User Reviews

My rating stands. This is a positively incredible film. What an amazing way to bring Jane Austen's film to life.

This Emma played like a farce, I didn’t care at all for the actress playing Emma. The sets were a awful, especially her house, all the pinks and greens, so NOT Georgian England and I’ve never cared for the actor playing her father, he always plays himself in everything he’s in, with that weird cadence. It’s no where close to Paltrow’s version. I’d give it a D

This is very much a 'prim and proper' frilly tale of its time. As a period drama its ok but not entirely memorable. Some aspects of the story interested me but I didn't feel entirely impressed by this film to be honest. It's ok, with some gentle comedy at times but nothing exciting or memorable, certainly (though seeing an as ever grumpy Bill Nighy did make me smirk), so no, I wouldn't recommend it as such.

Emma should not be lost in the shadow of Greta Gerwig's Little Women. This is one of the better adaptations of Jane Austen's classic comedy -- light, breezy, full of charm and style, with some big laughs and yet another stellar performance for the best up and coming young actor, Anya Taylor-Joy. Clueless may forever be the gold standard as far as Emma adaptations, but this version certainly isn't too far behind.

I really disliked this film. Just so much eye candy and so little attention to what makes the novel great, i.e. subtlety, lightness of touch, nuanced characterization. I especially disliked the main character's flirting with the camera - why, oh why? Is it some Broadway pantomime or what? And Ford's general store being made to look like something out of the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?? I find it difficult to believe that anyone who loves the novel can feel anything but annoyance, revulsion or just plain boredom sitting through this film.

The most hilarious movie of the year. With very good performances of Anya Taylor Joy and Mia Goth, and a really precious costume and production design.

This movie is quite charming. Every cast member plays there parts with glee and gives them depth that was not expected from a romance/comedy. The set designs and costumes are beautiful and really reflect the tone of the movie throughout. Anya Taylor Joy is fantastic in the lead role and plays to her acting strengths well with her character. Just a lovely gem of a movie.

Unless you're a diehard fan of the period piece comedy of manners genre, you'll probably find this latest cinematic version of Jane Austen's classic novel about a self-absorbed genteel woman who fancies herself a matchmaker to be one of the most tedious and unengaging films you'll ever watch. While the production is meticulously assembled in its costume design, art direction and cinematography, with a fine lead performance by Anya Taylor-Joy, the picture is otherwise emotionally flat and astoundingly boring, one that will challenge the patience of even the most tolerant moviegoers. The wit and humor that make this work succeed is virtually nonexistent here, with a bevvy of well-dressed characters prattling on and on about relationships involving people most viewers are likely to care nothing about. Given the many versions of this story that have been made over the years, and in light of the substandard quality of this one, perhaps it's time to give "Emma" a well-deserved rest for a while.

Charming, funny, and entertaining. The set and costume designs are beyond amazing. The acting is good, and the story is well developed. Nonetheless, if you're not into period romance, you'll have a hard time trying to get involved. 'Emma' is a fine and modern Jane Austen adaption, but not a genre game-changer.

Fun interesting movie with some really good performances worth seeing. The two leading men didn’t add much or make the end game worth the prize so it is missing a little oomf in that department. I really enjoyed the music and the cinematography is beautiful

I live and breath Jane Austen and have watched countless adaptions of Emma so my first time watching this I simply enjoyed it while also being a little too judgey. The second time however I recognized how truly wonderful it is. I laughed, i felt giddy, and I had moments of second hand embarrassment! I can already tell I’ll be rewatching this often!

I have watched many Austen adaptations, but I think the only truly successful ones have been the BBC's hallowed Pride and Prejudice miniseries, and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility. I've yet to watch an "Emma" which hits the mark, which is a shame because the original novel is wonderful. This film is a nearer hit than most, but still a miss. It's a shame, because Anya Taylor-Joy's performance of the central character is by far the best to date. And the rest of the cast is good, particularly Mr Knightley. The production values are also quite good. I think it's the screenplay which lets everything down. Everything moves too fast and the story is quite jumbled. Dialogue is perfunctory and does not effectively capture Austen's characters, nor her ample wit. The film has no spirit, because it does not take time to breathe.

Best movie. One of the greats. I wish to see more from this crew. Lots of Oscar nominations coming out of this!

It is the second best adaption of the story - Clueless being the first - and I had a great time watching this.

