Too many fans seem to be blown away

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

I had just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen when I took a fancy to watching a screen version to see what was made of it, and chose to watch the TV version starring Kate Beckinsale. I was surprised to see it getting an overall rating on IMDB of 7.1Don't get me wrong: it isn't at all bad and for its kind quite good, but after reading Austen's subtle novel and having fresh in mind the nuances with which she conveys all the - essentially trivial - goings-on in Highbury, I do feel it somewhat misses its target. Not a lot, but enough to challenge that 7.1 overall rating.Naturally, a screen or TV adaption of a novel is in many ways restricted, and I have borne that in mind. But there are one or two other details which I feel don't do the novel justice. For example, Emma is undoubtedly a rich woman - her 1816 fortune of £30,000 translates into 2018's more than £2.6 million, and she and her father can afford to live a life of ease.But their circumstances as portrayed in the TV film do over-egg the pudding to an alarming degree. They - and George Knightley - were most certainly not titled. They were simply well-off landed gentry able to live off the rents they received for their land. So the super grand homes they are shown to live in - and the number of uniformed flunkeys the Woodhouses are shown to employ - are, to be blunt, ludicrous. This is TV early-19th century life.The social divergences and disposable income in the early 19th century were certainly far, far wider than they are today (at least here in Britain - I can't speak for the US), but the Woodhouses, Knightley and the Weston's were fundamentally well-off middle-class folk. Yes, they had no financial worries, although fate and fortune could, and very often did, pitch such families down the social scale quite fast as they had no way of insuring themselves.In those days, a candle falling over and starting a fire which could burn their houses to the ground was a perpetual fear for them and did easily bankrupt many a well-to-do family. (A good example is how TV portrays the ball at the Crown: despite the availability of staff, in the novel it was very much a small-scale DIY affair, more a fun gathering than the full-blown event shown.)The TV film portrays them otherwise. As shown in the film they would be living as minor aristocracy. In this regard Knightley's grand pile is especially ludicrous. Austen herself and her family, however impeccably middle-class, were certainly not well-off and were forever teetering on the brink of penury, all to often relying on the goodwill of family. Hence the then sheer necessity of a young woman 'marrying well'. These might be minor points, of course, and after all it is fiction. But as in this regard it does not reflect on Jane Austen's world, other infelicities also creep in.My second reservation is that the TV film falls short of conveying the subtleties of the different situations the characters find themselves in. Again to be blunt it is all just a tad too cut and dried.Screenwriter Andrew Davies, the go-to chap for this kind of stuff, otherwise does reasonably well: though at times a little broad-brush, he does Austen's characters s0me justice, although his script does rather take too little account of Austen's sharp with and satirical eye.The plot of Austen's novel is also far to syncopated in this adaptation, with the various developments simply not being sufficiently established to make much sense. Overall, I was disappointed and would recommend anyone so inclined to head for the far more substantial novel. But that said, as a piece of costume drama this version can still hold its head high for those who go a bundle for this kind of thing.

1 point for Mark Strong's performance when in tune with the book 1 point for this Mr. Elton 1 point for this Frank ChurchillZero points for everything else!I just wasted 120 minutes on this mashed-up, soulless rendition which lacks heart and humour as well. I repeat myself: badly done. Nothing is believable here in my opinion. Why does Knightley love Emma? Why does Emma love Knightley? Just because they've known each other since forever and just because someone else fancies him? Well, okay...lol There is zero chemistry. I just don't like it when Mr.Knightley is played as such a father figure, whether stern like Strong or warm like Northam does not matter - gives me the creeps! Who wants someone who always only frowns at you?? Not so in the book thank goodness! Thank goodness for the new version with Romola Garai and Jonny Lee Miller!!!I will forget this version now!

Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years. The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications. Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld". I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10

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.