Emma. (2020) Poster

(2020)

User Reviews

Review this title
519 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
All bonnet and no breeches
Flippitygibbit15 February 2020
Autumn de Wilde's Emma, with Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn, is not my cup of tea, I'm afraid. My review might be influenced by how much I love Jane Austen's novel and how many times I've watched the 2009 miniseries, but I always give every adaptation a try. And I can't really judge if what I was watching would make sense to an Austen virgin, shall we say, so what seemed disjointed and rushed to me might work perfectly for others.

I'll start with the good: I loved the costumes and the interiors, which were sumptuously beautiful. The wood-shaving ringlets on the women and the high collars on the men were distracting, though. And of course Anya Taylor-Joy made for a quirky and regal Emma (Austenites will be pleased to note that she has perfect posture.) I also loved how Anya Taylor-Joy and Amber Anderson as Jane actually played the pianoforte during the Coles' party (but could have done without Mr Knightley's contribution, when Frank Churchill is supposed to be singing with Jane). BUT. The music was horrendously jarring, alternating between Hanna Barbera cartoon incidentals and freakish folk music. The supporting characters suffered once again - I couldn't honestly tell the difference between Mrs Weston, Mrs Knightley and Mrs Elton, except that Isabella was for some reason a complete cow in this version, and Mr Elton and Frank Churchill were also interchangeable (perhaps that's why Elton never seemed to be without his dog collar, to help tell them apart). Bill Nighy's Mr Woodhouse was a weird combination of fusspot and Edwardian fop, and Johnny Flynn's Mr Knightley strayed way off character by stripping off in his first scene and never really recovered for me. (Apparently, that was a way of 'humanising' the character because he is always 'mansplaining' - very woke.) Anya wasn't kidding when she talked about the focus being on 'bodily functions', by the way - not only are we 'treated' to Knightley's backside, but Emma hitches up her skirts to warm her bare arse by the fire, and the 'cannot make speeches' proposal scene is a bloody mess. Literally. The script leans so heavily on lines from the novel that I think Eleanor Catton thought she was writing an essay for an English Lit exam - Austenites will be happy, but there was no feeling behind any of the grand words. When Emma and Mr Knightley argue, they constantly shout over each other, for instance, instead of the usual playful back and forth.

The whole film felt like a weird mashup between a stage musical and a Victorian farce, with choreographed servants and slapstick humour. There was also a lot of 1996 Emma in there, taking pastel and pastoral scenery from the film and Andrew Davies' wearisome obsession with wealth from the television two-parter. Not on a sliding scale of Emma and Miss Bates, but in how Mr Knightley's strawberry picking party turns into a National Trust promotional video for Wilton House, Salisbury. There's also a lot of emphasis on servants dressing their masters and mistresses, presumably to fit in more scenes of 'natural nudity'.

I went, I watched, I did my duty to Emma. But I think I'll stick with the 2009 miniseries.
285 out of 396 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This period drama is an absolute delight
akcenat20 June 2020
Based on a timeless novel Emma by Jane Austen, this latest movie adaptation of her book is a beautiful, gorgeous and entertaining re-make that should easily please Austen fans old and new as it looks phenomenal. Its cast, led by the terrific and wonderful Anya Taylor-Joy, are/is utterly splendid. "Emma's" script is adapted by novelist Eleanor Catton (The Luminaries) and manages to capture much of Austen's own comedy, translating it elegantly to the screen. The result is a stylish and eminently watchable movie adaptation. In addition to the script, the production values are stellar, while movie is visually stunning and impeccably researched - it really felt like an authentic window into the 1800s. At the end, film - updated in all the right ways - is filled with an abundance of genuine charm. For those who are fans of the period drama this is a must see, while this gentle film, also, deserves to introduce Austen to a whole new generation.

Rating: 7+/8-
59 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Exactly as it should be
FlicksFlix14 February 2020
First of all, let me start by saying that I enjoy pretty much every Austen adaptation - this was no exception. Second of all, let's draw the comparison between a movie and cake. I came into this movie knowing full well what type of cake I both wanted and expected it to be and was not disappointed.

