KurotsutaMurasaki I have known about this adaptation for a while, but I held off on watching it due to my apprehension at the idea of Mark Strong playing Mr. Knightley. I was concerned because when I watched this I had already seen him as Sir John Conroy in "The Young Victoria" and as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes", both very unpleasant characters. But in my time there have been several instances of my expressing displeasure with casting choices only to eat my words when I actually saw the movie. So I entered into watching this with an impartial and optimistic outlook, sure that Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale would surprise me with brilliant performances. And I would like to say that they did, but that would be an untruth.My Biggest fear about Mark playing Knightley was that his rebuking of Emma was going to be a watered down version of the 'RAAAWWWRR' that I was familiar with. And unfortunately, it was. Whenever Mark raises his voice, the right side of his face pulls up into a snarl. I'm sure it's unintentional, but I have seen that snarl before, and it does not belong on Mr. Knightley. As for Kate, her acting as Emma was also exactly what I feared it would be: a mere reiteration of Flora Poste, her character from "Cold Comfort Farm" - a girl who just carries on making everything go her way, and who emotes NOTHING. Oh, she said her lines, but there was nothing behind her cold dark eyes to make me believe that she felt what she said. What's more, I thought the hair styles and costumes suited her VERY ill.My sister found this intolerably boring. Only I determined to watch it to the end. The pacing is practically a paradox - it seems to drag on forever, despite the fact that several of things were rushed through. I've seen a lot of praise for how Kate and Mark portray Emma and Knightly to perfection etc. and I have no idea why because I didn't believe a word that passed between them. There are other acting and editing issues: After Mr. Elton is married, we never hear anything about how Emma has to help Harriet get over him. There is no appeal and no emotion; When Mr. Knightly says his "badly done" line at box hill (having just practically shoved Emma into the carriage) his voice breaks as though he's about to cry; Emma never really seems to be effected by being rebuked, because the next day when she goes to see Miss Bates it's almost as if the whole thing never happened.Olivia Williams was a passable Jane Fairfax, but much like Polly Walker's portrayal, Olivia failed to show the degree of Jane's distress. I found Raymond Coulthard's Frank Churchill adequate, but insignificant. Dominic Rowan was,admittedly, probably the most accurate Mr. Elton I've ever seen, but also the most unmemorable. As for Bernard Hepton as Mr. Woodhouse, I don't really care for him in the first place. The shining star for me in this version was Alistair Petrie as Robert Martin. I like him as an actor and I think he was the ideal choice for Harriet's Mr. Martin. He and Samantha Morton (Who was her usual fantastic self as Harriet Smith) played off of each other so well, even when the actors around them weren't giving them much to work with. I consider their scenes (Few as they are) to be a good reason to watch this at least once. I would probably think this a tolerably good adaptation were it not for some gargantuan elephants in the proverbial room. First is Mrs. Elton: Is she British? Is she Texan? Is she even of this world? What is with her ACCENT? Then of course there is that ludicrous harvest feast at the end of the movie. The whole concept for this scene was not at all Janely. I was under the impression that I was watching a Jane Austen adaptation, not "Far From the Madding Crowd". There were somethings that were written oddly, I found. And by "oddly", I mean "creepily"The first of these is Mr. Knightley's strawberry line. This is delivered as a voice over transition to the scene in question and is thusly portrayed as a formal invitation: "Mr. Knightly invites you to taste his strawberries, which are ripening fast." THAT was a... questionable way to word that if you ask me. In addition, that line in the book was not worded as such, and was NOT intended to be a formal invitation. It was said to Mrs. Elton and was first meant to be a joke. I quote "You had better explore Donwell then," replied Mr. Knightly. "That may be done without horse. Come eat my strawberries, they're ripening fast." 'If Mr. Knightly did not being seriously, he was obliged to proceed so...'Another of these is Mr. Knightly's proposal. I was feeling good about this scene... until he drops the "I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old" line, and I immediately felt uncomfortable. Maybe DON'T talk about how you held her when she was a baby after you just asked her to MARRY you. Lastly we have Frank Churchill praising his lovely Jane at the end of the movie. Which would be fine if we wasn't whispering in Emma's ear about how fine his dead aunt's jewels will look against Jane's skin. Can I just be the first to say "Ehehewgaugh" (shudders). It's just creepy. Frank does talk about how Mrs. Churchill's jewels will be given to Jane, but he says he means to have them reset in a head ornament that will look nice against her dark hair. Hair - Normal. Skin - weird.Really this has been a long review when three simple words would have sufficed. "Badly done indeed."

hayzlenutt Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.

buzzerbill I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.

stormy_gail i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well.