I did not expect anything interesting from this film in terms of elaboration, except for an incredibly beautiful picture (hello to Marie Antoinette in 2006) - and what can you expect from modern foreign cinema? Africans and Asians in the roles of Europeans (if it were another galaxy, no, we are assured that this is a real country), as well as the problems of orientation and feminism of 10 pieces per cm of film. However, my love for the novel outweighed and I decided to watch.
What do you think? The director made an incredibly conservative film - I am even shocked how this is possible in the modern film market in Europe and America. Heroes of Austin look and act as they should look and act, if the movie is shot on the book about England of the early XIX century (even the notorious episode when Emma turns to the fireplace with her bare ass, taken from the cartoon of the writer’s time).
Add to this the amazing work of artists on costumes and scenery - fervently, with taste, but all within the framework of that time - no undressed heroines in crumpled dresses.
Actors by age and appearance, for some minor moments, correspond to their roles (yes, I still scoff at how much the directors of girls Austen want to make seductive beauties and beauties and please older readers who look for Austin’s works only “beautiful love novel in historical sets”, putting these masterpieces about growing up and finding yourself on a par with cheap volumes of Cartland. Yes, yes, hello to the movie with Elle and Firth, and all of them.
Emma here is the unattractive inner heroine - the proud, arrogant, smug Emma. Don’t look for a stupid flirtatious and charming girl here – this film focuses on her growing up (which Austin actually wrote about). She makes mistakes, thinks, repents and cries. Mr. Knightley is not a written handsome man, but a charismatic hero who begins to be liked not for his pretty face, but for his actions and actions (we will forgive everything to a beautiful hero, but as soon as it comes to quite ordinary appearance - wow, our revenge on the creators will be terrible, even if the actions are identical).
Thus, we got a non-standard product for the foreign film world, which deserves to be called one of the best.
Before this film, I watched 3 more adaptations of Emma (1996 with Kate Beckinsale, 1997 with Gwyneth Peltrow and 2009 with Romola Goray) - all 3 I liked and from this Emma I expected the same, but...
1. The wildest miscast - everyone, literally every actor is out of place. Emma performed by Ani does not cause any empathy, she is empty, arrogant and has no merit at all. Mr. Knightley - what did they do in the film to this intelligent, flawless gentleman? When we look at Mr. Knightley, played by Johnny Flynn, we see an uncouth and completely unattractive man. What is that screaming, lying on the floor, where we see him have any admiration for Emma? In the kiss scene, he looks through her. I always wanted to close my eyes when I saw him. Mr. Woodhouse, played by Bill Findy, is also passing by. He is more suited to the role of Selina's father in Another World than the good-natured and grumpy Hartfield host. Callum Turner looks more like a rustic country boy than a charming handsome Frank Churchill. Jane Fairfax was transparent in this film, I didn’t see her, but I wouldn’t say it was Amber Anderson’s fault. The actress was simply not given the opportunity to reveal the character - all the moments that show her experiences and the situation in general were cut out of the film. Harriet, Mr. Elton, Miss Taylor, Miss Bates, the Knightley family couple are also terrible.
2. Plot – I don’t know how it was possible to make a film like this, given the 3 great adaptations that preceded it. Take the best of each, combine and get a hit, but here the creators clearly wanted something of their own. And they did. If you are not familiar with the source, previous film adaptations, it is difficult to understand the motives, feelings of the characters, and in principle, the events taking place. Where Elton's courtship of Emma at dinner, in which she is already beginning to understand his motives and the charade conveyed to Emma, where the scene before Frank's departure, in which he almost confesses to Emma his affection for Jane, where reading Jane's letters, where Mrs. Elton's deliberate and annoying concern for Jane, where we are shown Churchill's courtship of Emma and Jane's painful reaction, cut out scenes of strawberry picking, going to the poor, attacking gyps, there is no scene where Frank almost talked about letters from Jane and Mr. Nayt guessed about their relationship. In the novel and previous film adaptations, it is not for nothing that all these moments were emphasized, they helped to understand and feel the characters. There is nothing left of Emma in this movie. Beautiful views, costumes, perhaps, the only advantages. I strongly advise you not to waste time and watch more worthy adaptations.
This is a very free adaptation of a very free novel. Is she the best? Definitely not. But there is something about her that she does better than others. She is more charismatic, breathes freely and easily. I'd call it a light arthouse. This is a strange film for its original source. It is as if he tries to distinguish himself from his rather similar predecessors. And the source favors him in this, because the original Emma is so free for its time, which allows interpretations to make liberties over itself and add new elements. It was a truly British comedy in 1815, capable of entertaining people, so why bother with realism.
The film has a very characteristic directorial handwriting. Strange decisions and staging (in a good way). This movie looks like a joke on a novel that is itself a joke, but the joke is respectful. Austin overdid it, and Wilde decided to overdo it. She exaggerated the reality that surrounded her, and Wilde exaggerated what she exaggerated. It's just like it's doubled. I liked him for that.
Of course, such films cannot be judged jealously by a book. They pay tribute to her, but rather claim their own presentation of a familiar story. Classic novels are something that has been so replicated that they will not look hard on their adaptation. Now they have become a canvas for experiments and give everyone the opportunity to tell a story in their own way. After all, how much the image of Dracula was replicated. As it was not shown, which absurd and parody films (and cartoons) only did not shoot, although this book is also an English classic and much more boring than people who did not read it think about it, but critics of free film adaptations of Dracula received many times less. How is Jane Austen worse or better?