Story: The same story we know and love - no unexpected twists or new storytelling methods (like the timeline changeup of the new Little Women). I wanted a delightful butter cake and that's exactly what I got - no wild new flavour combinations. It's a delightlfully fun, occasionally ridiculous, romp. I did enjoy the little extra Mr Nightly affection we get to see in the version - makes the romance feel a little less sudden.

Visual: If it were a cake, 'Emma' would be the most repinned, insta-worthy new buttercream cake on the block. Every single scene was shot absolutely beautifully and with so much attention to detail. The soft colours and pretty scenery make every shot look like what we all wish our wedding photos came out like. They play up a bit more of the Woodhouse/Knightly wealth and there is some sumptuous decore to enjoy.

Acting: I'm a Miranda Hart fan and I'm glad to say she did not disappoint. She brought the perfect mix of 'ridiculous' and 'sweet/pitiable' to Miss Bates. The rest of the cast did a very solid job and of course Bill Nighy is always a great addition to any ensemble. If the cast is the structural integrity of the cake, this cake isn't going to flop.

All in all, I'd say it's exactly as it should be.
116 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All very breezy and breathless, but it works well in doing it this way
bob the moo16 August 2020
I felt quite tired at the start of this film; it enters with a lot of sweeping movement, fast talking, and grand sets and costumes which offer far more detail than can be taken in. It had been a long day for me, but it did feel like it was a film trying to do too much. I was wrong in this first impression, but the approach of movement and pace did continue, and it gave the film a feel of being superficial and relying on pace and energy. To be fair, it makes this approach work and it is moves and looks delightful. It offers lots of nice touches that make it more than this, but it is ultimately not anything shockingly different from what you'd expect (which it probably shouldn't be anyway).

The delivery of Emma as having more of a sharp edge is a nice touch, as it lets the viewer see what is charming about her, but also that she is not aware of the negative aspects of her own character, and thus does not control them. This adds a lot to the narrative that others do not, and Taylor-Joy does very well with the role. She is supported well, although mostly by those doing one or two things really well (eg Nighy and Hart). The design of the film is wonderful - great costumes, and locations throughout. In the end it does have a fast and breezy tone that I did take a minute to get into, but in the end it was cheering and quite lightly delightful as a film.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fine production, if not the best "Emma" out there
gcsman19 July 2020
This was the last movie my wife and I saw in the actual theater-- back in March 2020 -- just days before covid-19 lockdown began. As of July we're wondering when we'll ever get to see another. In the meantime we've acquired a big UHD TV and subscriptions to a bunch of streaming services. But there's still nothing to match watching on a big screen with a packed audience of engaged viewers.

Anyway: long before there was "Mean Girls" and "Clueless", there was Jane Austen's novel about a good-hearted but manipulative, un-self-aware young woman who has a great deal of learning to do about real people. This most recent version of "Emma" is very nice and certainly worth seeing in whatever format. I think it's neither better nor worse than the good 1996 version (the one with Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role) -- they both have fine production values and fine casts, just different emphases, shadings of the various characters, and the choices for cuts made to the story to make it fit into a normal 2-hour run time. Anya Taylor-Joy is not only a good, distinctively featured young actress but she also *looks* as young as Jane Austen's heroine is intended to be, about age 20. She has the (often baseless) self-confidence arising from a privileged, untroubled upbringing, but a journey of self-discovery awaits her, and that's what makes the story.

Other standout characters include Mia Goth, who plays friend/protegee Harriet Smith as even more of a hapless stooge than usual; and the incomparable Bill Nighy as Emma's father Mr. Woodhouse. Is he really just a hypochondriac always fussing over cold drafts and fireplaces? It becomes clear that he knows and sees a good deal more than his loving but blithely unobservant daughter gives him credit for. And Nighy can steal scenes without saying a word, just by body posture and a raised eyebrow. He's a cinematic treasure. Johnny Flynn as Mr. Knightley is fine but a bit forgettable in the end.

