless. Taken on it's own though without comparisons to the other version this is a very solid BBC offering.

admatha r My first introduction to Jane Austen was BBC's wonderful Pride & Prejudice - so how excited was I to get my hands on this one? Not very, once I started watching it. After I'd watched P&P I went out and bought the book, immediately, and read and reread it. And then I rewatched the show and was delighted at how faithful it stayed to the book, and how well cast every single person in it was.Since then P&P and Emma have remained my two absolute favorite Austens. Let me begin by saying that I know that people say that books don't work as movies, but I'm sorry, I think movies like P&P disprove that. So when I say that they took the book Emma and decided that Austen just wasn't 'snappy' enough for the screen so they'd just take the liberty of changing a whole bunch of dialogue... I hope you understand just how much I take that as an indication that they should never have been allowed to make the book into a movie in the first place. For the length this goes on, there is no excuse for it not to have been a highly faithful and well performed adaptation. Instead it is bits and bites of Austen with plenty of "well we'll just make this better for TV" dialogue smothering those bits and bites. Jane Austen's dialogue is what *makes* her stories. She was an incredible writer, and to have the guts of Emma torn out and replaced with someone else's writing is like saying "well we're going to be displaying the Mona Lisa next week, but first we're going to paint over it, maybe add some eyebrows and a real smile, you know?"I managed to sit through the whole thing in the hopes I'd finally hit the point where Emma becomes charming, and Mr. Knightley becomes dashing, and Mr. Woodhouse becomes a dear (and lord, what an utter *waste* of getting Michael Gambon of all people to be in your movie!), and Frank Churchhill to become irresistibly casually flirtatious - but the characters were all ... very ... boring. There were a few tantalizing bits where I thought at least the Jane/Emma final scenes might be worth it but they were over almost as fast as they'd begun.Honestly, this is only the second version of Emma I've ever seen. And since the first was the Gwyneth Paltrow version, I had absolutely no doubts that this version, longer *and* made by the BBC would blow it out of the water. But you know what? I think the Paltrow version actually had better casting, and kept *more* of Austen's dialogue in than this one. Badly done, BBC. Badly done.