The film is filled with absurd and awkward moments. For example, Emma after the confession, blood went from her nose, and Harriet was dipped in a pie in front of her eyes. Yeah, it looks weird in context. These inserts are stupid and strange, but not stupid. In the novel in the context of that time, Emma’s actions were absurd, which at this time are no longer surprising, but Harriet, smeared with dough in front of a rich lady, we can understand.
It is not worth trying to draw the authenticity from this film, it did not claim it from the very beginning, it was created to distinguish itself from the existing canon by its absurdity. The book itself is a continuous anecdote, so you need to try hard to make its adaptation even stranger, but at the same time do not drown in your own stupidity. What was the point? Perhaps the director tried his style with broad strokes and decided to take a book, the adaptations of which most will not be very scrupulously picky, because it was done a long time ago. Everyone will just watch what was filmed. In the end, Burr Stears in the film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice allowed himself much more and his film was not appreciated, although, as something shot on camera, it is good.
The director apparently did not find either an ideal or a golden mean, because half of the actors here sat down perfectly on their roles, and the other half seems to have wandered into the wrong venue. Miscast Harriet, Elton and Frank. And if the latter drew on his game, and you can get used to the second, then Harriet is just terrible. The presentation of the story is free, but the characters act within the context, which means that the images must correspond to this, since the characters have not been changed. Everyone talks about her in a book context, while you look at her and you don’t understand what this person has to do with it. The concept of beauty is different for everyone, but if you start from Emma, who is considered the first beauty, you can determine the most respected type of appearance in their universe. This Harriet wouldn't have been seen as cute. In addition, the actress has little charisma and in terms of work done, I consider her the worst here. Although considering that everything in this film is pure laughter and absurdity, the authors could choose such a ridiculous actress intentionally.
Anyuta Joy is a pleasant actress, her Emma came out charmingly irritable and insolent, but with a pinch of “angelism.”
The surroundings are bright and dollish, which reminds me personally that the authors are not trying to be serious. No need to. Such theatricality, taking place in the realistic scenery of prim England, would quickly lead to despondency.
In general, this is a film that should not be bothered much. He is absurd, strange and forces to accept himself as he is, managing with all his abnormality likes. This is some kind of Alice in Wonderland, edited by Jane Austen: in English Lordship everything is ridiculous, absurd, strange and cannot be explained from the question “Why is this scene here?”
Why don't penguins fly?
After reading the humiliating reviews (unlike the critics, who turned out to be more prescient and far-sighted in their judgments), I could not help but say a few words about this wonderful and extremely underrated film. The film, where the filigree understatement in the dialogues is adjacent to the virtuoso acting game, full of hints and clarifications; unlike other screenings, where the viewer and the gyrus do not need to move: everything is negotiated and laid out on the shelves of flying.
I would especially like to note, so disliked by many viewers, the scenes of bareness at the beginning of the film, at first glance seeming inappropriately vulgar and destroying the fabulous charm of a largely poetic film work, which, with a more complacent manner of assessment, is understood as a successful reminder that in that ancient era there was no underwear, it simply did not exist, and all these pants and dresses were worn directly on the naked body. How defenseless, undisguised people should have felt, and how differently their games in relationships are perceived, in fact, more fragile, shy, shy and hurtful than is possible today. And these ubiquitous drafts... I would call it ' fine tuning' viewership.
An amazing find is the harmonious distribution of short replicas and long silent pauses - giving the viewer the opportunity to comprehend their depth and versatility without interrupting the viewing. For an attentive, inquisitive viewer, the picture will contain many unexpected discoveries and pleasant historical references.
In Ilma, there is also no crowding of scenes, heaps of reeled formalities, or passable views, the entire canvas of the narrative is sustained in an ideal harmonic rhythm, where even pauses are filled with the content and beauty of the form.
I would also like to mention a few technical points:
Cinema gourmets can not but please the perfectly superimposed music, harmoniously combined with the action in the frame, complementing and emphasizing it. Of course, thanks to the talent of the director, all the actors were able to fully reveal not only the nature of their characters, but also their own talents. What are only fleeting facial wrinkles, eye movements, special grace of gestures and body movements? The dance of the main characters and the final explanation are beyond praise. For a more complete understanding of my words, I suggest comparing Ani Taylor-Joy’s performance in this film to the New Mutants. Someone will say: like different genres, what is she playing there? To which I reply: ' Stupid! People in our age have become more frank, simpler, but not more primitive!'
In the nitpicking section, you can note the overexposure of some scenes in the editing plan, but when you re-watch these flaws you no longer notice, apparently the reason is the effect of the first acquaintance, when the viewer is in a state of tense expectation, under the pressure of prejudices and stereotypes, especially if he is largely biased, after reading the original or having already given preference to one of the previous adaptations. What pleases me especially is that all requests made at the beginning of the film are resolved by the end.
I definitely recommend reviewing both the tape and your own opinion about it, if you have it below the plinth.
I don’t see any reason to retell the plot of the famous thing Jane Austen.
This movie is like a piece of cake. Beautiful outfits 'toy' eras: elegant, gentle, different. All pictures are from the Renaissance. On the most beautiful view of nature, the exterior with palaces, estates, horses and carriages - picturesque, rich people of their era, not burdened with life and exhausting work. It is so nice to plunge into such a fabulous atmosphere, to escape from the gray life and devastation. As you can see, I have something to compare with: I am not rich and do not eat from gold, surrounded by antiques.
I am tired of problems and I really liked this movie!