And the scenery. It's so lush and green and bright that you have to consciously shake yourself to realize that no, the English countryside is really NOT always warm and sunlit as it is here. But this is fiction, and it just helps us settle in and enjoy the comfortable ride through this classic tale. For the best screen version of Emma out there, though, I happily recommend the 2009 TV miniseries starring Romola Garai. She's perfect for the part, and its 4-hour length lets the full story expand and breathe the way it should.
45 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty but feels a bit soulless
mickman91-112 November 2021
I saw this before seeing the Queen's Gambit, so I wasn't yet won over to the brilliance of anya taylor joy. This film did not win me over at the time. I thought she came across as overly haughty and disconnected. You may say that Emma is meant to be an un-likeable character, and that may be true, but I think a truer version of Emma would be of a young woman whom we know has lost her way and who is treating people less than honourably, but who is doing so because of her own fears and insecurities and who journeys through the course of the story to understand this more and to endeavour to be better in the future. There should be an empathetic and redemptive aspect to her despite her meanness. This was wholly lacking in this. And I now think it is far more about the production than taylor joy's portrayal. The film was overly focussed on looking good and missed connecting the characters with the audience. It reminds me of Bridgerton in that all the time and effort was spent on making things look great but the characters are pretty lifeless. Johnny Flynn was the best I thought he got the personality of Mr Knightley really well, but again the production didn't allow this to come through as well as it might. I really respect the attempt to bring Austen to modern audiences, I am not a purist, however this just regretfully isn't a great adaptation of the story nor a great movie. Watch the Romola Garai version of Emma.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Confused by the bad reviews...
duffgifl28 May 2020
Recently got a chance to watch this. I like the film with Gwyneth Paltrow, and absolutely love the BBC miniseries, so I was cautious watching this, especially with the several bad reviews. I don't know if it was because I went in with low expectations, but I was delighted by this movie! Admittedly if you don't know the story, it can move fast, but to be fair, the book is long and tedious, with a lot to fit in two hours, which is one of my problems with the 2008 movie. The visuals and fashions of this movie are beautiful, and Emma's character did show improvement unlike some of the comments I saw. This one definitely captured Jane Austen's humor, and you can be guaranteed to laugh a few times. The BBC mini-series is still my top rated, but the 2020 "Emma." is, in my opinion, a notch above the 2008 "Emma", but would definitely recommend all adaptations, especially the book.
247 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Almost spot on!
rebecca-woods8712 July 2020
I think what I love the most about this adaptation is that it seems to feel no need to apologise for some of Emma's behaviour. Austen wanted a heroine who was not very easy to like and that is exactly what we've got here. This film, just like the book, shows the progression of the character, Emma certainly learns a lot within the year! Unfortunately with any film adaption of a full length novel, there must be some deviation, either bits missed out or amalgamated. Despite this, the film managed to capture the spirit of the book, something that, in my opinion, no other film or tv serious has managed to do. I enjoyed the fact that the romance is ramped up compared to the novel, but thankfully this was done without sacrificing any of the comedy. Well worth a watch!
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Loved it!
glmrtndrthy19 July 2020
My goodness. Have read some reviews and I see no middle ground....2s or 9s..Someone mentions that Mr. Elton is a caricature...this is true so was Mr. Collins. Methinks, Ms. Austen liked to poke fun at the clergy.

The nudity reminded me of the wet shirt scene in Pride & Prejudice in 1995 TV adaptation. Didn't bother me. They were naked under all those clothes back then too.

I commend the casting, the performances, the costumes, and much more. I always approach Austen movies with trepidation. I always fear disappointment, but that rarely happens and this no exception.

The director is a photographer and approached the scenes with a photographer's eye. If you look at the frames, many are beautifully symmetrical photographic portraits. Loved the visuals. I compare it to CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT just in this respect. If you really watch that fabulous Orson Welles movie, the framing looks like the paintings of Dutch Masters (especially the scenes with Fallstaff, Silence, and Shallow out at the country house).

