Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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.

I loved this movie very much and really enjoyed every minute of it.Kate Bekinsale is exactly how I imagined Emma while reading the book.First I wasn't really eager to watch this version since Paltrow's version was somehow the known one but after watching both movies I really preferred this one.Gwyneth Paltrow could never pull out the British accent no matter how hard she tried,and there was this falseness all along the movie.Kate Bekinsale is absolutely marvelous in this movie,and she acts so naturally and her manners are so beautiful.Mark strong is a really good Mr. Knightly as well.His chemistry with Emma is really believable.I like him more than Jeremy Bentham although everybody seem to think the contrary.All the cast is well chosen specially Hariet Smith and Mr. Churchil.My favorite part is the ball at the crown Inn,I love the dances.I have watched this movie several times and I'm sure I'll continue to watch it whenever I'm in the mood for a classical romantic movie. I recommend it to every Austin's fans and romantic movie lovers in general!

Having recently enjoyed reading the novel, I immediately went out and got hold of both 1996 versions of Emma. Having read many comments which supposed this version better than the Gwyneth Paltrow version, I had high hopes for it, but unfortunately I was left a bit underwhelmed by it.It is commendable that it does stick more closely to the plot detail of the book, the attention given to the Frank Churchill/Jane Fairfax storyline is rather good compared to the GP version. However, I wish the same attention had been given to Mr. Knightley/Emma's relationship. For me there was just something lacking; there were not enough scenes that reinforced the idea that they were old friends, and indeed, I found it difficult to believe Emma's sudden revelation at the end as to her feelings. There were other areas which I felt were lacking too, particularly the beginning with Harriet and Mr. Elton's subplot, the whole thing felt rushed.That said, for fans of the book I think it is definitely worth viewing, but when pressed I would suggest the GP version over this.

This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.