Alicia I love this movie so much

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

sexy_pisces_gal When Emma Harte leaves Fairly Hall she is 16, single, and pregnant. With determination hard work and resilience that was to become her trademark Emma becomes one of the worldÂ's richest women. From the streets of Knightsbridge, London to the bustling city of New York Harte Enterprises becomes the toast of the world.When Emma Harte has to leaves Fairly Hall after her passionate affair with her mastersÂ' son (Peter Chelsom) she is pregnant and alone. Escaping to town of Leeds to be with her friend Blackie OÂ'Neill (Liam Neeson) Emma quickly finds her feet and dominates the market. Driven by revenge to avenge herself by her betrayal at the hands of the Fairleys, Emma succeeds in ruining their lives and money and securing incalcuble wealth for herself. Marriage to Joe Lowther (John Duttine) brings her a son Kit, although she is widowed most tragically during the war. Two further children Robin and Elizabeth result in her second marriage to the charming womaniser Arthur Ainsley (Christopher Gable). She finally finds true love with Major Paul McGill (Barry Bostwick) the man that was dominate her life and overthrow her mistrust in men, resulting in the birth of her last child Daisy. This story charts EmmaÂ's rise from lowly kitchen maid to multi millionairess. Fighting off opposition from her sworn enemy, Gerald Fairly, older brother of Edwin Fairly, father to her illegitimate child Edwina. To her final act of vengeance, against the very people she loved whole-heartedly.

tedg Spoilers herein.Most people don't need much to justify their time in front of a screen. For them, this has two elements as an excuse: pretty good and convincing sets (except the war) and the remarkable face of Jenny Seagrove. Jenny isn't quite up to making her role believable in the large: what with sexual problems, revenge, passion-then-problems, incest, final emptiness. But she is fine in the small, especially at the beginning few hours where she isn?t a wasted human being, and someone we root for.Her face is very appealing, in fact is precisely half way between Nichole Kidman and Liv Tyler. I found two things remarkable here: the first is that most women (and there are many) have red hair or are often lit so that their hair is red. I think this is not an accident, and only part can be explained by familial relationships.The other wonder full thing is: why do we have this new genre of generational scope? I know whey we have the "mini-series" -- because it is a balance of costs, rewards and the attention span of viewers. But in the past, Austen?s time -- we would have focused on one set of characters and had room for development, not three generations and no room at all.The reason is the power of genre. Genre is a shorthand that allows the writer to assume with confidence that the viewer will assume certain things. Austen's Britain was a rigid class society, and every reader could be assumed to know and bring to the story elements that would otherwise have taken dozens of volumes to prepare. American audiences, the target of this project and the book, have no such benefit. As this is Pseudo-Austen (or more precisely pseudo-Bronte), it still has to have the superficial trappings: set in England, involve class struggle. But it has to invent the context pretty much from scratch, so we have to wade through all the stuff that Bronte's audience would know: the privilege, the sneering at servants, the sexual and economicexploitation and on and on. We have to SEE a father sacrifice his life for a Fairley. We have to SEE a Fairley attempt a rape. We have to SEE a Fairley brutalizing workers... and on and on.The problem is that we have to do so much work as viewers to advance the story. Too much. And by the end, the writers haven?t worked as hard. There is a crisis of sorts, and a resolution of sorts, but it is not related to all the work we have done.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

Creyola The story follows the life of Emma Harte and her rise from a servant girl to the owner of a large empire of her own creation. The movie begins in the 1980's, but the bulk is Emma's recollection of her life from the age of 14 on (1900's-1940's.) Jenny Seagrove does a magnificent job portraying young Emma, and a young Liam Neeson plays the part of 'Blackie' wonderfully. This mini series matches the likes of 'The Thornbirds' and 'Pride and Prejudice' in it's acting and beautiful scenery, not to mention the story itself. Emma is a young woman of independence during a time when such a thing was a rarity. Definitely worth the 6 hours it will take you to watch it!

cinq Having first seen this mini series when it originally aired I purchased my own copy and watch it over and over. Obviously, I like it very much, however there are flaws that I find increasingly irritating. Just before the severe thunderstorm and downpour of rain in Part I they show a perfectly cloudless blue sky. The "Hollywood Rain" that follows is so phony looking it's embarrassing. Edwina's voice dubbing (as a child) sounds awful. Barry Bostwick was a "sore thumb" miscast in the role of Paul McGill. Concerning Emma's children: The viewer is "pulling" for Emma throughout the saga, wronged by the Fairlys, working hard for a better life but how can the viewer take joy or feel supportive of her "actions" at that last "family meeting" at her Yorkshire house? Those children turned out the way they did for a reason. It's called neglect and emotional abuse and it WILL do that to a person. In this case 4 people! At that point in the story I felt sympathy for them not support for Emma. Daisy's daughter Paula was clearly Emma's favorite, but what of Daisy herself ? It was odd that she was not more prominent. The most annoying thing to me was the very last scene. Back in Yorkshire, just moments after having "rocked the world" of those select family members she and Blackie are outside reviewing the years as she sums up her life in an "unaffected" nonchalant manor. How can she appear "unaffected" after what has just occurred ? The last line was so contrived; she actually tells the viewer the "motive" of the story. The viewer doesn't want to be TOLD what the "motive" is. If it's well written we'll figure it out. The ending of a story is all important !!! They blew this one.