No chemistry between the two leads? Well, if you read Austen you know that Knightley is considerably older than Emma and watched her grow up due to the family's connections. Emma and Knightley's siblings are married to each other.

Knightley admires her from afar and is betwixt friendship, sibling, buddy, et. al. with Emma. This is played well in the earlier parts of the movie. The attraction develops into more and as Emma ages it is more appropriate. The nuance of this progression is well done.

I don't know if I should call certain little gems, Easter Eggs, or hidden meanings. But, I found Harriet's moaning and sighing on the couch after twisting her ankle, well, you know...as Knightley is attending to her foot so clever. I laughed out loud.

Well done by all. And I guess after reading some reviews, not all found it thus. I recommend a second viewing.
90 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Beautiful Production but Emma's not a woman of substance
tm-sheehan13 February 2020
My Review- Emma My Rating 6.9

Before she began the novel,Jane Austen wrote, "I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like." Emma is spoiled, headstrong, and self-satisfied; she greatly overestimates her own matchmaking abilities; she is blind to the dangers of meddling in other people's lives; and her imagination and perceptions often lead her astray plus she is an awful snob. This was the last of Jane Austen's novels to be published and completed in her lifetime. Her last novel Persuasion was published posthumously after her death in 1817.

This 2020 film version of Emma stars Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma Woodhouse and she is very good as the snobby control freak who is trying to play matchmaker to her friend Harriet Smith also played very well by Mia Goth. The standout performance for me in this movie is Miranda Hart as Miss Bates as the kind hearted but overbearingly boring twittering Village spinster. Miranda Hart gives the character humour and colour and her performance is worth the price of seeing this good film. The male characters in this predominantly female dominated story apart from Bill Nighy as the eccentric and delightfully self obsessed humorous father of Emma and Josh O'Connor as Mr Elton The Village Vicar seemed to lightweight to me . The two romantic leads lacked charm and sex appeal to me Johnny Flynn as George Knightley looked a little scruffy and more suited to the role of Mr Robert Martin the good hearted farmer .Callum Turner also seemed lacking to me in his role as Frank Churchill the charming but deceitful potential suitor of Emma. Perhaps that was the intention of Autumn de Wilde another impressive female director to avoid well known male stars from stealing the limelight from the impressive women? Top 10/10 marks to the Production personnel on this version of Emma it's a joy to watch the Cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt ,Production Designer Kate Quinn, Art Director Alice Sutton, Set Director , Stella Fox (who did "Judy" Star Wars Episode V11,) and especially Costume Designer ,Alexandra Byrne ( Phantom of the Opera and Mary Queen of Scots) who should be nominated next year for an Oscar.

If you love the World of Jane Austen the frippery and foppery and that long lost past age of strict manners and snobbery of Georgian Society you're sure to love Emma . I couldn't help comparing Emma to the other recent period film set 60 years ahead in America Greta Gerwig's stunning version of "Little Women" with a character Jo March also not looking for marriage but with more a woman of substance than Emma.
30 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Odd, Bizarre, and "Badly done indeed"
acrider68023 March 2020
This is by far the weirdest version of Emma I have ever seen. I love the book and am a huge fan of the 1996 (Paltrow) and 2009 (Garai) movie versions, but this 2020 version is just bizarre! Emma is supposed to be about transformation. A beautiful, spoiled girl becoming a loving and caring woman. This Emma was spoiled and rude the entire file and didn't change at all. Mr. Knightley is one of my favorite literary heroes, but this version didn't showcase any of his (or Emma's) good qualities. There wasn't anything likable about any of the main characters (Mr. Woodhouse being the only exception). "Badly done, Emma! Badly done indeed."
168 out of 232 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well worth seeing
SB10018 February 2020
I have previously seen three TV versions of Emma, and the 1990s Hollywood film with Gwyneth Paltrow - which I find excessively sentimental. Emma is not my favourite Austen novel, but the adaptation used for the 2020 film version is generally very good. One or two specifics are omitted, but this is inevitable in compression to the running time of just over two hours.