Yes, it evokes such feelings as in girls of primary school age fairy tales about princes and white horses.
Every minute of the film calls to admire the exquisite palace interior, paintings, statues. The proud and confident gait of the characters. Any conversation takes place in a perfectly built frame: whether it is a living room with a cozy fireplace, surrounded by beautiful screens and armchairs, or a shop with ribbons and fabrics, or a modest (but still wonderful) dwelling of an impoverished lady, or a hill with trees.
It's just as beautiful that it's not a drama, it's a comedy. Jane Austen might be against it, but personally, I'm fed up with the endless whining about drama. It is much more difficult to convey the experiences of heroes in a comedic setting.
Acting game deserves high praise for comedy, does not violate the idyll of landscapes and palaces.
And of course, a happy ending with kisses, weddings, happy glances.
Romantic mood in scenes with the main characters can be cut with a knife - so tangible and pronounced.
And the last scene with the kiss is awe-inspiring, gives fantasies to walk around: a mature man clearly knows how to kiss a woman.
Over time, I have become more and more convinced that the viewer does not have to get acquainted with the source in order to see a film based on it. The film and the book are different works! And they differ primarily in the way information is presented. I don’t go to the cinema with a book in my hand, the movie has to be self-contained. Therefore, when I met Emma, I did not think to read the book first. I have never known Jane Austen before, and I will not (just not my genre of literature). To be honest, this film wouldn’t have caught my attention if it wasn’t for the cast. But as I watched it, I was surprised by something else. . .
It's not a movie for fun. It is not suitable for easy and relaxed pastime. This is a conversational genre in which you need to closely follow the characters and dialogues .
As I said, I was initially interested in the cast. I will not say that for me they are A-class actors, but the faces were familiar: Anya Taylor Joy (Split), Rupert Graves (Sherlock), Calum Turner (Fantastic Beasts), etc. It is worth noting that the entire caste worked well. Played subtly and organically, watching the characters really interesting!
Some viewers may think that the plot of the film is simply missing. And to some extent, they will be right. This is just a fragment of the life of one hero within his environment, which greatly loses the dynamics of the work. But if you think about it, the plot here is not so important, because the key role is played by the characters and their relationships. Listening to dialogue, watching all the threads, watching the development of individual heroes, you can get true pleasure. Special attention, of course, is allocated to the main character, disclosure, development, motivation and charism which worked quite well.
That part of the visual is a separate delight. Costumes, set, makeup, filming and mounting. All at the highest level, a special thanks to the creators. These aspects create an incredible atmosphere within which the eye is incredibly enjoyable.
Yes, the film can be criticized for the weak elaboration of motivation and disclosure of the secondary characters, for the too sluggish temp of events, for several unclosed lines. But, by and large, all this does not spoil the final impression, which can be safely taken out of brackets.
8 out of 10
(rating 77%)
I can't call this movie universally good. To view it, you need to catch special conditions and mood, because you should watch it closely. But, if you follow them, you can get special pleasure from the film. I did it. I hope you get it too...
The film is unpleasantly surprising from the very beginning, when from the first appearance of the characters, they seem to be turned inside out. There is nothing wrong with selfish thoughts, but when the characters begin to voice them, it immediately changes the whole essence. Where is Emma, who, for all her spoiledness, always took care of the people around her, her father, to the best of her strength and understanding? Where is the painful but good-natured Mr. Woodhouse? And why this scene with Knightley's nudity? Mr. Darcy's laurels haunt him? Or Emma's butt by the fireplace? About the final explanation and completely silent, I threw up. The cast is terrible. According to the authors, it is Knightley, Jane, Elton, Churchill, Harriet? These ridiculous, ugly, vulgar characters? Instead of a sparkling, satirical story, it turned out something stupid, bland and dull in a bright wrapper. The costumes are beautiful, it is a pity that their contents do not shine with talented acting. So is the writer and the director. And the English landscapes are good. And the book is wonderful. It's a shame they made this out of her.
1.10
The film 'Emma' takes place in a village, but in English villages there seems to be no dirt and manure, even pigs, and those clean. This is an adaptation of Jane Austen’s outdated, boring classic. But the film is made with great irony, so it is not boring and looks with a smile. The original is hopelessly outdated and if you film the novel seriously, then much of the modern viewer will be wild and incomprehensible, mores have changed a lot. And this film is shot as a fairy tale, so the actions of the characters are logical in their own way, in the conditions of the described universe. The characters of all, even minor heroes, are revealed. That's because the acting ensemble is just great. And interestingly, the youth outplayed the masters. Anya Taylor-Joy is good, but Johnny Flynn has eclipsed everyone. I have never heard of such an actor before, and he outplayed all the stars and stars. The film is a magnificent easy-to-understand adaptation of the classics.
After reading Pride and Prejudice 39, I knew immediately that Jane Austen was not mine. The novel did not touch me with the theme, plot, or characters, although I do not consider it bad, of course, just for me it is nothing. With the film adaptation of this book (the one in 2005 with Keira Knightley), I’m doing better, it hooked me a little, but more than the original source (it makes no sense to write here why, because this is a review of another film). So what I'm saying is that, while I'm not quite in tune with Austin, I didn't expect much from this painting, and that was right, because I saw something like what I expected to see.
The main character - Emma Woodhouse in the performance of a charming, beautiful, stunning (you can pick up an infinite number of epithets to her, but perhaps it is better to stop here) Ani Taylor-Joy likes to bring young people together, that is, in another way - manipulate them, using trust, but she is not going to marry, because why she needs it. So, for most of the film, Emma is trying to marry her friend Harriet, taking advantage of her peaceful and submissive nature and not giving a damn about the fact that she is kind of a free person with her own right to choose.
