One of my all time favorites.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Every so often, one comes across a film in which a performance gives the impression that the role might have been written for the performer, or that the performer was born for the role. Of course, the nearly 200 years between Jane Austen's penning of her novel and actress Gwyneth Paltrow playing the role of Emma in this 1996 movie, makes the former impossible. The latter, too, is impossible, except as we use it in hyperbole. For it does indeed seem to this reviewer that Gwyneth Paltrow was made to play the role of Emma Woodhouse.This 1996 film of Austen's fine novel is a delight, and Paltrow gives it a warm and endearing glow in her humorous quest as cupid. To be sure, this story is a wonderful comedy of manners by Austen about the customs and mores of pastoral England during the Georgian era. The irony here is less biting than in her works where the topics are bared in the titles for all to see, as in "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility." It also is tempered somewhat here by the good aspects of the landed gentry in their care for the social welfare of those around them. But the vanity of Emma in imagining that she is a gifted matchmaker, with her outward semblance of humility in such matters, is what Austen explores to the hilt in this novel. And, Paltrow plays it to perfection – as I said, even endearingly so. This is just a wonderful story that doesn't grow old. It has been a few decades since I read Austen, but I now enjoy occasionally sitting down to a fine film of one of her stories. Austen does something that many modern writers of fiction seem to ignore, or otherwise fail to do. She explores most of her characters in detail. Not all at once, but bit by bit. And so, we get a good picture of what each one is about. The modern penchant of so many writers is to focus on the main character or two or three, and let the others fall by the wayside. They are out of sight and out of mind by the end of the story. Not so with Austen. In this story, for instance, there are no fewer than a dozen significant characters, most of whom pop in and out as the story goes along. But we never forget them, because they count for something in the story. We remember Miss Bates when she isn't in a scene for some time. Likewise, the vicar, Mr. Elton. Mr. and Mrs. Weston have wonderful pasts and appear here and there in the story. And so on. All of the cast are superb in this rendition of Austen's "Emma," and many are the best portrayals of their respective roles among all the films made of this novel. Besides Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma, the other best performances are Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley, Toni Collette as Harriet Smith, Sophie Thompson as Miss Bates, Alan Cumming as Mr. Elton, Polly Walker as Jane Fairfax, and Juliet Stevenson as Mrs. Elton. Aside from the overall wonderful casting and performances, this film, better than any other, captures the beauty of the pastoral setting. No other film comes close to the splendid scenario of the picnic on Box Hill. The film was shot at a dozen locations in England. This is a wonderful movie fit for the whole family, though the restless, the impatient and modernists may not be able or want to sit still for it. Now, something must be said about the various renditions of this fine Austen comedy of manners. Six versions have been made for theater or television release. The two earliest BBC productions apparently are not available anywhere (a 1948 movie of 105 minutes, and a 1960 miniseries of 180 minutes in six episodes). The four available renditions all tell Austen's story with most of the main scenarios of her novel. The miniseries give more time to certain characters as well as extended dialog in some scenarios. The 1972 miniseries, starring Dorin Godwin, is far better than the most recent production, the 2009 miniseries starring Romola Garai. The latter's characters are changed significantly, and the modernistic adaptation belies the culture of Austen's time. At the same time that this 1996 independent film of "Emma" was being made, another was being made for TV by ITV/A&E. It starred Kate Beckinsale. While her performance was very good, her character didn't have the hubris that Austen wrote into her. That 107-minute film was a little dark and more serious, with the humor somewhat muted. That is most evident in scenes with Mark Strong's Mr. Knightley. His character seemed lacking in the warmth and magnanimity that Jeremy Northam captures and displays in this film. Were she alive to rate the various renditions of her work today, Jane Austen may find shortcomings in all of them. But in ranking them for portraying her comedy of manners, she would surely find this two-hour film with Paltrow and Northam to be the best.My subject line title above is taken from the story. Knightly says the line, halfway to himself as he goes off perturbed at Emma's meddling in the romance of others. The film has many humorous scenarios and fine lines of witty dialog, courtesy of Jane Austen. See the Quotes section on this film's IMDb Web page for more fun dialog. Here's one more sample.Emma has given the cook the menu for that night's dinner, and she has been preoccupied with thoughts of Mr. Knightly. The cook, "Oh, is Mr. Knightly coming? Emma, "Why do you say that?" The Cook, "Lamb stew is his favorite."

Emma is one of my least favorite Jane Austen novels, so it took a while for me to get round to watching this version. However, I was pleasantly surprised and found it much more enjoyable than the Kate Beckinsale version.Gwyneth did a decent job, although I must state that the script portrayed Emma as a terribly spoilt snob, and I rather disliked her in the film and couldn't understand why Mr Knightley would admire her so when really, she was just dreadful. I certainly don't remember finding her so unbearable in the novel.What I love about Jane Austin's work is that her characters are so witty and endearing, despite their faults, but that was not the case in this film. I certainly didn't care for Emma one bit and would have preferred it had the totally bland but sweet Harriet ended up with him instead.Mr Knightley was a far better character in the film; far less critical, more gentle and appealing, and not the stiff, critical bore I found him to be in the novel. And the casting of Jeremy Northam was pure genius, for every girl knows that having a hunky romantic lead is essential in an Austen movie.This film was well made and did justice to the novel. The acting was rather good, but I didn't love this film the way I do other Jane Austen film's, and wouldn't be compelled to watch it again.

I can't find any more ways to say the word cute while taking notes during the film, because that's Emma in a nutshell. It's a petite, innocent, and simplistic movie that is sure to keep you involved in the story. It features some wonderful dialogue in Jane Austen's novel. It's a nicely composed film, even if the music is not utilized at time as it should be. Gwyneth Paltrow's performance shines like the champagne she drinks in the film, in a breakout role any actress would die for. Paltrow is ever-so-charming as the title character, and puts forth the effort to make this a memorable film and role.Emma is the type of film you'll love watching, it's even appropriate for children, the problem with it is that the fluff is light enough to carry the film into the family genre. There's no depth or artist storytelling, behind the film's green glass, clear water, long candlesticks, opulent furniture, exquisite flowers and classy decor. It does play off some classic fables, but never stomps on any new ground. It's just an amusing time.Emma is a delightful film, that's cute and fluffy with some fantastic visuals and a sparkling leading performance from Gwyneth Paltrow. Rating: 7/10; Grade: B+

bitesizemoviereview dot blogspot dot com Though I have not read the Jane Austen novel, I thoroughly enjoyed this film adaption. For the most part, the acting was good and the sets were decent. Every now and then, a character would appear in a coat or a haircut that seemed out of place for the time period. Paltrow was well-suited for her role as Emma, a nosy but likable "matchmaker." The dances performed in the film seemed to be taken from A&E's Pride and Prejudice a year earlier--of course, the time period is relatively the same, but Emma would have been better off not using the exact same dance and musical score. Although the quality of this film is not top-notch, I enjoyed it for the witty acting and light romance plot.