Not good. The acting felt like a high school play for at least a third of the movie. I got the feeling that most of the actors didn’t understand the characters as Jane Austen had written them, only as De Wilde wanted them to be portrayed. Johnny Flynn played Mr. Knightley nicely, and I would like to see him play the role in a proper version without all the bizarre moments thrown in (nose bleeds?? bare butts in front of fireplaces?? why??!). Mia Goth also did a good job with Harriet, and Miranda Hart was a fantastic Miss Bates. One of the biggest misses in this version was Emma’s relationship with her father. She hardly seems to notice Mr. Woodhouse! Her first thought after the proposal isn’t of Mr. Woodhouse but of Harriet. Her transformation into a better person fell flat too. I hardly noticed it. Pretty to look at but a very superficial, empty version trying to be artistic and avant- garde but falling flat.

Emma. is a sweet, slow-starting period piece about young love that grows on you as you watch it. Although allowing oneself to become invested in this film feels a bit like homework at the start, it is well worth it. The language of the film -- in terms of dialogue, camera movements, and audio cues --takes a few scenes to learn. Once you do, the power of subtlety in the the technical fields of film making is on full display. Except for in walking scenes, the camera is nearly entirely still. This amplifies the slightest push in/pull out of the camera 100% and drives home the emotion being portrayed in that tiny moment in a real way. The same can be said of audio cues in the film, but not the score overall. I enjoyed the score when it was applied purely for transitional scenes, but otherwise it didn't stand out to me when compared to other period pieces like The Favourite. And this film is definitely going for the same vibe as The Favourite, even if it is a bit more mild in it's humor. Regarding story, I haven't read the original Jane Austen text, but this story easily could have came off as a YA teen drama romance. It didn't to me. I think that's partially due to the elevated dialogue, partially due to the film making techniques, and mostly due to the performances. A+ to Anna Taylor-Joy, Mia Goth, and Johnny Flynn. I'd only head of the former before seeing this but I'll be looking out for them all in the future. Emma. has a lot of good going for it. I do think the humor was a bit too subtle at times and 1 or 2 subplots could have been trimmed out to help the pacing. It's on VOD right now. Can't say I'd recommend paying the asking price for it unless you really love period pieces.

A visually beautiful film to watch, Emma boasts a strong cast and interpretation of the source material. I much preferred this version to the 1996 version.

I really wanted to love this. I was a big fan of the Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love) version. I love Clueless and I'm a big fan of Anya Taylor Joy (Split). And I did enjoy it I just feel like it didn't do much that gave it much of it's own personality. That being said there's a lot of fun here. Anya Taylor Joy is great in the lead and Bill Nighy is solid as her father. The other players don't command much attention and mostly its business as usual. The movie is colorful and the cinematography is bright and delicate. I just wish the movie didn't take itself as seriously because it could have used a winking eye. 3.25/5

It's good, not great. "Emma." is a movie that serves as decent background content while folding laundry or cleaning the living room, but it is, by no means, anything exceptional. Though strongly acted and beautifully constructed, the film's comedic timing is far off at many points, causing there to be a lack of any emotional ties to the characters or narrative itself.

The film with a charming views, excellent cinematography and sweet and young praiseworthy noble characters. It's really refreshing to see such a beautiful, sometimes flirty, sometimes a little heartbreaking, but overall light-hearted story in a 19th century setting.

I am semi-literate with Austen novels, but it seems like this movie more than many other adaptations requires fairly esoteric Austen insider knowledge and knowledge of the character backgrounds that would be developed in the novel, but is not in the movie, to really enjoy. There are some occasional well-acted and tender moments here, but mostly this is a prettily photographed but frequently boring movie.

Excessively lengthy at over two hours, Emma can drag (particularly in the first act), but strong characters manage to find their footing as the story progresses. The inconsistent pacing can be felt throughout, but fantastic sets and costume design along with cleverly written dialogue will prove a rewarding watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This newest adaptation of the Jane Austen classic isn't really modernized, but feels somewhat updated in attitude. It revolves around the rich, entitled title character whose misguided attempts at romance (for her and others) is the fulcrum of the story. Without a lot of actual laughs, there's an overall mirthful aspect that makes it pleasantly entertaining. The performances are genuine and their interactions enjoyable. Being a period film, you expect the requisite beauty, but this film's costumes are outstandingly gorgeous. An agreeable little trifle.

The film production saved this one, but let's face it: what we have here is just another Austen adaptation, and Austen seems to run only one plot: one noble man rises above the rest in a world of frivolous social conventions, hopefully lifting up the "heroine" in some way. Social commentaries, they most certainly are, but Austen always seems to beg the question: why bother to begin with? The answer must necessarily be found -- due to no other possible explanation -- in the hats and the scenery, which filmmakers have relied upon for years to salvage these detestable stories.

