Director McGrath proves to have a good eye for exterior shots and comedic elements. The script is delightful, the cast superb, and Rachel Portman's score is faultless. The real problem with this adaptation is dear Gwyneth. Paltrow is absolutely lovely and charming as the heroine here, but she is not Emma as written by Jane Austen, and the discrepancy changes the story entirely. To see this character played to perfection, you must see her played by Kate Beckinsale. Before you click the "No" button, hear me out: watch both films' version of the pivotal scene of the picnic on Boxer Hill, where Emma insults poor chatty Miss Bates. Austen's Emma is intelligent but thoughtless, generous but as yet unkind, in the way that young people can sometimes be. The essential drama of Austen's story lies in Emma's realization that she has been mistaken about oh! so many things, in her growth as she internalizes that realization, and in her discovering love when she becomes worthy of it. By contrast, Gwyneth Paltrow is perfect from the first scene. She exudes sophistication; she cannot help it. You never feel that she does not know what's what and who's who, and therefore she cannot develop as Austen means her to. And that precludes her from playing Emma to perfection. That said, if you are a Paltrow fan, you will love her in this charming film. She is effervescent. If, however, you are an Austen purist, then you MUST see the Beckinsale version instead.

Regardless of your opinion of the film, you WILL be disappointed in this DVD. Apparently Miramax's Harvey Weinstein has heard of neither bells nor whistles. Special features listed are: a theatrical trailer, subtitles in English and chapter selection. And that accurately sums it up. There's really no excuse for such a trifling package.

Now I've had my say and you, dear reader, may click away.


Too, too beautiful   July 30, 2003
 71 out of 97 found this review helpful

Despite what it may seem, "beautiful" does not refer only to Gwyneth Paltrow and the rest of the actors populating the cast of this Hollywoodian production of Jane Austen's 19th Century book, though beautiful many of them certainly are.

The strongest asset of this production is, as I intimated by the title, its astonishing visuals. I watched this movie in theatres 8 years or so ago, and upon re-watching it lately I was amazed to find that I completely forgot how utterly beautiful the setting of this movie is. Perhaps all this glowing representation of a sunny, Grecian 19th Century England radiates artificiality, but I suspect that it was meant to be this way, and as such I greatly enjoyed it.

The cast is adequate. Paltrow is a fair actress, but I think she is miscast as Emma, the snobbish heiress whose greatest interest is arranging the life of people around her to her own satisfaction. Austen's Emma is a strong if sometimes unlikeable young woman, but Paltrow passes her off with crinkly-nosed cuteness. This gets just a little bit irritating after a while, especially since the script writers resort to downright misrepresentation of other characters in order to make Emma's actions and behavior blameless, as in the case of Frank Churchill. (For a perfect Emma, see BBC's Kate Beckingsdale).

Mr. Knightly here is handsome and fine, but a little too mellow, and spends most of the movie smiling benignly at Emma's actions ("oh, how adorable Gwyneth- sorry, Emma- is!") He does have some fine moments, however, particularly during the "Harriet rescue" dance, and the relationship between Emma and him is sufficiently well-developed (the BBC version faltered on this score, which a longer production would have corrected).

Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax, however, suffer from the concentration on Emma. Frank's role is not only reduced, but misrepresented- he is represented as the author of the story about Jane Fairfax and Mr. Dixon, rather than Emma. Jane Fairfax is sufficiently beautiful, but seems too robust to be ailing, and her role is reduced to such minimal proportions that she barely gets any lines in the film.

The actress performing Miss Bates is good though Miss Bates' actions are somewhat exaggerated (she keeps speaking loudly as her rather bemused-looking old mother), and in the end, as touching as Austen would have wished her to be at the insult she receives from Emma. Mrs. Elton is very amusing, if not sufficiently malicious.

Harriet is the film's greatest flaw. Instead of representing her as a graceful, sweet girl, she is both unattractive and stupid. Doubtless the film makers did not wish to over-shadow Paltrow's beauty with yet another beauty, so they opted instead for an unattractive actress.

In summary, I felt that the film makers did too many jarring alterations in the story for the sake of the movie's star, Paltrow, which is somewhat upsetting, and which is yet another reason that she is miscast. Her own performance, which is fair enough, does not make up for this, nor does the fact that she looks stunning in 19th Century dresses. Still, this production is stunningly beautiful, and very entertaining, if the picky Austen fan can prepare himself or herself for a glossy, slightly artificial "Hollywoodian" production of Austen book.


Brilliant in so many ways   September 29, 2001
 28 out of 30 found this review helpful

Being a die-hard Austen fan, I couldn't resist watching this movie. Emma Woodhouse's story has always been my favorite of
Austen's efforts, and I am always glad to see her work brought to the screen. I was VERY pleased with this film.

Casting was well done. Northam provides a sturdy, but not overly-stern, Knightley, and Paltrow does an amazing job of convincing us that she is, indeed, British in her portrayal of Emma. Her accent is nearly flawless, and I felt that she truly captured the personality of Austen's most spoiled heroine. The sets and lighting are bright, airy, and perfectly suited to the comedic approach taken by this particular director. The scenes are edited just brilliantly. Each scene flows seamlessly from one to another, and the pace of the plot runs along just perfectly. It moves fast enough to keep everyone interested and slowly enough to make sure that everyone has enough time to absorb what's going on.