The film’s two biggest challenges are storytelling and characters. The indistinct exposition, doesn't give an idea of who the characters are to each other, for example, we don't know who Emma Knightley is, why does he even hang out at her house, is it her friend, an acquaintance? The story develops very confusedly, before the viewer, again, without any explanation, suddenly new characters appear (about them a little later), then, suddenly, they disappear. But, despite all its confusion, the picture is incredibly boring and very long. In the film, there are scenes so stretched that the hand involuntarily wants to squander them (and, unfortunately, they are enough).
Characters, on the other hand, are just dummy characters who, as I said, appear in the frame, play their part in the plot (and some just appear) and disappear, no disclosure. In the film there is not a single revealed character, even the main characters remain empty until the final of the picture. Due to the lack of character disclosure, the conflict in Act III does not work. Yes, apparently, this conflict is generally scored, because it is resolved in just a couple of scenes, and so easily that you basically forget about its existence, as well as the characters themselves, by the way, we will return to them. Emma does not change and does not develop at all, she continues to marry a girlfriend to anyone (yes, for the good of her friend, but still, she kind of should have her own choice). This same friend - the same Harriet generally behaves like a girl of puberty (what irritates), then she loves one, then another (by the way, because of the second & #39; love & #39; and the conflict arose), but suddenly she stopped loving the second and fell in love with the third (again, it all shows in a couple of scenes, and in the film takes at least a few days, and a maximum week, yes, it turns out, during this time you can suppress feelings for the object of love, and even instantly fall in love with another).
It is also worth writing about humor, since the film is presented to us as a comedy drama. So, humor consists in idiotic dialogues and no less idiotic faces that many characters make, squeezing out of themselves with the last strength something funny (nothing funny). There are only a few moments in the picture where I just smiled, but no more.
However, it is worth praising the film for its personal charm, created by the general atmosphere, entourage and aesthetics of that period, in general, artists, costumers, makeup artists worked for glory. Yes, and Anya does not limp, despite the character she plays, she still plays and this is important.
What do we have on the way out? Fresh, boring and dull movie with a confused narrative, uninteresting and undisclosed characters and idiotic humor, the only advantages of which are Anya Taylor-Joy and his charm and atmosphere.
5 out of 10
Once a year, in early spring, I love revisiting Pride and Prejudice in 2005 with Keira Knightley. This film fills my heart with inexplicable trepidation, hopes and some sweet premonition of something new and beautiful. And after such a regular viewing, I wanted ' to continue the banquet', I caught the eye of Emma's film based on the novel of the same Jane Austen. What this poster with the film has long flashed to me, but either this bright yellow outfit, or the main character depicted on it, why I was pushed away from viewing it. And then on a wave of Pride and prejudice, I turned on Emma and couldn't get away. It was the best 2 hours spent watching a movie recently.
For the first 15 minutes, I tried to remember who was who and what it was. But then I plunged into a wonderful sparkling story about a young girl Emma, who wants from the heart to marry her friend.
In this film, in my opinion, everything is excellent, from the actors to the musical accompaniment. Operator work is above all praise, beautiful shots of nature, estates, even just shots of the main character, admiring the paintings, truly art.
So inspired by the film, I began to read the eponymous creation of Austen, and I want to say that the writers and directors worked for fame, as the film is a lot of beautiful confessions, dialogue and of course subtle English humor. Only the father of the main character is afraid of drafts. If Austin often starts some interesting dialogue, and then somehow rolling it down with a simple description of who answered and what happened next, then in the film it all worked out and did just ' hurrah!'.
Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma is amazing. A sharp curious look, a cunning smile, and such refinement in gestures, dances. In my opinion, besides Taylor-Joy, Gwyneth Peltrow is very suitable for this role, I will probably watch another version of Emma (1996) with her. Kate Winslet (Emma, 1996) looks more like Elizabeth Bennett than Emma. There's no such thing as that.
Johnny Flynn for the role of Mr. Knightley was perfect. Firstly, his character is the same age in the book as the actor, that is, he is an order of magnitude older than Emma, but at the same time he is very young and open plays his role, he can teach Emma, but at the same time joke as her peer.
It is a pleasure to watch their chemistry on the screen, only the dance and the declaration of love I watched 5 times probably, enjoying every moment, every emotion on the faces of the main characters.
Costumes and decorations are also beyond praise, not for nothing they were nominated for the Academy Award.
So, it was nice to dive into the old England of the 19th century. In my review I rash such words as ' Excellent', ' Wonderful', ' Perfect' I just can’t find other words, as I’m still overwhelmed with emotions. There is not even a hint of LGBT in this film, there is no blind casting & #39; there is no modern wild processing. There is a classic, a good old classic, which you watch and relax with your heart and soul. And after watching for a long time there is an easy and pleasant aftertaste, and in thoughts Vivaldi’s melody sounds in the trailer.
Hairstyles, costumes, Anya Taylor-Joy and everything
Missed the mothball screen adaptations of British classics? Watch 'Emma'.
Directors around the world have been trying for decades to make something good based on the cult novel by Jane Austen. And if in the case of ' Pride and prejudice' it turned out (and even more than once), then 'Emme' frankly unlucky.
Theatricality, scenery instead of the plot, unforgettable casting, sophisticated, but having little meaning dialogue and ubiquitous taste ' delightful French bun'. Autumn de Wilde is a Broadway musical director who thinks extremely stereotypically about British. Perhaps that’s why the film came to the islands and failed in American box office.