Even Bill Nighy can't save this appalling movie based on Jane Austen's wonderful book. Yes, the costumes are exquisite--no expense was spared--and the vistas were grand--but the acting was wooden; wooden except when the actor was OVER-acting dreadfully. The occasional surprises were definitely unnecessary and distracting. As a former English professor I would recommend the 1996 version of Emma, with Kate Beckinsale, Bernard Hepton, Mark Strong, and Samantha Bond.

This adaptation of Jane Austen's "Emma" offers the true fan a vivid and dramatic experience that brings this novel to life. I say this earnestly to the "true fans." If you are not a fan of Austen's work or have never read this novel, this movie may not be entirely satisfying. The acting was phenomenal, definitely one of the brightest casts of the year. I will be looking to see if one can top this for the remainder of the year. The driving point to the movie was three things, the production design, production design, and the cinematography. The makeup/costume design was some of the best I have ever seen. The colors that were shown vividly, the overall aesthetic of the film, the shots inside and outdoors, etc. These were done perfectly. Where this movie picks its own flaws is the blandness that follows throughout this two hour experience. There is not much to the movie itself besides the displays. There was not anything new to bring with Austen's work, as it has been shown in other adaptations of her novels. I believe there is some things missing to add more of a punch to the movie. With such great production design, costumes, and cinematography there needed to be other great things to follow or this would not be satisfying to the average viewer. Almost can seem like a marketing ploy rather than trying to enhance Austen's perspective that is seen when reading her novels. Definitely a movie I would recommend for real fans of Jane Austen. For those who do not prefer her writings or have not read Emma, this may be one to avoid.

I really enjoyed this movie. Have seen the various Austen adaptations over the last few years and I find them very good. Charming treatment of the book. In this one they change some reactions and add a lot of humor which I throughly enjoyed.

With eye-popping visuals, but cutesy-wootsey in places, the new Emma adaptation is a masterpiece of aesthetics that seems to "get high on its own supply." Every frame jumps off the screen and begs to be painted. As someone with an interest in art history, I was in love with this Easter basket and the various bunnies hopping around the lawn.

Until I met a friend in 1967 I was a "Yes, I've read 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' and that was my extent of 'knowing' Jane Austen. Over the years I have seen some movies based on the titles I mentioned and until I met the aforementioned friend I spelled the last name Austin! Little by little I read more of her books and, on my own, did some research on the author. I really wasn't familiar with Jane Austen's "Emma" or the movies, including "Clueless", based on the book. This version has constant reminders of the title actress, Anya Taylor-Joy, of her big expressive eyes and curled hair. She sees herself as a matchmaker who boasts that she has never been wrong yet! Three hours later I still see the eyes and curls but except for that one line, I couldn't tell you what else she said! I have mentioned before that recently I have had problems hearing in movies so I have been using earphones but though I could follow the storyline--being familiar with Austen's works helped--I had a hard time understanding any of the actors including Johnny Flynn, Josh O'Connor, Mia Goth and Amber Anderson but Bill Nighy, as Emma's father, gets across exactly what he is thinking and saying with his face, body and mere glances. The PBS aspect of "Emma" meaning the lush England lawns, gardens and homes plus the costumes and hairstyles is Masterpiece Theatre at its best. At times the music was jarring but at least it broke up the boredom I experienced watching the film.

The newest adaptation of Jane Austen's classic novel "Emma" doesn't really add anything new to the table. Still, it looks nice and has a pleasant cast. The production design is really the strong point of this movie, as I felt a lot of the nuances of Jane Austen's original work were brushed over to make this movie more marketable.

Jane Austen adaptations are always solid, but the visuals of this one set it apart. And the acting (Mia Goth in particular) is uniformly stellar. An easy recommendation.

Pretty but pointless. Vapid heroine, limp almost nonexistent plot, emotional arcs that run from c to c+. Beautiful visuals and a handful of charming moments. Go if you want eye candy, but put a tight leash on your expectations.

An excellent adaptation of the Austen novel with a first-rate cast, mostly of British actors unknown to me, which was a plus, since it made the actors more of an ensemble and, in an interesting way, more believable. The settings were beautiful, and although I wasn’t convinced that I was in the right century emotionally, I had a great time. Nicely adapted and directed.

The films looks really good and Anya Taylor-Joy does a nice job but in overall this adaptation brings nothing new and while that isn't much of a surprise still felt like an update no one asked for. Nevertheless this is a nice film and if you're fan of Jane Austen you will enjoy it but after that there's nothing remarkable or exceptional.

Emma is a perfectly fun family friendly period drama. Though, there will always be better remakes.

Meandering, plotless, and boring, but the set design and costumes were incredible.