 | |
List Price: $14.99 | | Label: Miramax
Salesrank: 648
Released: January 5, 1999 |
| Our Price: $6.12 |
| Used Price: $5.97 |
|
MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
This delightfully fun and lighthearted comedy is based on the story that inspired the hit movie CLUELESS! Dazzling Gwyneth Paltrow (SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS) shines as EMMA, a mischievous young beauty who sets up her single friends. Funny thing is ... she's not very good at it! So when Emma tries to find a man for Harriet (Toni Collette -- THE SIXTH SENSE, ABOUT A BOY), she makes a hilariously tangled mess of everyone's lives. You'll enjoy all the comic confusion ... until Emma herself falls in love, finally freeing everyone from her outrageously misguided attempts at matchmaking.
Description of Emma (1996):
Most people didn't mind Gwyneth Paltrow's English accent in this charming, 1996 adaptation of Jane Austen's novel (which also inspired Clueless). But even if it doesn't sound quite right to you, there are plenty of authentic and wonderful Brit thespians in this film by screenwriter-turned-director Douglas McGrath (co-author of Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway), including Juliet Stevenson (Truly Madly Deeply), Alan Cumming (Buddy), Phyllida Law (Much Ado About Nothing), Ewan McGregor (the Scots star of Trainspotting), and Sophie Thompson, outstanding and finally heartbreaking as the chattering Miss Bates. Paltrow plays Austen's benign busybody, Emma Woodhouse--so busy trying to arrange the lives of others that she is sidestepping her own. McGrath brings a kind of pretty and light touch to the production, his best move the wise delegation of creative authority to the actors themselves. --Tom Keogh
Emma (1996) Reviews:
Simply adorable 
2008-09-28 - Gwyneth Paltrow takes on the Austenian role with all the elegance anyone could possibly bring. She and the rest of the cast are all perfect in a true romantic comedy with all of the Jane Austen-ness for which anyone could possibly ask. It's absolutely darling.
Its familiarity could be forgiven if Paltrow were half as interesting as she should have been... 
2008-09-24 - Okay, don't hate me for this, but I came to a revelation while watching `Emma' the other night. Are you ready for this? Please, don't chastise me for this because I'm sure if you think about it you'll agree. Okay, here it goes...
I don't really understand why Jane Austen is so popular when each and every one of her stories seems to be the same story with different names.
Okay, I've said it, and I'm sure the hate mail will come pouring in now, but it had to be said. I know that some of you have seen this too, I mean, you'd really have to be blinded by your love of the period goddess to have not see it. Yes, her stories are touching and for any lover of the genre, films like `Sense and Sensibility' and `Pride and Prejudice' are really top notch entertainment (I love both those films by the way, so don't take this little revelation as an `I hate Jane Austen' tirade, for it is not), but one must realize that there is really little difference between the two stories.
Girl loves boy who loves another girl. A different boy loves the first girl but she is put off by him. When the boy the girl loves finally loves her she realizes that she loves the boy she was put off by but he is now in love with another girl. Eventually they realize they are meant for one another and the ending is, of course, very happy.
That said, `Emma' is sweet and charming in its own right, but it pales in comparison to the previous Austen juggernauts (I love Paltrow, but she is no Winslet and she can't manage to muster up the charm Knightley brought to her performance). The plot, while familiar, is not really the issue here. I think the biggest issue is Paltrow. Now I will not say that it was her accent, because it wasn't. I actually thought she pulled that off quite nicely. The problem was that she wasn't very entertaining. I found her rather boorish and uninteresting. I expected her to be emotionally investing (as was the always stellar Winslet) or perky and excitable (as was Knightley). Instead she was just barely there and really was overshadowed by nearly everyone else on the screen.
It was exciting to see Toni Collette is a softer role. She is truly a wonderful actress and played her part beautifully.
In the end I just can't see a real reason to entertain this film unless you are a devoted Jane Austen fan. If you are merely a fan of the genre then select some of her other work (or some other work period) since this is not the cream of the crop. Its familiarity is only the underlying foundation for my displeasure. It is the lack of spontaneity and the lack of overall excitement that makes `Emma' a dull girl.
Gwyneth Paltrow IS Emma 
2008-08-28 - The role of Emma is played perfectly by Gweneth Paltrow. She's delightful as the failed matchmaker of Austen's story, wading through social decorum of ill fated as well as perfectly-matches romances. The rest of the cast shines as well, particularly the role of Mrs. Elton who, among other things, recognizes a "shocking lack of satin."
Wonderful settings and costumes, this is a version I could watch again and again. Recommended for all Austen fans.
Your entire personality is a riddle, Mr. Knightley. I thought you overqualified.
2008-08-27 - 1996's EMMA brings us a quasi-modern version of the Austen masterpiece, starring a lovable Gwyneth Paltrow as our heroine Miss. Emma Woodhouse .
Of course there are a few things to consider upon watching this film;
1. If you prefer a film that maintains the basis of the author's story but strays in order to entertain the majority of a movie-going audience, or a more precise visualization of the text in it's original and actual entirety.
2. If you can enjoy a less serious approach to the tale.
Not to mention slight character changes and so on and so forth. (You almost feel like your watching the spawn of Emma, a.k.a. 1995's Clueless.)
With that said, in this film Emma has a brilliant joy and although I find myself frustrated with her for being so blind in her matchmaking decisions one still feels for her and sympathizes with her pains.
If all else fails just watch the garden scene at the end, Mr.Knightley(Jeremy Northam) is almost dreamy enough to challenge Darcy.
Not quite as good as the other "Emma"
2008-08-16 - I have a preference for comedy and humor and wit (why I prefer Austen to the Brontes), and I'll admit that that's why I'm giving this version four stars rather than three. I'm easy to sucker - if it's fun funny, it already has me hooked.
This was a very funny "Emma". Emma can't be done in a somber, serious way - Emma is just not that sort. The movie captures Emma in both her earnestness as well as her matchmaking silliness. Paltrow is a lot of fun to watch, and how she fancies herself in love with Churchill is amusing to watch.
I'll also admit a weakness for actors Greta Sacchi, Alan Cumming, and Jeremy Northam. They're just a joy to watch.
Weaknesses: lack of Austen. It's a looser adaptation, and it misses characterization as it adds other scenes. Davies' version does a better job, packing its shorter version with more character development (e.g. for Knightley). I also found Olivia Williams' Jane Fairfax more memorable than Polly Walker's, although Walker's wasn't bad.
Super stink: Frank Churchill. What the heck? Since when was Frank Churchill a floofy-haired froufrou? Moreover, while I can usually disassociate actors from their previous roles, I kept waiting for Churchill to pull out his light saber and cut Emma out of the big puddle. This was a full laugh-out-loud and not in a good way.
Cute and fun, but if it's for a visual version of Austen, go with the BBC/A&E version.
