Emma. (2020)

Unfortunately for me, this version of Emma was more a miss than a hit. It was too slow & failed to draw me in. Some of the scenes were just too long or superfluous, making me wish for them to hurry up to get to the good bits. Visually speaking it was lovely & depicted the Regency period well. But the soundtrack was often jarring & distracting rather than enhancing a scene. The odd choir singing is a case in point.

I could not like Emma herself. Anya Taylor-Joy was miscast, in my opinion. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it was her unusual eyes? I know I disliked her hairstyles intensely. Horrid! I couldn't connect with her character.

I thought some of the characters were wishy washy. You would not know that Emma's sister Isabella is married to Mr Knightly's brother John. Or perhaps I blinked & missed it? Jane Fairfax was fairly insipid & there was not much to indicate that Frank Churchill was a bit of a cad weaving elaborate lies. Bill Nighy's Mr Woodhouse was too childish & effeminate for my liking. Mr Knightly, whilst likeable, was a bit childish for his age & station & not a match for this particular Emma & I could picture her walking all over him.

The actors I did enjoy were the characters of Mrs Weston, Harriet Smith & Miss Bates, played by Gemma Whelan, Mia Goth & Miranda Hart. Gemma Whelan of Game of Thrones fame, handled Mrs Weston with dignity & grace. Harriet was delightful & suitably innocent & gullible. My favourite character in this adaption was Miranda Hart's portrayal of the unfortunate Miss Bates. Miranda is an expert at playing socially awkward characters & did not disappoint with Miss Bates. Her embarrassment & vulnerability at Emma's spiteful words at the picnic brought me to tears. As did her graciousness in accepting Emma's attempt at an apology. Bravo Miranda!

So there were some redeeming scenes throughout the movie. But overall, it fell short of my expectations & the 1996 version of Emma remains my favourite to date.

Fmovies: 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

Visually beautiful...but empty of soul....really dreadful...Emma (the lead) was particularly awful....save your time/money--see other versions..this one was torture to sit through

Emma. fmovies. 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.

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.

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.