All the good is essentially in two things: costumes/hairstyle/grim and rising star Ani Taylor-Joy. Over the past year and a half, the girl with indecently sexy eyes took part in four powerful projects at once - the fifth season ' Peaky Blinders' Netflix's ' Queen's Walk' Marvel's ' New Mutants' and, in fact, in ' Emme'. Not a single failure and a tsunami of charisma. And there is still Furios from 'Mad Max' and the bloody princess from the long-awaited ' Northerner'.
In addition to the professional rise of Ani, there is nothing to follow in the film, in principle. But if you are beckoned ' love, champagne, sunsets, alleys' and do not let sleep ' balls, beauties, lackeys, cadets', then perhaps you will not even regret the evening spent.
Somehow it so happened that during the period of my passion for English romance, the work of Jane Austen and its adaptation almost bypassed me. The only exception is the adored, hole-watched and memorized 2005 film Pride and Prejudice. Falling in love with the characters, their history and the atmosphere of the film prompted a reading of the original and... did not go away at all. I watched a couple more adaptations of other novels, but they did not leave a particularly vivid impression. I didn't get to know Miss Austen anymore.
See this film adaptation 'Emma' I was motivated only by the desire to admire Anya and beautiful costumes, especially vivid emotions I did not wait and did not look.
I can divide the film into two parts. The first half is perceived as a theatrical production of some frivolous comedy with cardboard scenery and cartoon characters, in which everything is a bit too much & #39; too much & #39;. Emma easily and cheerfully turns people's fates, a slob Knightley in a gentleman's costume and a farmer's face paternally threatens her with a finger, and the blessed fool Harriet falls in love with everyone she meets. In general, a beautiful and funny spectacle, but not pretending to anything.
And then things change, the characters start to realize their true feelings and, dammit, here it is! These are the emotions that I experienced in my youth, reviewing GP for the hundredth time. Looks, gestures, still unspoken confessions, the space begins to sparkle with tension, the characters gain depth and charisma, make you look at everything with different eyes. A slight chuckle from what is happening fades into the background, and there is the same love that I felt in my youth, dreaming of Mr. Darcy with ten thousand annual income and half of Derbyshire. . .
I liked the movie. Playful, clever, ironic, musical, beautiful English views and exquisite costumes. In my opinion, the creators fully worked off the money that was invested in the film.
Briefly about the plot, this is a classic story about a girl of noble origin, who believes that everything is allowed to her due to her origin and wealth, that she is smarter, more beautiful, gifted of all, freer in thoughts and actions and in this regard can indicate, or rather unequivocally hint at who to do what. It seems that the image of an arrogant arrogant lady is drawn, who should repel, and, nnet, on the contrary, it is pleasant to look at her, it is interesting to listen to her, well, I am sure. So, not only on the old woman, but also on such a young lady there is a hole, which still found and knocked down all the arrogance of the girl.
Regarding the acting, I will say that at first it seemed to me that Anya Taylor-Joy (the one from the “Queen’s Walk”) overplays, but then I understood and realized that this is the idea, because the film is not at all for boring people and yet it transforms the classic, I can assume that Jane Austen’s somewhat initially boring plot. It was funny to see Bill Nighy as a grumpy old aristocrat. One of the scenes of the experience of the romantic hero is generally magical (he runs into his mansion and lies down in the center of the room on the floor, it looks so natural and so well expresses his condition). I don’t know how the love torment of men goes, but if it’s even a drop close to what was shown in the film, then I start to want to marry some new husband again.
I haven’t read the original source or seen the previous film adaptations, so this story is new to me and the way some viewers present information, by the way, will be a reference for me, in the sense that all the “other Emms” I will compare with this film. And that's probably good.
I watched 'Emma' 2020! What can I say? Delicious! It's a funny movie, I've been laughing for two hours! It is grotesque, almost theatrical, but so air-sugar and charming that it ends up being a candy! He is so beautiful, accentuated and ironic!
In short, go ahead and watch!
I can’t be accused of being positively biased because I love the book and I love the adaptation with Gwyneth Paltrow and I was initially determined that I wouldn’t like the movie. But it turns out I found another wonderful reading or even an independent movie.
___
Emma herself is lovely! She's so beautiful, sweet and charming! And I actually had doubts about her: initially Anya Taylor-Joy did not look noble and seemed devoid of some hidden ironic zest, in general, rather superhero. But she's great! Very subtle and accurately got into the image! So cute, so neat, so different!
The best thing about the movie is Mr. Elton. He's incredible! Even now I smile, and when watched, I laughed from every appearance on the screen! He's not disgusting and pathetic like the book, and I think he's just amazing! I just fell in love with the actor (and I saw him in a serious dramatic role - Prince Charles)! He is constantly on the background, and it is so spectacular that it is simply impossible to forget or not to love him!
['Mr. Knightley' (quotes express the degree of my indignation) is an absolute blunder in the construction of the image. He's pretty, shaggy, twitchy - his hands are shaking and his lips are twitching, and he seems seizure-like. (In the post-ball scene, when he runs out to get Emma, I actually thought that ', how unscrupulous she is - took, left, and he ate on his feet standing, he staggers and seems to throw up; could help.) I do not understand the reading of this character. He still looks so young. I understand that nowadays her and Emma's sixteen-year age difference seems ' outrageous' - she's 21, he's 37. But here the actor looks 27, and that's not a compliment. He's not a kid, and with Emma, they didn't expect anything at all. According to Wikipedia, the actor is 37, but it is not noticeable in appearance, behavior, manners or conversations. It was very amusing and even ridiculous to listen to his tedious reproaching of Frank for his short stature and seemingly handsome face. As a character ' on his own', he's good. The actor plays well, the lines are all in place, but it's not Austin's Mr. Knightley. Perhaps starting the film with its hairy legs and bare butt, the creators made it clear that it would be a completely different character. He really looks more like Frank Churchill than Mr. Knightley!
