Rating: 
Summary: Definitely not "My Mr. Knightley"
Review: The Gwyneth Paltrow version is defintely better -- hands down!!
There were several aspects of this film that I disliked, but Mark Strong's portrayal of Mr. Knightley was the most devastating blow. He always seemed angry and out of temper. Jeremy Northam was the perfect Knightley. He is handsome, witty, and gentlemanly, and I guess I can never watch another version without thinking of him as the ideal fit.
The movie is also very choppy. The pace moved too rapidly.
Overall, I don't regret purchasing the movie, but it definitely won't usurp my Gwyneth Paltrow version.
Rating: 
Summary: Badly done, Emma, badly done
Review: Been reading the books for years, over and over. Have loved Austen film adaptations, even the silly "Pride and Prejudice" version with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson (silly but wonderful).
I must admit that part of the fun is, Austen's male leads are traditionally very attractive, both in their written descriptions and film presence (Olivier; Colin Firth; Jeremy Northam....) In a dignified, Regency style, of course. What I'm leading to: This Mr. Knightley is fine - if he'd been cast as the relatively unimportant Mr. Weston. But as the romantic lead, I can't help thinking: ICK. He looks at Emma like she's yesterday's fish, even when declaring he loves her.
Kate B. is lovely as Emma, more suitably girlish than Gwyneth P. (she was a great Emma in her own way). This "Emma" version has some odd dream sequences, just to warn those expecting dignified authenticity. While some people consider the Miramax version too glitzy, I think it's more true to the spirit of Austen.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent adaptation of Austen's work!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent version of Emma
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderfully Entertaining!
Review: I'll make this short and to the point since that is all the time I have: It is a wonderfully portrayed story of the novel EMMA. The charcters were portrayed brillantly by the actors chosen for their parts. This version far outshines GP's version. It is more real and certainly more beliveable than the silly "Emma" portrayed by GP.
Rating:
Summary: I am only just a bit diverted ....
Review: This was my first experience with a film of a beloved Jane Austen novel. While this retelling of "Emma" was true to Jane Austen's book, I did not at all enjoy the casting, nor the acting of the two main characters. I did very much enjoy the portrayals of Harriet, Jane Fairfax, and Emma's father. That being said, I was most disappointed in the portrayals of both Emma and Mr Knightly. Kate Beckinsale creates a smug and immature Emma, thoroughly lacking in the "real" Emma's decorum and chic-ness so evident in the book even prior to her self-realization. I also feel that her appearance was just too childlike to be credible. Mark Strong's Mr Knightly was stern and wooden. I sensed no attraction between the two whatsoever!
| 
