|
Jane Austen's Emma (Full Screen) | 
| Director: Diarmuid Lawrence
Actors: Kate Beckinsale, Bernard Hepton, Mark Strong (ii), Samantha Bond, James Hazeldine
Studio: AE Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: CDN$ 19.99
Buy New: CDN$ 13.96
You Save: CDN$ 6.03 (30%)
New (14) Used (2) from CDN$ 13.96
Rating:  83 reviews
Sales Rank: 213
Format: Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
DVD Layers: 1
DVD Sides: 1
Picture Format: Academy Ratio
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: AAED70027D
ISBN: 0767020308
UPC: 733961700275
EAN: 9780767020305
ASIN: 0767020308
Theatrical Release Date: February 16, 1997
Release Date: June 1, 2002
Availability: Usually ships within 1 - 2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Ships from the USA. ALL ITEMS ARE BRAND NEW! Delivery takes from 10-14 Working Days.
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
From Amazon.com
Similar to the equally excellent iValmont/i, this version of Jane Austen's classic novel had the misfortune of following a sumptuous big-star version with Gwyneth Paltrow, which was released the summer before. And, just as 1989's IValmont/I suffered comparisons with IDangerous Liaisons/I, inevitably these IEmmas/I were held up next to one another. p This delicious IEmma/I concerns a young woman of financial substance (Kate Beckinsale), who fancies herself a matchmaker, especially with shy Miss Harriet Smith (Samantha Morton, who also appears in AE's IJane Eyre/I). In Emma's swirling world of social activity and social consciousness, one's position and stature is a constant preoccupation. But to her credit, Emma, albeit a busybody, has compassion for all classes, and for her kindly but hypochondriacal father (Bernard Hepton).p This miniseries is more subtle than the grand theatrical release, is truer to the novel, and gives a richer explanation of the relationship between Emma associates Jane Fairfax (beautiful Olivia Williams of IRushmore/I) and the duplicitous Frank Churchill (Raymond Coulthard). Of course, at the center, as in all Austen stories, is the romance between the unsuspecting leading lady and an unlikely, but wholly suitable gentleman. In this case, it's Emma and her brother-in-law, the righteous (as played here) Mr. Knightley (Mark Strong). Strong's Mr. Knightley is more reserved, less coy than Jeremy Northam's; he plays Knightley more like Mr. Darcy (the leading man in Austen's IPride and Prejudice/I, which AE also offers in a wonderful miniseries). Beckinsale proves to be utterly delightful and in no way should this excellent adaptation be ignored. I--N.F. Mendoza/I
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 78 more reviews...
 Mr Knightly lacking April 14, 2008
Sylvia Rack (Montreal)
If I had to classify this film in a word, I would use one Jane Austen uses often in her books and call it "tolerable". br / br /Firstly I should comment it's NOT a miniseries. I dangerously assumed since it was made by the same people as Pride and Prejudice it would be a mini series as well, since the books are about the same length, but its only 1 hour and 9 minutes. That being said the story seemed horribly rushed, like the actors couldn't say there lines quickly enough and the whole pace of the film just felt stressed. It seemed like there wasn't one moment of awkward silence or anticipation, which is ridiculous for a Jane Austen plot since the character generally need time to think about how to act and speak with the right degree of propriety. The way the characters just blurted out whatever came into their heads made the whole world pretty unbelievable. br / br /However the shortness of the film could have been excused if Mr Knightly hadn't been so materially lacking. The actor portrays him unfaithfully. He storms around the room and yells too much. Mr Knightly wouldn't do that, he's a gentleman, he certainly wouldn't storm around the room in some childlike fashion and scream at Emma, if he did act that way, she wouldn't have any respect for him and there would be no book. br / br / I disagree that this version of Emma is better than the one with Gweneth Paltrow. I saw that one first, even before I read the book and liked it enough to buy it. It isn't the best film ever made by a long shot, but I feel its a much better representation of their relationship. Paltrow is a charming Emma, and Jeremy Northam makes a stellar Mr Knightly. He has all the charm, subtlety and presence you would expect Mr Knightly to have. He is a bit more personable and gentle than I perceived Knightly to be in the book, but still much better than the one portrayed in this version of Emma. All in all I would not recommend buying this film. I bought it and I regret it.
 Excellent adaptation of Austen's work! June 23, 2004
14 out of 14 found this review helpful
This movie is far superior to the one starring Gwyneth Paltrow. Kate Beckinsdale gives the part of Emma a greater depth of character than Ms. Paltrow does...and a great deal more fire and attitude - as Emma should have. Character development in this version is much better than in the Miramax version. Ms. Beckinsdale's Emma is much more lovable and understandable than Ms. Paltrow's. In the end, this makes the audience symphathetic to Emma - she deserves this. Remember, she is only a child, still finding her place in society.pThe scene on Box Hill is played quite brilliantly in this version - Emma, you must remember, is very naive and is not really aware of what she is doing. You get a better sense of her blunder and of her remorse in this version than in the Miramax version, in which she seems to be nasty on purpose.pThe casting (and acting) in this version is superb - Jane in the Miramax version is saucier than one would expect; her expressions were much harsher than author Jane Austen may have wanted.pA nice nod to the Pride and Prejudice version - the inclusion of Ms. Lucy Robinson (Mrs. Hurst in PP) in Emma as Mrs. Elton was a great choice. She makes a wonderful, loud, brassy wife.pIf you must insist on watching the Emma starring Gwyneth Paltrow, watch that version first, and then watch this version. Otherwise, you will be very disappointed.