The criticism I've heard most often is that the film really only touches on the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill subplot for the briefest of moments. I did not find that to be injurious to the film. It's plain, while watching this version, that the director wanted to keep the story light and funny. Adding Jane and Frank's saga would have done two things: First, it would have seriously darkened and dramatized the bouncy and bright atmosphere of the entire film. Second, it would have taken the spotlight off of Emma Woodhouse as the focus of the story. I felt that, given the abbreviated length of time that a movie has in which to communicate a story...the omission of Frank & Jane's affair was a wise choice.

The second criticism I've heard of the film is that it's just too clean and "pretty" to be accurately representative of Regency England. Again...this didn't bother me. The focus of this film is NOT to be true to history. It is not a Regency documentary. It is a fun and aesthetically pleasing depiction of Emma Woodhouse and her friends. It's romantic, funny, charming, and very very pretty to look at.

I loved it.


"Oh wouldn't it be charming?"   January 18, 2003
 24 out of 24 found this review helpful

"Emma" was made during a spate of Jane Austen films and miniseries awhile back, and thankfully (except for the fiasco called "Mansfield Park") all of them have been fantastic. Gwyneth Paltrow provides some droll comic relief as the title heroine of the movie "Emma," proving that yes, she CAN act quite well.

Emma Woodhouse (Paltrow) is on a matchmaking rush after she successfully pairs her former governess to a rich widower. Convinced that she can make a good match for anybody, she sets out to pair her penniless, sweet-natured pal Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) with someone more elevated than a prosperous young farmer, such as the eager young minister, Mr. Elton (Alan Cumming). Problem is, Mr. Elton turns out to be in love with Emma, not Harriet.

More romantic complications ensue when a charming bad boy, Frank Churchill (Ewan McGregor in a bad wig) comes to the area and seems to be interested in Emma -- until Emma decides to pair him with Harriet. Emma's good-natured meddling continues unchecked, until it threatens her own happiness and her unspoken love.

"Emma" is probably the frothiest of Austen's novels; there aren't any big scandals or anything like that. Embarrassment is the big opponent in here, but Douglas McGrath has a good sense of how to use the droll humor to best advantage. This is definitely a comedy, except for one or two moments near the end; even there, it's amusing when Emma wails "I love John! I hate John!". The only source of humor that falls flat is Mrs. Elton, who is too overdone in her vulgarity and stupidity. Bit of a cheap laugh there.

Gwyneth Paltrow seems very in-her-element as Emma, managing to be cute and fumbling without ever making Emma seem precious or stupid. Ewan McGregor may hide whenever he sees his performance, but he's pretty good as Frank (and fans of his should definitely see him sing a duet with Paltrow -- he has a wonderful voice). Toni Collette is sweet as Emma's rather naive younger friend, Denys Hawthorne endearing as Emma's hypochondriac dad (he's kind of weird, but likeably so), Alan Cumming annoying as the juvenile Mr. Elton, and Greta Scacchi does a great turn as Emma's kindly mother-figure. And Jeremy Northam steals the show as Mr. Knightley, the barb-tongued aristocrat with a kindly heart and a genuine affection for Emma, even though her romantic prodding makes him nuts.

There are a few points in the movie where it does seem a little too light and frothy, but fortunately most of the time the direction stays in sync with the storyline. The lighting, the costumes, the music -- all of them are cute and lightweight. Kids can watch this as well as adults, since there are Disney cartoons that are more offensive than this. (But younger kids will be bored out of their skulls, probably)

"Emma" is a great film for anyone in search of a genuine comedy with lots of laughs and no stupid gags. Definitely something to watch, especially if you like hearing Ewan McGregor sing or Gwyneth Paltrow freaking out over a failed matchmaking.


Not fault with the acting, fault with the portrayel   December 18, 2000
 16 out of 21 found this review helpful

I admit, although being a great Jane Austen fan, "Emma" is not among my favorite of her books. She herself said that in creating Emma, she was creating a character that no one but she would like.

I just wanted to comment on the relative laughability of the historical accuracy of this version of "Emma". The costumes, while pretty to the untrained eye, are horrendous from a historical standpoint. Look up a book on paintings or fashion plates from the Regency era to get an idea of what people really wore. I didn't think many of them were even particularly flattering to the actors. I also imagine Jane turning over in her grave at the scene where Emma and Mr. Knightly declare their love for one another and then promptly embrace passionately, interlocking tongues and everything else. The expression "Get a room" didn't exist then, and for very good reason. No one would've conducted themselves like that in public, and even in private, unless they were married. The Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle "Pride and Prejudice" shows what I think is a lovely example of how people in love would've behaved together. In the very last scene, as Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy pull away from the church in their carriage, they shyly look at each other and then slowly move in for a kiss, not quite sure how to approach it. Then they exchange a modest kiss, not a tongue-down-each-others-throat kiss. Elizabeth has surely never held hands with a man, much less kissed one. It's only our horribly immodest society today that allows tongues to be seen in public.

Aside from the historical accuracies, I think this version does shine in some parts. I think this version of "Emma" has the best of the Miss Bates. I also enjoy the Mrs. Elton in this version also.

There is some fairly good acting here. I do not censure the actors. They are even fairly accurate to the original story. I just find fault with the historical portrayal, which I think is essential to a period movie. Nowadays film is the way that the general public becomes acquainted with different time periods. They will come away from films like this with an incorrect understanding of the way things were in Jane Austen's time.