This delicious Emma concerns a young woman of financial substance (Kate Beckinsale), who fancies herself a matchmaker, especially with shy Miss Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton, who also appears in A&E's Jane Eyre). In Emma's swirling world of social activity and social consciousness, one's position and stature is a constant preoccupation. But to her credit, Emma, albeit a busybody, has compassion for all classes, and for her kindly but hypochondriacal father (Bernard Hepton).

This miniseries is more subtle than the grand theatrical release, is truer to the novel, and gives a richer explanation of the relationship between Emma associates Jane Fairfax (beautiful Olivia Williams of Rushmore) and the duplicitous Frank Churchill (Raymond Coulthard). Of course, at the center, as in all Austen stories, is the romance between the unsuspecting leading lady and an unlikely, but wholly suitable gentleman. In this case, it's Emma and her brother-in-law, the righteous (as played here) Mr. Knightley (Mark Strong). Strong's Mr. Knightley is more reserved, less coy than Jeremy Northam's; he plays Knightley more like Mr. Darcy (the leading man in Austen's Pride and Prejudice, which A&E also offers in a wonderful miniseries). Beckinsale proves to be utterly delightful and in no way should this excellent adaptation be ignored. --N.F. Mendoza

All in all, I give this production four stars. Although it is nowhere near as compelling as the Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth, or the Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson, it's still a well done film adaptation of a Jane Austen book - and that's not easy. :)


Enjoy the film(s) - whether you have read the book or not   March 4, 1999
31 out of 34 found this review helpful

How interesting to have two films based on the same novel be released within months of each other! "Emma" is considered by many to be Jane Austen's finest work and has a level of complexity that is more suited to a mini-series than a mere movie of two or three hours. I don't know how the screenwriters and directors decided on what to keep, what to cut, and what to re-work, but the two film versions are different enough that I didn't mind seeing them both. I do, however, greatly prefer the one with Kate Bickensale as the title character, which was originally aired on the cable channel A&E. It is a more faithful adaptation of the novel and has a more structured and cohesive storyline. Bickensale's interpretation of Emma has been criticized for being "too dark," but I believe her Emma is a more accurate portrayal of the novel's heroine than Gwyneth Paltrow's is in the other "Emma." In fact, all the characters (e.g., Jane Fairfax, Frank Churchill)in this version are handle with more care and detail, and that is enough to make this "Emma" a more satisfying experience for me.


Good but for the main characters   June 25, 2002
lilibethfromsf (San Francisco, CA)
23 out of 25 found this review helpful

I thought that this adaptation showed much better the stories of the supporting characters -- most especially the Jane/Frank storyline which was quite engaging. (To a certain degree, I wish they had been the lead characters in this adaptation.) I also thought Mr. Woodhouse was a lot of fun and his characterization right on the money with the book. Also very good was the portrayal of Miss Bates.

That being said, my problem with this adaptation (and it's a big one) is that I didn't particularly care for the way Emma and Mr. Knightley were played/characterized in this one. Perhaps it's the writing and perhaps its the actors (but really, Beckinsale was so good in Cold Comfort Farm, so why couldn't she have pulled this one off?), however, I just didn't very much care for the way the lead characters were portrayed. First of all, as annoying as Emma can be in the book, I always liked her (even if I didn't approve of what she was doing). In this adaptation, I just didn't LIKE Emma. She was too snooty, too spoiled and seemed much too selfish. As for Mr. Knightley, he was always the embodiment of a perfect gentleman to me. Even though he was the only who would find fault with Emma and tell her so, he was graciousness and politeness itself to everybody else. Here, his scolding of Emma was just too heated and beyond anything I would call gentlemanly and to the extent he did it in front of everyone else (as in one scene), would definitely not be gracious nor polite.

Anyway, I own practically all the recent Jane Austen adaptations (A&E's -Pride and Prejudice (the best IMO), Sense & Sensibility, Emma and Mansfield Park, and this adaptation may be the only one I will not buy because I just can't see myself deciding to see it again and again like the others. Don't get me wrong, it has some good points (especially the supporting characters), but I don't really come away from it with the feeling that I want to know more about what happens to the main characters after the movie is finished.


Wonderful adaptation with classic Kate!   September 1, 1999
62 out of 74 found this review helpful

This adaptation was FAR superior to the Hollywood version by Gwyneth Paltrow. For one thing, Kate Beckinsale truly "was" Emma. Intelligent, yet misguided, wanting to do the right thing, yet blinded by her own prejudices. This woman can act, unlike the "other" Emma, plus she looked like my ideal version of Emma.

The writing was much closer to the book, particularly in the prominence of the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill story, which was virtually ignored in the other movie (maybe because the lovely Polly Walker who played Jane in the Hollywood version was too much competition for Gwyneth Paltrow). The village and the sets also seemed much less fake-looking than in the Hollywood film. If you want to see a great adaptation of a beloved novel, this is the one to pick.