As all reviews have noted, the film is beautifully designed and shot. Some of the design may even be thought to be over the top, but I thought that was consonant with the mannered approach of the cast, an approach which works well in making this essentially a comedy of manners as well as a love story. The detective story element of the novel doesn't go for very much - little is made of the piano, and Frank Churchill's slip in knowing about Dr Perry's carriage is omitted.

I thought Mia Goth's well-rounded performance of Harriet the best I have seen, and it is certainly difficult to take one's eyes off Anya Taylor-Joy in the titular lead. Other female performances are perhaps more so-so, although Chloe Pirie's harassed Isabella is interesting. The comedic Mr Elton would be well over the top in some adaptations but just about fits in here. Other male roles are adequately filled even though the portrayal of john Knightly is slightly bizarre. Bill Nighy is...well, Bill Nighy, this time with amazing costume.

I enjoyed it, and I intend to see it again soon. Overall I would just favour the 1996 Kate Beckinsale ITV version but this is close behind and in some ways better
116 out of 181 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyed
mgmason-283377 December 2020
Seemed a bit slow at first but really enjoyed. Great scenery and photography. Bill Nighy superb. Taylor-Joy did not get drunk or take drugs or kill people. So an unusual sight of her. She is a great actress
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Deeply disappointing
debdshaw6012 March 2020
Emma is one of my favorite Jane Austin novels. This production is a travesty overall. The costumes and hair and locations are sumptuous and beautiful but do little to cover the fact that the director and perhaps lead actress did not understand the book at all.

Emma is meant to be charming and sweet if wrong headed and a bit spoiled. Her heart is good and she's usually incredibly kind except when under the influence of Frank Churchill and she immediately regrets her actions.

In this version, Emma is rendered to be a superscillious brat with no real thought for anyone but herself. Bill Nighy is seriously underused and is one of the bright spots in the film. Miranda Hart is the only other bright spot. I'm not sure what on earth they were thinking. 2 hours of film went by without hitting in any part of the story that would lead to coherence. There was zero chemistry between any of the characters. They took a story that's light and charming and made it heavy and distasteful.

I'd definitely not recommend this to either readers of the book or anyone else because they definitely will not have even a fraction of an understanding of the tone of the book and wonder why on earth anyone could care about this story at all.

How very sad that they could have done a modern remake like this and just completely miss the mark.
293 out of 426 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Faithful to the classic novel and modern in its sensibility.
JohnDeSando26 February 2020
This recent film rendition of Jane Austen's Emma (curiously here called "Emma." With a period) enjoyably carries the opulence of the 19th century landed gentry with a modernist modicum of biting satire. This vintage Austen is critical of the heavy-handed social manipulations toward marriage while it exudes Austen's own marriage to the time. As Virginia Woolf said, Austen "had no wish for things to be other than they are."

Slyly played by Anya Taylor-Joy, Emma's major duty in life seems to be placing her loved ones in the right marriage, occasionally delighting in a working-class connection. To her credit she seems to value love even above wealth, though her being poor herself is never an option as long as her wispy father (Bill Nighy) is responsible for her welfare: "Never could I expect to be so truly beloved and important; so always first and always right in any man's eyes as I am in my father's." (Emma)

Taylor-Joy brings a sly smile to most interchanges, as if it were Austen herself enjoying the charades and deceptions that she knows her story will set right as she sets right the appropriate human connections. The audience is always in the know as young director Autumn de Wilde gives the feel of Austen's signature style, Free Indirect Speech (FIS), a form of third-person narration which goes gently in and out of a character's mind.

More importantly, the mansion and its grounds are about as lush and painterly as ever has been shown on a period piece, and the costumes are beyond breathtaking. If you are put off by the high rhetorical style, your eye will be fully satisfied with a sumptuousness rarely seen in cinema.

When all is said, however, its live that defines this kind of romance. Johnny Flynn as George Knightly, Emma's close buddy and potential suitor, is real enough in a Steve-McQueen way to bring that modernist cadence to the stiff upper-crust motif. He and Taylor-Joy are well matched, youthful, beautiful, and hip.