 Period Pomp But No Panache June 18, 2004
Peter Gresch (Barrington, RI USA)
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
If you long for period costumes, genteel conversation and delightful scenery alone, this is your movie. If you long for wit, whim and wonder, this adaptation might disappoint you. Heroine Emma lacks the esential Austen charme and comes off spoiled and even mean with hardly ever a counter-balance which youthful grace, playfulness and whimsical folly might bestow. Mr. Knightly appears as the suprise lover (if you don't know the story line) because there is so little sensual fizz between him and Emma (a lack which I place again at the heroine's feet). brIf the comparison with AE's Pride And Prejudice be allowed, Lizzy and Mr Darcy are beguiling and loveable whereas this Emma and Mr Kightly are genteely vexing and never more than that.
Excellent version of Emma May 2, 2004
Kathryn Atwood (Midwest)
9 out of 9 found this review helpful
I was thrilled when the Gwenyth Paltrow version of "Emma" came out. After all, I knew from reading the book that it was a great story and I was one of those Austenites reveling in the rich array of Austen adaptations in the mid to late 90's. When my husband bought me this version, my first thought was, "Emma doesn't look gorgeous." She was supposed to be breathtakingly so. But as soon as I stopped looking at the cover and popped the movie into the VCR, I was hooked. Not only hooked, but this version became by far my favorite. pFor one thing, it is much truer to the book -- it baffled me that the screenwriters of the Paltrow version had the chutzpah to think they could improve on Jane Austen. This major flaw somehow slipped past me during my adaptation-induced euphoria and became apparent to me only after I watched it again after viewing the AE. The AE version remains wonderfully faithful to the book in every possible way. And somehow, although much had to be cut out, you never get that feeling of choppiness that inevitably comes with the adaptation territory. There is genuine inventiveness in shortening the story while keeping true to the storyline; it moves quickly, but never feels rushed or cut up and pasted.pSome of the characters in the Gwenyth Paltrow version at times seem either ill-cast or two-dimensional. Jane Fairfax is supposed to be reserved but generally liked and admired. Emma doesn't like her, but that is simply because Emma is still maturing. In the AE version, you can see why Emma dislikes her, but also why Jane is generally liked: elegant, talented and yes, rather reserved, but there is nothing in her personality that would generally give cause to complaint. Jane, in the Paltrow version, looks sneaky and suspicious, as if she's just committed a crime she's trying to hide.pAnother casting question mark is Harriet Smith. She is supposed to be very pretty, but doesn't strike you that way at all in the Paltrow version. The actress was also forced into scenes Jane Austen never put her in which end up being gratuitously comical. How hysterical!: now Harriet is freaking out! Now she's freaking out so badly she's falling over! Now she's posing for her portrait dressed in a ridiculous outfit and looking confused! pSamantha Morton, AE's Harriet, is exactly as I pictured her: attractive, innocent, naive and because these screenwriters had more respect for the book, she is always placed exactly where Austen meant her to be.pSophie Thompson is a wonderful actress and does a humorous, if somewhat two-dimensional portrayal of the chattery Miss Bates in the Paltrow version. But just putting some spectacles on her face and tying up her hair in a bun can't hide the fact that she's way too young for the part. The Paltrow version also has her erroneously snubbing Emma after the infamously rude comment on Box Hill. Miss Bates was much more gracious and forgiving than that, a fact well portrayed by the more accurage AE version, whose Miss Bates is perfectly cast and who gives a wonderful performance. pWho is the superior Emma? My opinion is Kate Beckensale. My husband, a Jane Austen fan by marriage, would vote for Paltrow. Paltrow does bring a certain ditziness to the character which is in keeping with the book, given the storyline. Beckensale comes off more sure of herself, but Emma was quite headstrong in her wrong-headness, so both are valid Emma's in their different portrayals. And Ms. Beckensale must have just been having a bad-face day when she posed for the video jacket picture -- she's just as gorgeous as you would want an Emma to be!pOne very nice touch, not in the book, mind you, but nice all the same is the ending: a supper/engagement party/dance at Mr. Knightly's. All the major players are there and it wraps up the story very well.
Wonderfully Entertaining! April 9, 2004
M. K. Finke (Melbourne, FL USA)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
I'll make this short and to the point since that is all the time I have: It is a wonderfully portrayed story of the novel EMMA. The charcters were portrayed brillantly by the actors chosen for their parts. This version far outshines GP's version. It is more real and certainly more beliveable than the silly Emma portrayed by GP.
|
|
|
|
| |
