Jane Austen’s beloved comedy about finding your equal and earning your happy ending, is reimagined in this. Handsome, clever, and rich, Emma Woodhouse is a restless queen bee without rivals in her sleepy little town. In this glittering satire of social class and the pain of growing up, Emma must adventure through misguided matches and romantic missteps to find the love that has been there all along.

Also Known As: Ема., Emma New, 艾瑪., Ema, Emma., Эмма, Емма, Emma, Ema Bosnia and

Leave a Reply


  • pani-kornelia-giel
    pani kornelia giel

    Absolute bore, fell asleep twice and walked out. Felt like an endless loop of waiting for something to happen. Have read the book but this was hard to get through

  • sidorov-sofron-valerianovich
    sidorov sofron valerianovich

    Romantic period drama, adapted from the classic novel by Jane AustenI saw this recently on a rainy afternoon on Isle of Wight. It looks like Bill Nighy had loads of fun making this with many comedy moments. Great costume design, the acts are separated by the four seasons. All about match making, everyone ends up with who they should be with! Recommended.

  • rozalia-toma
    rozalia toma

    Please take my review with a grain of salt. Period pieces/costume dramas are not really my thing. But I liked Gerwig’s take on “Little Women.” And the trailer for “Emma.” had the energy of “The Favourite.”If you’re at all like me, and you are interested in this film because of that energy from the trailer, I’d like to tell you that you will he disappointed. This does not have any edge, nor much snark.There is nothing “bad” about this film at all. Maybe some of the editing and camera placement is odd, but I’m not subtracting points for that.But, what’s the hook?I found nothing particularly special about this film. Sure, the costumes are nice, the music is sweet, and Taylor-Joy is solid. But there was nothing compelling. The saddest thing I could say here was:I felt nothing.I didn’t laugh once. I was never shocked. I never got choked up. I didn’t feel a single strong emotion for this whole film (not even a negative one like boredom or hatred).So I suppose that I find this film to be very forgettable. See it for yourself and ask yourself what’s special about it. What will you remember a year from now?It’s another English film with pomp and frills and everyone is romantically interested in one another. It would be easy to confuse this with so many other films.

  • julie-kristoffersen
    julie kristoffersen

    Took too long to get started and once it did it consisted of Anya Joy Taylor mugging and looking at the camera desperately seeking to be the new it girl. Fail. I loved the book and the nuance of the mini series. But it feels like the director, whom I shall never watch again was trying to combine Sofia “Got to make a movie because my daddy is famous” Coppolas awful Marie Antoinette with Baz “Hey I add modern music to every period film I do because it worked once” Luhrmans garbage fire Moulin Rouge. Give this a pass.

  • denis-nemes
    denis nemes

    This is not good. Casting issues : Mr Knightley should have been much older. It would have helped if the actors playing Frank Churchill and Mr Elton did not look like twins. What was the weird Handmaid’s Tale red cloaked girls about? Worst thing was that Emma was so damned horrible that it was inconceivable that anyone would like her let alone want to marry her, she was vile! Really odd soundtrack did not help. The whole thing was a total miss. Badly and lazily put together. However, the best thing was Mirsnda Hart who was both funny and vulnerable, a touchingly tender performance.

  • janne-de-werd
    janne de werd

    This movie is a beautiful work of art, from the colours to the sets to the lavish costumes. The fact that is is all then heightened by a phenomenal cast is just the icing on the cake.

  • naiara-de-carneiro
    naiara de carneiro

    Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich. I recently watched the 1996 version with Gwyneth Paltrow in the leading role to get an idea of the story of the film going into this one. I love Anya Taylor-Joy so much. I’ve seen every one of her films apart from Marrowbone. I was so excited to see her in yet another period piece but this time in a sly comedy. I ended up really enjoying this film. Its got laughs, love, class, and even a deft touch of sadness. The film is about a a wealthy 21 year old girl named Emma, who meddles in the lives of those around her. She tries to set her friend up to a man she is not romantically attracted to. As time goes by Emma discovers that trying to fix peoples lives does not always work and then she herself becomes romantically inclined. Along the way Emma realizes how manipulative and haughty she is and the impact that it has on those who are around here. The film also stars Mia Goth, Johnny Flynn, and Bill Nighy. The attention to detail and the production and costume design are absolutely superb. The film is rich with its intricate detail to period and the nobility involved. The film also possesses vibrant cinematography and camerawork. Its a really nice film to look at in a technical aspect. Anya Taylor-Joy is a talent and she’s fantastic in this role. Emma can be despicable at times but there’s an allure to her character and you can not help but want to be around her. The performances all around are great. I love seeing Mia Goth getting meaningful work, and I’ve never seen Bill Nighy have such a keen eye for a chilly draft. The film just seems more attuned and in sync with Austen’s novel than the 1996 version. It embodies a wide range of emotions and can be hilarious with no dialogue at all. The cast have good chemistry and Autumn de Wilde shows a great touch in her impressive directorial debut. I think this film was great fun and is something I want to check out again because I found great (Anya Taylor) joy watching this. The best part of my night though without a doubt is actually meeting the leading lady on the street after the premiere. She was present for a live Q and A and overall this was quite the experience. I am in heaven!

  • anthony-krause
    anthony krause

    I loved almost everything about this adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel. Visually it is a delight. The use of mature trees in parkland is spectacular. I did wonder why everyone’s property had been given an upgrade – Donwell Abbey is surely not Pemberley and Miss Bates’ poky apartment could not really have had old tapestries on the wall – but these do not detract from the viewer’s pleasure.When I saw it, a woman walked out as soon as she saw Jonny Flynn as Mr Knightley – she was making a big mistake. He looked like a much more credible marriage partner for Emma than some of the older men we have seen in the part. It was an intelligent and sensitive reading: a revelation to have his emotion and frustration so clearly presented.Anya Taylor-Joy looked wonderful. Her facial expressions were finely tuned and mesmerising to watch, particularly as she began to be jealous of possible rivals for Mr Knightley’s regard.The costumes and the jewellery were a visual delight: so many lovely outfits. Pacy, upbeat music and constantly changing scenes all sustained the interest.I’m amazed that anyone could have been bored by this production: It is just so funny, apart from anything else I wanted to watch it again as soon as it had finished. It will be a runaway success as a dvd.

  • dr-m-marton-andras
    dr m marton andras

    Emma: A new adaptation by Director Autumn de Wilde work from a script by Elanor Catton takes the Comedy of Manners/Drama road. Class is all important, to keep Emma’s life on track a pyramid of servants is essential. Even when Emma (Anya Taylor-Joy) is picking flowers for her departing governess (Gemma Whelan) she requires the assistance of a footman and maid. Her father (Bill Nighy) needs two servants to detect draughts and move screens for him. Even the younger males like George Knightley (Johnny Flynn) have valets to dress them from head to foot.Emma’s matchmaking entangles her in all sorts of mishaps as she misinterprets signals and her schemes to form unions between people of the right sort for them crumble into chaos. Knowing ones place is all important but so is noblesse oblige. A lesson she learns when she encounters the Godotesque (and cruel) Frank Churchill when he finally arrives. An entertaining two hours. 8/10.

  • antonio-mendes
    antonio mendes

    Of course, we all love the Mr. Knightleys and Mr. Darcys that Jane Austen has brought into feminine romance. Stick to the versions from the 1990’s, if you want to keep some romance in your imagination intact.This new version is absolutely bad. What starts out as a maybe-funny movie, quickly turns into feeling like sitting in the audience of a cheap opera. Too much is staged (moving of figures, music). They must have put a lot of money in the scene prop and general production design. Instead of kicking the screenplay writers in the butte to come up with a more vivid plot adaption. The main actress (what is wrong with her posture and neck?) ruins the whole film. She is just no person to identify with, trying the hardest being somewhat romantic. Additionally, almost all scenes filmed outside are terrible in lighting or fail to communicate they season they are meant to represent. The ones filmed inside, however, are heavily overloaded and overcomposed. One good thing: the cast (apart from the lead) was pretty well chosen. Thanks to Bill Nighy as Emmas’s father, who constantly displays an air of self-irony throughout the whole film, I did not leave prior to the movie’s end. And all the other antagonists were well cast, too. Save yourself time and money and stick to your own imagination. Read the book, or grab the copy on DVD with Gwyneth Paltrow. I really hated that movie (it was a sneak preview and many people left long before the film ended).

  • clemente-pascual-fajardo-guzman
    clemente pascual fajardo guzman

    Excellent and exquisite. This rendition of Emma knows what it’s about and delivers it delightfully. I have to say, here Emma is a real biotch – she is cold and bites hard (in a playful, devilishly cruel kind of way of course). But while she starts off mean as heck, this gives her more opportunity to grow – and by the end of this beautiful movie, you’ve seen Emma change and mature dramatically.I think it’s interesting to note that the ’96 version opening scene shows a globe spinning and lightly talks about how “one’s small town is one’s world” – this version of Emma does a superb job showing this truth rather than telling. The “small town” feel is pervasive here and relatable. Emma as meddler made more sense: she is painfully bored, has limited friends (most of whom are quite silly), and is incredibly vain. The lavish food and set contribute to this feeling of bored vanity as well.The climax of the movie is well crafted and painful – and everything comes together at once. The Miss Bates incident is especially hard to watch and very personal here, and the conflict with Harriet feels more real and complicated than other versions.I also really enjoyed Mr. Elton – he is complete cringe but not over the top.Very enjoyable – 9/10

  • ashley-powers
    ashley powers

    My Review- Emma My Rating 6.9Before 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.

  • erica-morton
    erica morton

    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.

  • irina-voinea
    irina voinea

    Not really sure why we need another film adaption of this novel when they’re already a few better versions out there. The acting was awkward and stiff, it felt like a play where the actors were still getting used to their lines or acting as if they were performing in a Pantomine.It does look stunning but like many beautiful things in life lacked any substance, character or depth. It’s wonderful to watch for its costume design, sets and location shots but falls over everywhere else. #Emma #focusfeatures #emma2020 #emmathemovie2020

  • marine-adrienne-lamy
    marine adrienne lamy

    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

  • kamila-prochazkova
    kamila prochazkova

    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.

  • nestor-orobets
    nestor orobets

    I have a keen historical interest in the Regency period and I could find no fault in this spectacular recreation of the time and place. The photography drew me intimately into the action, the costumes male and female were gorgeous, the hats outrageous and straight out of Gillray and Rowlandson cartoons. Despite knowing the book and numerous screen depictions, I am sure I have never before laughed so openly or so frequently, at the sublime visual reactions of all cast members to telling points in the dialogue. As an example, Emma’s face when Jane starts to play is an absolute picture. I sat through this very familiar tale with bated breath in anticipation of this ingenious and refreshing treatment of the development of the action. It would be unfair to single out individuals – a superb team effort.

  • gusev-bazhen-timurovich
    gusev bazhen timurovich

    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.

  • eric-palomino
    eric palomino

    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.

  • telemakhos-laourdekes
    telemakhos laourdekes

    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.

  • marina-semenov
    marina semenov

    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

  • charles-meza
    charles meza

    Yes, to prepare myself for this film I read the book. It was long, it was difficult to read- but it was delightful masterpiece which I grew to love at the end. This film felt unneeded when the first trailer dropped (How many film adaptions of this story are there? 7?) but I must say that in a world drowning in superhero sci-fi movies, prequels, sequels, and reboots- this was a breath of fresh air. The chemistry between the characters and the sublime and subtle direction paired with the intelligent dialogue and supreme Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma (her performance give Gwyenith Palrow a run for her money) are all testament that we need a film like this- not a physical action trhiller, but rather an intelligent comedy with great development.

  • johnathan-myers
    johnathan myers

    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.)

  • danielle-curtis
    danielle curtis

    It looks gorgeous – fashions, interiors, etc – and it has a good cast. But it lacks the depth, subtle observation and wit of Austen’s superb novel. Some of the characters are more like caricatures (Mr Woodhouse and Mr Elton, in particular). This works well in Dickens but not for Austen. It is difficult, admittedly, within the space of a two-hour movie to show character development and to do justice to the subplots, consequently some aspects of the story seemed very rushed. Yet the director wastes valuable screen time showing people walking down corridors, strolling about in the grounds, etc. Also – huge problem here – Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn (both good actors) have a serious lack of on-screen chemistry. Disappointing! Can’t hold a candle to the 1996 version starting Gwynneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam, in my view.

  • nat-ia-shvelize
    nat ia shvelize

    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.