De Wilde and writer Eleanor Catton have done Austen well, carrying the aura of 19th century upper-class reserve into our cynical times, attractive enough to make us think that love can be organized and life made simple. The women in Emma., even when foolish, are worthy of affection:

"Men of sense, whatever you may choose to say, do not want silly wives." Mr. Knightly
64 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than what I expected. Surprisingly.
dorottya_doribaba26 March 2021
As a fan of old Austen adaptations, I was skeptic about the fourth Emma-movie that I know of (there may be more), but I tried to keep an open mind. Somehow the film created an atmosphere that was totally different from the good old Austen-vibe, but it was still lovely. If anything, they spared no effort on the set and costumes, everything and everyone was unexpectedly gorgeous, without looking out of place or forced. That balance is hard to achieve.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gorgeous and Amusing
matthewsjcha8 March 2020
The movie is breathtaking with nearly every shot, as the cinematography captures some beautiful set design, giving a dream like state to each scene. I suggest that it's rather fitting to be dream-like considering Emma's constancy in matchmaking ideal men for her friend Harriet.

Just as Austen's novel, the movie is genuinely funny, lightly pushing on the bounds of etiquette to have great comedic moments.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Simply Sublime.
bob-the-movie-man21 February 2020
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.

Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.

Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!

But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.

If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.

The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).

I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.

An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).

Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!

Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").

And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!

The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.

As you might guess.... ...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.

All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.

This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.

(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on Facebook or the web.)
125 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good adaptation
studioAT25 February 2020
This new adaptation of the classic Jane Austen novel seems to be getting mixed reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

With a good central performance from Anya Taylor-Joy, and good support from Bill Nighy etc, this managed to combine humour with period drama well.

Good stuff, in my opinion. I don't know what others wanted/expected.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well done!
lerogers2721 June 2020
I was so completely surprised by how much I enjoyed this version! I had heard many negative remarks. But after my niece's told me they loved it, I had to watch it! A lovely way to spend 2hrs on a rainy Sunday!
31 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Subtle and charming
I found this adaptation produced with care and with nuisance that could be too easily missed and discounted. For me, this adaptation tells well the awakening of Emma to her own maturity within social roles and class within the structure of that time.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sublime to look at, painful to watch .....
jayemacleay7 March 2020
If you love pantomime, you'll love the latest incarnation of Jane Austen's Emma. If you've read the book or seen the TVC series or last film adaption, all I can say is if you set great expectations your bound to be disappointed with this latest incarnation that leaves you walking out of the cinema saying why .......

The film is beautifully shot, the costumes and cinematographic should win awards .... where it does fall over is the acting .... Jane was making a parody of the upper and middle classes ... but this version slams people over the head with the delivery and over dramatised characterisation of the characters, there is no humanity or redeemable features in any of them ... just comical and inane pauses, over dramatisation .... If you come out of a movie vainly trying to find its redeemable features like Miranda Hart's version of Miss Bates or Connor Swindells Mr Martin, I am struggling to find any improvement of past versions of this novel. It does look stunning but like many beautiful things in life lacked any substance, character or depth.
151 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fantastic
harryhoustonastros17 February 2020
Fun, stylistic, and is basically everything I wanted from the film. The color palette was absolutely gorgeous. I really enjoyed this film and I think any audience member will If they are into period pieces
88 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining Movie But Not Emma By Jane Austen
martimusross15 February 2020
Emma

I am torn between liking the movie for what it is or reviewing this with regard to its authenticity with the novel or indeed by comparison to other visual interpretations over the years.

Either way there were some distinct problems with this production and indeed some total joys.

What was good

We had some brilliant cameos that upped this movie and were quite memorable, Miranda Hart for one.

The styling was spot on in terms of the clothes, hair, makeup and interiors.

