Emma (1996)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Emma (1996) (TV) is an adaptation of the Jane Austen novel. Screenplay is by Andrew Davies. The film was directed by Diarmuid Lawrence. Kate Beckinsale portrays Emma Woodhouse, a young woman who is very sure of her social position and her abilities. She isn't basically cruel, but she tends to assume that she has skills that she doesn't actually possess. As with other Austen novels, marriage is the expected ending for all but the most unfortunate women. A good marriage is better than a bad one, but many women must settle for the husband they can get. I point this out because Emma actually has three female protagonists--Emma, Jane Fairfax (Olivia Williams) and Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton). The novel's plot involves the pairing of these three women with three appropriate men. Who will end up with whom isn't obvious. That's what makes the novel and the movie interesting. As you'd expect from A&E, production values are high, and the actors in supporting roles are well cast. Williams and Morton were excellent. I thought Beckinsale's Emma was a little darker in spirit than Austen meant her to be. In a film adaptation of Emma, the actor portraying Emma has to grab and hold your attention. For me, that didn't happen.This movie was made for TV, so naturally it works well on the small screen. If you're an Austen fan, you'll want to see this film.Incidentally, I think that the Gwyneth Paltrow version (also produced in 1996) isn't as good. Paltrow if fine, but an absolutely central scene was omitted. This scene involves Emma and the character Miss Bates. It's a pivotal plot moment, but it was left out of the Paltrow version. It's played perfectly in this film.

Emma Woodhouse (Kate Beckinsale) 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.Inevitably, this must be compared to the other "Emma", starring Gwyneth Paltrow, as they came out around the same time. For what it is worth, I think they both have their strengths. Paltrow's "Emma" has the benefit of a bigger budget, so everything looks better and makes for a stronger film. Beckinsale's "Emma" looks cheap, but has one thing in its favor: Beckinsale, who seems to really get into the character.Both have the familiar lines (I'm sure neither deviated too far from the novel). Had Beckinsale been cast in the Paltrow version, we may have seen the ultimate presentation of this literary classic.

This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.

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.