Good start, but then it gets ruined

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

The makers of the ITV and A&E TV film of Jane Austen's "Emma" may have had fits in 1996. An independent group was making a film for the silver screen about the same time (to be distributed by Miramax), and it was ahead of ITV's film in production and its release. This has happened a few times in film history when different groups plan on and actually film the same novel or story for a movie. Both films had new rising stars as their leads. Gwyneth Paltrow in the theater film and Kate Beckinsale in this ITV/A&E film. The only other widely known cast member here is Prunella Scales as Miss Bates. Scales will be remembered always for her Sybil in "Fawlty Towers." But the theater film had more recognizable cast members – including Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightly and Ewan McGregor as Frank Church.Both films won awards – this one received two Emmys, and the theater film received on Oscar and one more nomination. The critics seem divided on these two films, mostly over the lead role. Those who prefer the girlish, romantic Emma gave the nod to Beckinsale in this TV film. Those who prefer the more lofty, class conscious Emma gave the nod to Paltrow. Each actress does a very good job in her respective role for the script she had. And, that's where I think the theater film screenplay was truer to the character as Austen portrayed her. The ITV script is more serious and somewhat dark. The theater film has its serious moments but they don't suppress the lightness and humor. So, Paltrow's character seems to more closely embody the Emma we read on the pages of the novel. That will likely remain a matter of taste between viewers of two camps, but an important aspect to consider is the rest of the cast and the screenplays. For those, this TV film falls behind the theater movie. The two-hour theater movie was able to better cover the main scenarios of the novel. This TV film is more serious and more of a drama, where I think Austen wanted the humor to be more apparent. And the casting was far better in the theater film. Mark Strong is a fine actor, but his Mr. Knightley was not the gentle soul and good-natured teacher and sparring partner to Emma. His was far more serious, bold and nearly belligerent in his protestations. The rest of the cast are a mix. Scales was fine as Miss Bates, but she couldn't equal Sophie Thompson's role in the theater movie. Some of the other characters seemed quite weak in this rendition. Anyone who enjoys Jane Austen should enjoy this film. But if one has a choice, the best and most entertaining film of "Emma" is the 1996 theater movie that stars Gwyneth Paltrow.

Emma Woodhouse (Kate Beckinsale) has a rigid sense of propriety as regards matrimonial alliances. Unfortunately she insists on matchmaking for her less forceful friend, Harriet, and so causes her to come to grief.Inevitably, this must be compared to the other "Emma", starring Gwyneth Paltrow, as they came out around the same time. For what it is worth, I think they both have their strengths. Paltrow's "Emma" has the benefit of a bigger budget, so everything looks better and makes for a stronger film. Beckinsale's "Emma" looks cheap, but has one thing in its favor: Beckinsale, who seems to really get into the character.Both have the familiar lines (I'm sure neither deviated too far from the novel). Had Beckinsale been cast in the Paltrow version, we may have seen the ultimate presentation of this literary classic.

I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.

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.