What was deeply problematic

What separates Jane Austen from Barbara Cartland, obvious, her brilliant use of language to poke fun at a society of manners and the rigid conventions of her time and thereby reveal some insights into the human condition. This production was unfortunately Barbara Cartland, Georgian "speak" was largely absent in the first 45 minutes, the script was heavy and there was just no lightness of touch in recreating the interchange between Knightly and Emma. I would suggest everyone can understand Georgian speak as with Shakespearean speak and if they can't they best man up or leave the theatre, we cannot dumb down the language of these great authors without it ceasing to be their work.

Emma is a flawed heroine, Jane Austen said "no one could like her except herself", but we must love her despite her shortcomings, she is well meaning, but her reading of the world and her errors in judgement come from inexperience, the gap between these realities is revealed by Knightly and it is this that defines the manners and conventions of the day, whether just or not. In this movie she just appeared an interfering busybody and we didn't like her, her motivations were merely suggested to be vanity, not true!

Mr Woodhouse was really presented as a caricature but in the novel he was less comedic and more irritating pedant, in many ways, as F.R.Leavis argues, it is his influence and indulgence that has created the monstrous errors in judgement that Emma makes.

We just were not rooted in the Georgian period, the score was wrong, the script was wrong, everything was too clean even on the farm. The set pieces, the balls, the picnic was all clumsily handled, such a shame. I did enjoy the piano recital scene that was good.

We have had in recent months Liitle Women, David Copperfield and now Emma, of the three Little Women was the best. But overall all three are an unmitigated disaster as they failed to capture the essence of the great novels from which they derived, in all it is not just the story that needs to be conveyed but the larger insights into humanity and the interactions between us all. If you want a new story then write one, never butcher a great masterpiece for either accessibility or political reasons. No more please!
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Can't get the basics right
verna-a20 March 2020
Some fatal attraction means I must watch new Jane Austen screen adaptations although I find them invariably less than satisfying. This version of Emma is no exception as its faults are egregious. I could tell almost straight away it was going to be gimmicky in the way that filmmakers of dubious merit think they can add bits of business to wonderful classics, or distort things completely, as an "improvement". I fantasize that, in a better world, there might be some court to hear applications to make screen adaptations, to determine whether the filmmaker actually understands what it is about the story and the characters that give these works of literature their timeless appeal. So often they don't, as they change and destroy what is so fundamental to the success of the original. Somebody give them a "Cliff's Notes" to read, at the very least! Emma Woodhouse, the heroine of "Emma" is a likeable, open-natured young woman, who has faults but learns to become a better person. That's in the novel, anyway. The Emma depicted in this film wears alternately an arrogant or sulky expression, seems to have selfish and nasty motives and thoroughly deserves to be taken down a peg, which more or less happens. Newsflash to the filmmaker - she is such an unpleasant person that I don't care. Mr Knightley is a calm, confident sophisticated man of the world, someone of deep and genuine feelings - and dead sexy with it. Johnny Flynn's version is a nice young man but something of a klutz. How does he even like this hardfaced Emma? - again you've lost me. I have to contrast the failure of the lead characters to pull their weight in delivering the story, with the Romola Garai/Jonny Lee Miller version where they got it so right. To carry on with the catalogue of "wrongness" in this version, Frank Churchill, an important and attractive character in the story, is presented by an actor lacking in looks and charm, a complete nonentity. To mention some minor characters, I fully expected Bill Nighy to ham it up with the Mr Woodhouse character, and he does. But why oh why do they have to make Emma's sister Isabella and brother-in-law John Knightley unpleasant and unhappy people - it's so wrong! While not a major theme, their domestic happiness is a beacon to Emma and Mr Knightley to follow their example, and recognize their destiny. I could go on - Harriet Smith isn't pretty, Miss Bates isn't talkative enough, and Mr Elton is a grinning gargoyle. If I pull myself up with an effort to acknowledge the positives of the film, there are beautiful landscapes and house interiors, and great costumes and hairstyles, real eye candy. The dialogue is reasonably respectful of the original. But I wasn't happy for a minute watching the film. I am entitled to have high expectations of a Jane Austen adaptation, and was majorly disappointed, so only a 4/10.
163 out of 240 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed