Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful.
Emma (1996) 1080p YIFY Movie
Emma (1996) 1080p
While matchmaking for friends and neighbors, a young 19th-century Englishwoman nearly misses her own chance at love.
IMDB: 7.10 Likes
The Synopsis for Emma (1996) 1080p
Emma Woodhouse has a rigid sense of propriety as regards matrimonial alliances. Unfortunately she insists on matchmaking for her less forceful friend, Harriet, and so causes her to come to grief. Through the sharp words of Mr. Knightley, and the example of the opinionated Mrs. Elton, someone not unlike herself, Emma's attitudes begin to soften...
The Director and Players for Emma (1996) 1080p
The Reviews for Emma (1996) 1080p
Kate Beckinsale, a perfect EmmaReviewed byDaisy-47Vote: 10/10
I believe that this adaptation deserves a much lower grading than the Hollywood adaptation with Gywneth Paltrow, since it doesn't manage to portray any of the Austen's subtle wit and humour, and it does not bring onto screen any likable characters. K. Beckinsale's Emma is a spoiled, self-righteous girl, without the softness or humour of G. Paltrow's Emma. M. Strong's Knightley is a harsh brooding person, without the wit or gentleness of Northam's Knightley. The atmosphere is also rather gloomy: the scenes filmed in the dark, the thieves episode, the more obvious presence of servants in the story. The script might be closer to the book regarding the details, but it is certainly far from the luminous and satiric spirit of Austen. Everybody seems to take him/her-self much more seriously here, and Emma seems never to realize that she is prone to mistakes as any other human being; she preserves that self-righteous feeling until the end of the movie.
Well, having read the book and seen the Paltrow theatrical version, I finally decided to seek out this lesser known version, largely just because it stars one of my favorite actresses in Kate Beckinsale.
My feelings were mixed. I in fact nearly turned the movie off in the early going as it got off to a rushed and muddled start, handled the entire Elton/Harriet thing very poorly, Kate seemed to be feeling her way through, and Knightley was nearly unrecognizable.
However I changed my mind and returned to it, and am now modestly glad I did so. Kate seemed to get a better handle on her role, and grew stronger throughout the movie, the support characters likewise settled in, and in the Jane/Frank relationship in particular there was so much more justice done to it and those characters than in the theatrical Emma as to almost justify watching this version on those grounds alone.
On the other hand, this version was hamstrung by a critical lack of chemistry between its leads, and indeed a blunt, loud, and almost rude take on the Knightley character which rendered him completely unlovable by virtually anyone, let alone Emma. There is just no spark there, or anything close. Not only no chemistry, but no charisma of any kind. When Emma says to her window "I love him", if I had not read the book I think my response would have been "WHAT???" Even worse might be his proposal the next day when the script writer decided that it would be romantic for him to inform the woman he wants to marry, in the midst of the proposal, that he remembers holding her in his arms when she was three months old. Which is just flat out creepy, and nothing that Austen ventured let me assure you. Maybe he could tell her about the time he changed her diapers too to complete the seduction.
So overall, not great, but not bad. Having seen both I am still of the opinion the Paltrow version was the stronger -- despite its excessive cuteness, it was well constructed and seemed to have a good idea of what it wanted to be and say. The characterizations in that version are in general stronger and more vividly painted, and it also had a sense of humor, which while perhaps not 100% Austen's, at least bettered the dourness often at display in this version. But this version had its charms too, although they took a while to manifest themselves. Kate started slow but settled in and was charming by the end, and several minor characters were rescued from obscurity (Jane and Frank were particularly well done).
P.S. As an aside, I think the theatrical version's decision to use voiceovers of Emma's thoughts worked better and was more clear than the dream/fantasy sequences attempted here. In such an internalized book, some such device needs to be utilized to make up for all of Emma's thoughts and opinions that the viewer no longer has access to, but the voiceovers had much more personality without breaking up the flow of the movie.