Emmanuelle

The original Emmanuelle, released in 1974, was hardly Citizen Kane. It was soft core porn dressed as art. It was probably quite provocative for its time but by today's standards is reasonably tame. There are some moderately interesting sub-plots but overall it is quite forgettable.

This film, the 2024 version, strives to take that film and make it even less memorable. The director and writers have somehow set out to make the world's most dull, sanitised, meaningless "erotic" drama. The average comedy is more erotic than this!

There's absolutely nothing good about this. The plot is close to non-existent and follows the original's style-over-substance, nothingness-dressed-as-art line.

Avoid.

Why did this production come into being?

I read the books when they were written and, I saw the movies in Ireland, when censorship was rampent.

Whomever came up with the idea of bringing the stories into the 21st century, should never be involved in cinematopraghy, ever again.

They denigrated the books, the movies, and the memory of Sylvia Krystel. I am so very surprised that Namoi Watts would lend herself to this travesty.

The books were erotic for the '70's, and were ripe for European art movies, which were not always available to us Irish "children".

I read all the books, saw all the movies, and this is a disgrace. Even the Black Emmanual movies that were later produced, are better than this piece of crap.

Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.

Too scary for Emmanuelle. Rating is overrated, I give it a 2*. 36-year-old actress. Kristel was 21-22 at the time of the first movie. I won't talk about attractiveness, it's a matter of taste, but at least you could have picked someone closer in type for the plot. "It used to be better"? I guess so.

The casting is as lame as possible. All attempts to shoot "by the book" after that are useless about completely. Absolutely. The image of Emmanuelle is not formed in any way. Of course, a new movie production of a beautiful novel has long been relevant. But something like this is better not to be filmed at all. Better nothing than this bad.

The good: beautiful locations, often great cinematography and the film mostly has a great atmosphere (reminded me a bit of Lost in Translation). For its style alone, I'd give it a 7/10

The rest however is pretty bad. No character depth or development, pointless and often involuntarily funny dialogue, which makes the scenes that are supposed to be erotic quite dull And also: hardly any story

If you're looking for a stylishly made movie with no substance that gives you a good laugh from time to time because of its ridiculous dialogue and logic, then you'll at least be entertained.

But from a holistic point of view, I can't give it more than 4/10.

This is a decidedly darker take in style and substance than the original. The cinematography is darker; where the original was mostly outdoors in the lush yellow sunshine of Bangkok, this version is all shadows and dark interiors. The characters are darker, too, more silent and secretive.

Noémie Merlant, while lovely, is sharper and more angular than Sylvia Kristel, and lacking in Kristel's pure, innocent beauty. She tends to play the part much less open and expressive, adding to the mystery.

The secondary and peripheral characters are mostly undeveloped. Naomi Watts is totally wasted in a very minor role, and no one else seems up to the task of becoming an important part of the story. This version also lacks the other beautiful bodies that populated the original. The nudity, such as it is, is far less copious and quite a bit less explicit, making the sexuality of the character almost a sidelight of her personality, rather than an important feature of the story.

For my taste, there's a whole lot more to like in the original, from Sylvia Kristel's stunning beauty, to the lush tropical scenery, to the beautiful bodies filling so many of the scenes. If you aren't going to make it better, why bother to remake it?