Emma.

Aaand here we have another misinterpretation of Jane Austen's Emma.

Adaptations like these are off-putting. Yes, I must admit it took Sandy Welch to reveal her to me too, but after having had my eyes opened in 2008, then returning to the book - it is all there.

I love my Emma, she is very dear to me. I take objection to her being portrayed as arrogant and snotty and superficial and haughty. Those are NOT her faults. This film, like all the others, makes her all vain, not just a little.

And my dear beloved George's dry humour - where was it? Nowhere, that's where! They butchered the 'Mrs Knightley"-scene!

Emma's infatuation with Frank Churchill was not made clear at all.

Why make Isabella a b***h?

What's with the red-coated girl parade? What is this? 'Don't look now'??

No, no, no! The ball is not where they fall in love. To have something that's a slow developing realisation on both parts thrown in our faces so obviously is an insult.

Emma's relationship with Harriet is wrong.

The film is long and boring. The filmmaker made it laughable, but not in an endearing way. This film has no heart.

And through all the colours and unnecessary opulence, at the end they turn the sweetest love scene into slapstick, after turning George into a wuss.

And now, after having watched it for completeness's sake, I may forget about it.

It needn't have been made on my account, and it does disservice to my dear Emma. This one I cannot love.

Two good things about it, therefore two stars: George wasn't completely off at times, I liked that they put in the scene with George and Mrs Weston and George with Mr Martin. Bill Nighy was fun. Everything else is forgettable.

I felt quite tired at the start of this film; it enters with a lot of sweeping movement, fast talking, and grand sets and costumes which offer far more detail than can be taken in. It had been a long day for me, but it did feel like it was a film trying to do too much. I was wrong in this first impression, but the approach of movement and pace did continue, and it gave the film a feel of being superficial and relying on pace and energy. To be fair, it makes this approach work and it is moves and looks delightful. It offers lots of nice touches that make it more than this, but it is ultimately not anything shockingly different from what you'd expect (which it probably shouldn't be anyway).

The delivery of Emma as having more of a sharp edge is a nice touch, as it lets the viewer see what is charming about her, but also that she is not aware of the negative aspects of her own character, and thus does not control them. This adds a lot to the narrative that others do not, and Taylor-Joy does very well with the role. She is supported well, although mostly by those doing one or two things really well (eg Nighy and Hart). The design of the film is wonderful - great costumes, and locations throughout. In the end it does have a fast and breezy tone that I did take a minute to get into, but in the end it was cheering and quite lightly delightful as a film.

Recently got a chance to watch this. I like the film with Gwyneth Paltrow, and absolutely love the BBC miniseries, so I was cautious watching this, especially with the several bad reviews. I don't know if it was because I went in with low expectations, but I was delighted by this movie! Admittedly if you don't know the story, it can move fast, but to be fair, the book is long and tedious, with a lot to fit in two hours, which is one of my problems with the 2008 movie. The visuals and fashions of this movie are beautiful, and Emma's character did show improvement unlike some of the comments I saw. This one definitely captured Jane Austen's humor, and you can be guaranteed to laugh a few times. The BBC mini-series is still my top rated, but the 2020 "Emma." is, in my opinion, a notch above the 2008 "Emma", but would definitely recommend all adaptations, especially the book.

Autumn de Wilde's Emma, with Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn, is not my cup of tea, I'm afraid. My review might be influenced by how much I love Jane Austen's novel and how many times I've watched the 2009 miniseries, but I always give every adaptation a try. And I can't really judge if what I was watching would make sense to an Austen virgin, shall we say, so what seemed disjointed and rushed to me might work perfectly for others.

I'll start with the good: I loved the costumes and the interiors, which were sumptuously beautiful. The wood-shaving ringlets on the women and the high collars on the men were distracting, though. And of course Anya Taylor-Joy made for a quirky and regal Emma (Austenites will be pleased to note that she has perfect posture.) I also loved how Anya Taylor-Joy and Amber Anderson as Jane actually played the pianoforte during the Coles' party (but could have done without Mr Knightley's contribution, when Frank Churchill is supposed to be singing with Jane). BUT. The music was horrendously jarring, alternating between Hanna Barbera cartoon incidentals and freakish folk music. The supporting characters suffered once again - I couldn't honestly tell the difference between Mrs Weston, Mrs Knightley and Mrs Elton, except that Isabella was for some reason a complete cow in this version, and Mr Elton and Frank Churchill were also interchangeable (perhaps that's why Elton never seemed to be without his dog collar, to help tell them apart). Bill Nighy's Mr Woodhouse was a weird combination of fusspot and Edwardian fop, and Johnny Flynn's Mr Knightley strayed way off character by stripping off in his first scene and never really recovered for me. (Apparently, that was a way of 'humanising' the character because he is always 'mansplaining' - very woke.) Anya wasn't kidding when she talked about the focus being on 'bodily functions', by the way - not only are we 'treated' to Knightley's backside, but Emma hitches up her skirts to warm her bare arse by the fire, and the 'cannot make speeches' proposal scene is a bloody mess. Literally. The script leans so heavily on lines from the novel that I think Eleanor Catton thought she was writing an essay for an English Lit exam - Austenites will be happy, but there was no feeling behind any of the grand words. When Emma and Mr Knightley argue, they constantly shout over each other, for instance, instead of the usual playful back and forth.

The whole film felt like a weird mashup between a stage musical and a Victorian farce, with choreographed servants and slapstick humour. There was also a lot of 1996 Emma in there, taking pastel and pastoral scenery from the film and Andrew Davies' wearisome obsession with wealth from the television two-parter. Not on a sliding scale of Emma and Miss Bates, but in how Mr Knightley's strawberry picking party turns into a National Trust promotional video for Wilton House, Salisbury. There's also a lot of emphasis on servants dressing their masters and mistresses, presumably to fit in more scenes of 'natural nudity'.

I went, I watched, I did my duty to Emma. But I think I'll stick with the 2009 miniseries.

The main thing you should know about this film is that it's 100% talking and 0% actions. Right from the start we're bombarded with an overwhelming stream of names and facts that keep you in a constant state of confusion, trying to figure out who's who and wondering if you're even supposed to incorporate all that information to begin with or if the intention is just to show us the characters gossiping about random stuff to set up the story and illustrate what a normal day is like for them without the dialogues themselves being relevant. To save you a headache: no, none of it is relevant.

But that blank talk is all there is. In fact, the whole movie is an extremely simple story that could be summed up in a single sentence, only that buried in two hours of people talking at an insanely fast pace without saying anything.

Anya's character is completely emotionless, I could never tell what she was thinking, what anyone was thinking or what was happening at all since all we're shown is robots that just won't stop talking. Until it ends, and you couldn't care less about it.