Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

KurotsutaMurasaki I have known about this adaptation for a while, but I held off on watching it due to my apprehension at the idea of Mark Strong playing Mr. Knightley. I was concerned because when I watched this I had already seen him as Sir John Conroy in "The Young Victoria" and as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes", both very unpleasant characters. But in my time there have been several instances of my expressing displeasure with casting choices only to eat my words when I actually saw the movie. So I entered into watching this with an impartial and optimistic outlook, sure that Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale would surprise me with brilliant performances. And I would like to say that they did, but that would be an untruth.My Biggest fear about Mark playing Knightley was that his rebuking of Emma was going to be a watered down version of the 'RAAAWWWRR' that I was familiar with. And unfortunately, it was. Whenever Mark raises his voice, the right side of his face pulls up into a snarl. I'm sure it's unintentional, but I have seen that snarl before, and it does not belong on Mr. Knightley. As for Kate, her acting as Emma was also exactly what I feared it would be: a mere reiteration of Flora Poste, her character from "Cold Comfort Farm" - a girl who just carries on making everything go her way, and who emotes NOTHING. Oh, she said her lines, but there was nothing behind her cold dark eyes to make me believe that she felt what she said. What's more, I thought the hair styles and costumes suited her VERY ill.My sister found this intolerably boring. Only I determined to watch it to the end. The pacing is practically a paradox - it seems to drag on forever, despite the fact that several of things were rushed through. I've seen a lot of praise for how Kate and Mark portray Emma and Knightly to perfection etc. and I have no idea why because I didn't believe a word that passed between them. There are other acting and editing issues: After Mr. Elton is married, we never hear anything about how Emma has to help Harriet get over him. There is no appeal and no emotion; When Mr. Knightly says his "badly done" line at box hill (having just practically shoved Emma into the carriage) his voice breaks as though he's about to cry; Emma never really seems to be effected by being rebuked, because the next day when she goes to see Miss Bates it's almost as if the whole thing never happened.Olivia Williams was a passable Jane Fairfax, but much like Polly Walker's portrayal, Olivia failed to show the degree of Jane's distress. I found Raymond Coulthard's Frank Churchill adequate, but insignificant. Dominic Rowan was,admittedly, probably the most accurate Mr. Elton I've ever seen, but also the most unmemorable. As for Bernard Hepton as Mr. Woodhouse, I don't really care for him in the first place. The shining star for me in this version was Alistair Petrie as Robert Martin. I like him as an actor and I think he was the ideal choice for Harriet's Mr. Martin. He and Samantha Morton (Who was her usual fantastic self as Harriet Smith) played off of each other so well, even when the actors around them weren't giving them much to work with. I consider their scenes (Few as they are) to be a good reason to watch this at least once. I would probably think this a tolerably good adaptation were it not for some gargantuan elephants in the proverbial room. First is Mrs. Elton: Is she British? Is she Texan? Is she even of this world? What is with her ACCENT? Then of course there is that ludicrous harvest feast at the end of the movie. The whole concept for this scene was not at all Janely. I was under the impression that I was watching a Jane Austen adaptation, not "Far From the Madding Crowd". There were somethings that were written oddly, I found. And by "oddly", I mean "creepily"The first of these is Mr. Knightley's strawberry line. This is delivered as a voice over transition to the scene in question and is thusly portrayed as a formal invitation: "Mr. Knightly invites you to taste his strawberries, which are ripening fast." THAT was a... questionable way to word that if you ask me. In addition, that line in the book was not worded as such, and was NOT intended to be a formal invitation. It was said to Mrs. Elton and was first meant to be a joke. I quote "You had better explore Donwell then," replied Mr. Knightly. "That may be done without horse. Come eat my strawberries, they're ripening fast." 'If Mr. Knightly did not being seriously, he was obliged to proceed so...'Another of these is Mr. Knightly's proposal. I was feeling good about this scene... until he drops the "I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old" line, and I immediately felt uncomfortable. Maybe DON'T talk about how you held her when she was a baby after you just asked her to MARRY you. Lastly we have Frank Churchill praising his lovely Jane at the end of the movie. Which would be fine if we wasn't whispering in Emma's ear about how fine his dead aunt's jewels will look against Jane's skin. Can I just be the first to say "Ehehewgaugh" (shudders). It's just creepy. Frank does talk about how Mrs. Churchill's jewels will be given to Jane, but he says he means to have them reset in a head ornament that will look nice against her dark hair. Hair - Normal. Skin - weird.Really this has been a long review when three simple words would have sufficed. "Badly done indeed."