- this is what I wrote after the first viewing, but after the second, I got it. It's just a different character, don't expect the wisdom of a 40-year-old lord. This Mr. Knightley really fits into the film, he is harmonious in it and does not interfere at all.
One of the people I didn’t like was:
Frank Churchill... Um, show me the man who said the actor was so handsome that he had to outplay all the handsome heart-eater books. He pricked me while still playing Anatole Kuragin, but then there were too many minuses to pay attention to this, here ... We can be glad that his role was reduced as much as possible, and the role of Elton was increased. And yes, I think Elton is more handsome, but I'm glad the actor was given a role like this '. But, yes, Churchill is... I don’t even know, he does not cause any feelings, except bewilderment and awkwardness.
Mr. Woodhouse is not canonical, but stunning and still hilarious! Scenes with draft and snowfall are a tower! Just chic, glitter, beauty! John Knightley – irony multiplied by 10 times, it is impossible not to laugh!
Westons are nothing, they're gray mice. There's nothing to say about Harriet and Jane. They are good, but the roles themselves do not involve performances. Mrs. Elton is very similar to Helen Kuragina, especially in the church, and Isabella is played by the failed Julie Karagina.
___
The movie is wonderful! It is beautiful, candy (but without excesses), spectacular and fascinating. It has incredible music! It's just a pleasure! In some moments, the actors blink in time! I have never seen such a perfect combination!
Very beautiful (the word will soon be erased) costumes, Emma's dresses, her hats, bracelets. . .
And the dance scene is gorgeous! Literally all these feelings, sensations, even vibrations were felt, and then ... silence. And you're as hot as heroes. You feel that night, you're drunk!
God, how can scenes full of drama for seven minutes, ending with *, suddenly be interrupted by Emma's (literally) and nosebleed! I held on for exactly two seconds and then I burst out laughing! How can you cross scenes so different in mood?!
___
To sum up, this is 100% not a literal adaptation of the book, it is an adaptation. But suddenly I liked her terribly! Yes, not without some disadvantages, but if the film can be liked, even if the characters from the books are not canon to the bone - it's a success, I believe!
Great movie!
P.S. And in the version with Gwyneth Paltrow, I like Mr. Knightley and Churchill, even if they are not quite canonical there.
P.S.2. It seemed to me that Knightley almost laughed himself after Emma gave up her handkerchief and left.
10 out of 10
We are all people driven by feelings, and even in relation to this work I felt many of them. At first there was a "phi" for why we need another Emma, then curiosity won, a little later on the first scenes there was boredom and triumph of the inner critic about justified expectations about the introduction of fresh but relevant ideas. And a little later, I appreciated the logic in the ideas of writers, directors, and those moments that are cursed by many, seemingly shameful, led to the idea that the new time really requires new thinking. After watching the first time, quite satisfied with the beauty of the picture, the cheerful direct tone of the narrative and the idea of the possibility of the existence of such a film, I creaked my heart put a 7-ring.
But curiosity did not leave me: what was it? After all, it was beautiful before, and then why? Why did they reshoot Emma?
And I began to revise the previous versions ... the result of this marathon was the conclusion that this film adaptation is a slight grin at our attitude to the heroes of the novel, to the previous adaptations, to Jane Austen herself. She had a penchant for literary pranks in her time, so this is the bluemachine of modernity, with the inherent in our time emphasis on the idea of feminism, landing on the urgent, not whitewashing and not concealing the “shameful” physiology. At the same time, in order not to encumber the film and not to turn it into a second “perfume” in the atmosphere, such colors, such music and greater liveliness, if not to say, in some places the puppet character were used. How many reviews of the pathetic “Yes Austin would have turned to the hump!” I think that she expressed her point of view in her works about the ideas of selfishness and hypocrisy.
You do not need to take this film as a truth, as an accurate reproduction of the novel, this is an easy film essay, very worthy of complementing the list Emm.
And about the “plane” of the actors, I sincerely love the British school, reviewing all Emm came to the conclusion that here they are more convex, relief and lively, and probably it is too much for the “classical” film adaptation, they are too out of the canvas of the narrative, but this is the beauty that we can experiment.
After watching interviews with actors, directors, scenes behind the scenes, I did not doubt the deep love of the latter for the work of Jane Austen, and the more I found evidence that this is all just a subtle irony in relation to society today. Who better to let the British play with their cultural code? Knowing what facets can sometimes lead to “new rethinking”, this is a very soft, kind and stylish embodiment. Summarizing, for the initial acquaintance with Emma - of course, the book, then the BBC miniseries 2009, and then ... at all will of the viewer. I consider this version not at all decadent, fervent and appropriate to the time. I have changed my mind:
It seems, ' Emma' will soon surpass GIP in the number of adaptations, and no wonder: the plot is very close to modern women who like to stick their nose in other people's affairs and then regret it. However, quantity is not particularly keen on quality, and that is sad.
No, well, honestly, you have to manage to distort the work.
