UnowPriceless hyped garbage

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Prismark10 With so many screen versions of Emma knocking about I decided to give the sumptuous light hearted romp starring Gwyneth Paltrow with her cut glass English accent.Emma Woodhouse is a confident woman from a wealthy background who spends her days playing cupid by matchmaking. She is a bright know it all who also likes to engage in gossip. Emma's problems arise when she tries to set up a match between her friend, Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) and the Reverend Elton (Alan Cumming) and fails. Emma tries other matches but they also backfire.Emma realises her limitations when she is admonished by Mr Knightly (Jeremy Northam) who is the voice of reason. Emma is well meaning but like everyone else is firmly rooted to the class system of the day.The film is rather light and airy, nice to look at, well acted but also rather boring. It felt just too superficial.

gavin6942 In rural 1800s England, things go bad for a young matchmaker (Gwyneth Paltrow) after she finds a man for another woman.This is the film where we realize that Alan Cumming can actually act. We know he can be silly, effeminate, and all that. But play a classic literature figure? Indeed, and he does it with style.I love that the marketing for this film says that if you like "Clueless", you will love this film. Now, that is probably a good idea because "Clueless" was a huge hit (and today is probably the more popular of the two). I am sure many a classroom watched the two movies back to back to see how "Clueless" was really "Emma" in disguise.

secondtake Emma (1996)I like Gwyneth Paltrow, and I love Jane Austen. (That sounds bad. Sorry Gwyneth.)And this is a great movie for its writing, and a stiff and imperfect movie for its acting. And for Austen fans (and fans is an understatement for some of them) this is almost awful movie. Awful if you love sublime writing and can't stand to see it so wooden. Paltrow is good. She's pretty. She's appropriately upright. But she insists on "delivering" her lines. She has them memorized, yes. But she doesn't inhabit the character. And Emma, the character, is one of the best of all literature, filled with sassy individualism and social blindness due to ordinary teenage arrogance. The material is there, and it's a great story (if you like early 19th Century melodramas bordering on soap opera of the highest level). So, it's not a terrible presentation of the movie, but it is, to be sure, a presentation. I honestly think (and don't tremble in rage here) that Alisha Silverstone in "Clueless" gets the spirit of Emma much closer. There is of course a gap of sensibilities here that I'm ignoring—a girl in 1995 (Silverstone) is no match for a girl in Austen's time. I'll leave that one vague.About "Emma" it's worth saying that the sets and costumes are so convincing you don't really think about them. Everything is brightly lit (which I suppose is a reasonable choice, though it flattens the film emotionally as opposed to, say, the Merchant-Ivory approach). The whole spectacle is spread before the camera lovingly, if a bit predictably. In the end it's Austen who wins. The writing, both in the specific dialog and in the general plot outline, are delicate and witty and insightful. Nothing sensational here, just drawing room observation at its best. Kudos for that much, and a reasonable translation to film. It's Austen who wins all those stars.

mullahraheil I am a fan of classic novels, and authors like Jane Austen and Bronte sisters hold a special place in my library. Jane Austen's novels have always been quite appeasing, but unfortunately the movie doesn't seem to do justice to the novel. After watching Gwyneth Paltrow in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Shakespeare in Love, I did expect the movie to be great. But turns out the other movie by the same name did much more justice to the novel than this one.Though the movie does follow the novel most of the time (I can recall only two scenes that don't exist in the novel), but the way things represent themselves in the novel, the movie hasn't been able to bring the characters to life. Except for the title character on whom the movie (or the novel) is based, the remaining characters have been badly undermined, thus lacking the humor of the novel.Watching movies is my passion as are the books and I often watch movies again, but this one won't be one the list for second watching. Thanks.