Matador07 Well, having read the book and seen the Paltrow theatrical version, I finally decided to seek out this lesser known version, largely just because it stars one of my favorite actresses in Kate Beckinsale.My feelings were mixed. I in fact nearly turned the movie off in the early going as it got off to a rushed and muddled start, handled the entire Elton/Harriet thing very poorly, Kate seemed to be feeling her way through, and Knightley was nearly unrecognizable.However I changed my mind and returned to it, and am now modestly glad I did so. Kate seemed to get a better handle on her role, and grew stronger throughout the movie, the support characters likewise settled in, and in the Jane/Frank relationship in particular there was so much more justice done to it and those characters than in the theatrical Emma as to almost justify watching this version on those grounds alone.On the other hand, this version was hamstrung by a critical lack of chemistry between its leads, and indeed a blunt, loud, and almost rude take on the Knightley character which rendered him completely unlovable by virtually anyone, let alone Emma. There is just no spark there, or anything close. Not only no chemistry, but no charisma of any kind. When Emma says to her window "I love him", if I had not read the book I think my response would have been "WHAT???" Even worse might be his proposal the next day when the script writer decided that it would be romantic for him to inform the woman he wants to marry, in the midst of the proposal, that he remembers holding her in his arms when she was three months old. Which is just flat out creepy, and nothing that Austen ventured let me assure you. Maybe he could tell her about the time he changed her diapers too to complete the seduction.So overall, not great, but not bad. Having seen both I am still of the opinion the Paltrow version was the stronger -- despite its excessive cuteness, it was well constructed and seemed to have a good idea of what it wanted to be and say. The characterizations in that version are in general stronger and more vividly painted, and it also had a sense of humor, which while perhaps not 100% Austen's, at least bettered the dourness often at display in this version. But this version had its charms too, although they took a while to manifest themselves. Kate started slow but settled in and was charming by the end, and several minor characters were rescued from obscurity (Jane and Frank were particularly well done).P.S. As an aside, I think the theatrical version's decision to use voiceovers of Emma's thoughts worked better and was more clear than the dream/fantasy sequences attempted here. In such an internalized book, some such device needs to be utilized to make up for all of Emma's thoughts and opinions that the viewer no longer has access to, but the voiceovers had much more personality without breaking up the flow of the movie.

aiu I believe that this adaptation deserves a much lower grading than the Hollywood adaptation with Gywneth Paltrow, since it doesn't manage to portray any of the Austen's subtle wit and humour, and it does not bring onto screen any likable characters. K. Beckinsale's Emma is a spoiled, self-righteous girl, without the softness or humour of G. Paltrow's Emma. M. Strong's Knightley is a harsh brooding person, without the wit or gentleness of Northam's Knightley. The atmosphere is also rather gloomy: the scenes filmed in the dark, the thieves episode, the more obvious presence of servants in the story. The script might be closer to the book regarding the details, but it is certainly far from the luminous and satiric spirit of Austen. Everybody seems to take him/her-self much more seriously here, and Emma seems never to realize that she is prone to mistakes as any other human being; she preserves that self-righteous feeling until the end of the movie.

Ana Guglielmi I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more "agreeable" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.10 out of 10My 2 cents!