About the poor selection of actors here has been said many times, there is no point in repeating. No character has resonated in my heart like ' the very same'.
But so frivolous to interpret the plot ... Poor Austin turned over in her grave. Suction kisses - OK, let's say it's a movie, after all. Thank you for not getting to bed, but we still had to see the naked ass of both heroes. As well as blood from the nose, farting baby and other naturalistic details that did not give any value to the film.
The final straw for me was the fact that Emma was going to Robert Martin and talking to him. It is very interesting to know whether the screenwriter knows at all that an English lady would never in her life talk to a man who is not officially introduced to her by anyone?
I can only praise costumes and decorations.
In my top 'Emm' this version will be even lower than Hollywood with Gwyneth Paltrow.
The best ones are still a series with Romola Garai and a movie with Kate Beckinsale.
New curious cinema variation of the classic plot of the novel by Jane Austen, which is abundantly musical, seasoned with wonderful English landscapes, matchless in all respects costumes. All actors are good, although they are like naughty puppets, have come out of the hands of the director and play their own play. Excellent camera work, excellent light, wonderful scenery. Interesting ending.
Alas, the work of Jane Austen is not musical at all, and the novel itself is a strong text that seems to flow into the mind of the reader, filling it with detailed household information. In the book, you will be stuck in a higher society, learn to understand it, navigate it, conduct a conversation, keep up with answers and keep up with questions, accurately respond and carefully monitor the behavior of others, be polite. And after another meeting or conversation, together with the heroine, mentally or in a private conversation, once again prosper important and give assessments to the interlocutors. You will find English life abundantly in the book. But in this film there is no private atmosphere from Austin, there is no almost provincial life of society. However, the play of Ani Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn is interesting, their pleasant duet will not let you get bored to watch the film to the end. Thank you.
Beautiful expensive costumes and scenery, perfectly conveying the mood of that era.
Supporting actors play great, all great professionals.
The play of the main character of Mr. Knightley performed by Johnny Flynn also in the acting plan does not cause complaints. The only thing, I think, could find the actor nicer, although it is a matter of taste.
Now for the bad:
Emma is a proud but kind and friendly young lady. At the same time, in the film, her vanity is not smoothed out and because of this, the main character does not cause sympathy. In contrast to the same main character who was able to win over. It seems that neither the director nor the writer does not like the work of Jay Austen. They tried ' picking up ' the plot of the film is completely out of place adding a few nudity scenes there. And this is not the nudity where you think: Oh, wow, wow! This nudity was from the series: why? And then in the scene with the explanation of the main characters added a nasty surprise... It is also not boring, according to their idea.
Overall, the film evokes conflicting emotions. On the one hand, they seem to play well and tried their best with the scenery, and on the other hand, the director seemed to want to add some completely unnecessary details to the clearly debugged mechanism. Therefore, in my opinion, it turned out not a new / fresh reading, but an unpleasant vinaigrette.
How could you recruit such actors? I asked myself this question throughout the film. I am very fond of Jane Austen’s novels, so the film adaptations rarely please me. And their success is directly related to the successful choice of actors. This movie is a disaster!
I would say the selection committee was just disgusting and named their relatives and acquaintances, there is nothing more to explain.
The main thing was to attract famous actors for the cover, here you and the new star Taylor-Joy and character Bill Nighy (although his interpretation of Mr. Woodhouse was revolutionary and strange) and Rupert Graves (with his perplexed look Lestrade), they were all not so bad. But the rest of the guys... They ruined everything.
Summarizing the relative advantages:
After all, they worked very well on the visual, the picture is beautiful, the costumes are good, except for this yellow range of Mr. Knightley - a kind of Tom Bombadil in a yellow jacket jumps through the fields, it does not fit with the dandy era.
But it was not clear why the difference in the clothes of Miss Woodhouse and Miss Bates was not emphasized, the latter dressed in the same way as the rich family. That Bates poor guess only when Mr. Knightley mentions it.
And I also liked the music, the classical and even something baroque sound.
Cons:
1. Oh, Mr. Knightley! Everyone who wants to film Emma needs to learn that this is the main character of the novel, he is the chosen one of the main character, you need to pick up a second Mr. Darcy! An English gentleman with a firm character, pleasant, educated, intelligent and noble, of course he must be pleasant to the eye! In short, an attractive man should turn out, because in the novel everyone respected, appreciated and loved and admired him.
What do we see here? What did he do in the audition? Well, if there is no charisma, then it would be fine for a beautiful face, so no! He is terrible, not quite of course, but he is nothing, I can only explain it by nepotism.
2. Harriet. She has to be pretty, you can say this with a stretch, and she has absolutely no eyebrows. It turned out to be a completely uninteresting cry for Myrtle.
3. Frank Churchill is completely unmemorable, plays poorly, kind of burrow-eared, generally unattractive, and in the book he was a handsome dandy.
4. Mr. Elton. The actor played so badly that he laughed during the recognition in the carriage, and it was not a nervous smile from excitement, no he and Anya burned, and then he screamed like a hysterical: stop, stop, you need to get out.
5. Jane. Here she is so sloppy, she is not in this movie at all, Emma considered her a rival in the book, here no one will remember what she looked like, what she said and did.
I’m tired of listing, you all understand.
England, an unnamed village. In the huge mansion, the remains of the Woodhouse family pass through the days: an aging father and daughter are actually Emma. Young Miss Woodhouse’s companion governess recently left home because of her marriage, and now nothing helps the main character fight the oppressive provincial boredom. Then Emma meets (as it turns out, illegitimate) a boarding school pupil to arrange her life: it is Miss Woodhouse, you can say, arranged the marriage of her former governess, which, incidentally, the film reports only hints: this fact is taken from the book; however, now Emma is confident in her pimping abilities. The only one who knows about the rich girl's fascination is Mr. Knightley - a young neighbor, a friendship-foe with whom runs through the whole picture.
So, the film 'Emma.', based on the novel of the same name, is not its first film adaptation, but the ninth in a row. The novel, in turn, has long been considered a masterpiece and classic of English and world literature, a bright representative of the so-called "Women's Novel" & #39; And this, at the moment - the last, its adaptation comes out just in 2020 - the year when the ball of the world community is ruled by feminist ideas. All these circumstances are related to the new 'Emmu.' with the new 'Little Women', released in the American rental only two months earlier: a quote from there and made into the title of the review. Both films are based on novels about women written by women in the XIX century, both explore women’s fate and the possibilities of a woman’s influence on her own and others’ lives.
Corresponding to the agenda, the external conflict of the patriarchal environment and the freedom-loving woman is revealed in ' Little Women', 'Emma.' on the contrary, it is based on adaptation to the somewhat subservient position of a woman. Summarizing: in 'Little women' the heroine fights for release from the obligation to marry and give the same heroine of his feeding the whole film of the novel, but she is not interested in renouncing marriage in general, namely overcoming the stereotype. For Emma, marriage is not a problem: her device for other people she devotes, if not life at first, then at least time; Ms. Woodhouse herself is not going to start a family because she can not leave her father, but in general, Emma treats the idea of marriage calmly, without strained and semi-exhausted anger. Thus, 'Little women' and 'Emma' demonstrate on the moral and ideological field at first different approaches to life, each of which may well make a person happy, which is especially relevant in an era when the process of female emancipation and the endless struggle for any rights or concessions think more than about simple human happiness, which originally stands at the head of any of the positions outlined in these pictures. And 'Little Women' and 'Emma.' there are excellent examples of live cinema that deliberately exists in the territory of modern trends, not in isolation from them, and offers its own view of what is happening in the world at the moment and on the scale of eternity.
But even with the freedom to look at the subject,
'Emma.' retains the overall conservativeness of the film adaptation. It stands out only due to the creativity and wit of the director’s look. The film was shot by photographer Autumn de Wilde, a debutant who previously worked on music videos and advertising. From famous works: triptych 'Son of the Postman' for Prada. Elinor Catton is responsible for turning the novel into a script. Actually, these two are mostly responsible for belonging 'Emma.' to the genre of comedy. The sharp, funny script is perfectly complemented by fascinating directing and staging, containing many visual jokes and funny mise-en-scene. Operator Chris Blovelt, working under the guidance of a director-photographer, also creates a lot of aesthetic shots, which in some cases, as they say, can be hung on the wall. The brightness and color of the picture is exacerbated by color correction, chosen as a result by the director. Thus, the entire visual component is perfectly executed and perfectly complements and enhances the script, adding lightness and airiness to the film.
Acting is pleasing. Anya Taylor-Joy unexpectedly falls into the image and talentedly embodies a young vanity rich woman. Her main partner on stage - Johnny Flynn, playing Mr. Knightley - looks much better in a comedy role than, say, in a serious & #39; Beast': there his image faded and not memorable. The secondary roles are also perfectly performed: Mia Goth in the image of a boarding school pupil, in fact, plays Mia Goth, as always, but it is here that it turns out to be even fitting. Just two actors from 'Sexual education': Connor Swindells and Tanya Reynolds both perfectly play their not the most noticeable parts, and the comedic appearance of Bill Nighy can not but please.
Characterizing the paintings that tell about the aristocratic society of the XIX century and its earlier examples, it should be noted that the model of such a society involves a lot of different restrictions in the behavior of people who are designed to make communication and communication in general more convenient and reduce the likelihood of the origin of uncomfortable situations, but in the end, restrictions create a specific framework. Therefore, the main action always occurs not in plain sight, but in the views of people, the smallest details of behavior, and this action appears outward, pops up in an open dialogue or action not so often. Cinema is primarily an art of half-hints, leaving most of the content unspeakable and silent details: all this the viewer can only think. Due to this similarity in organics, the surroundings 'Emmes.' and the chosen method of embodiment of the material perfectly fit each other.
So, 'Emma.' - the movie is genuinely joyful, fervent and, despite the change of seasons within the film, exclusively summer.
I’m not one of those people who thinks that the grass was greener, all the good movies have already been made, and the stories are told. On the contrary, as a big fan of the original 1815 novel Emma, I was looking forward to the next film adaptation. The choice of actors at first seemed quite controversial, but it turned out that they play quite well. The bad thing about this movie was different. I didn’t see Ana Taylor-Joy as the self-confident, open-minded, cheerful Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Knightley is the same trouble. I understand that to embody on the screen the image of an English gentleman with impeccable manners, friendly, immensely busy with the affairs of Donwell Abbey, but always finding time for his close friends, it is not easy. I didn't expect full compliance, no. There would be no apparent contradiction. And there was a contradiction. Instead of the book Mr. Knightley, we were shown a disgruntled, depressed, dissatisfied with the life of an unpleasant person. Not even able to dress yourself! Believe me, a person who has read this novel more than a dozen times, this is not what Jane Austen’s Emma was about. The well-off Mr. Knightley, who, even in inclement weather, preferred walking over carriage, was certainly able to dress himself. Was this totally inappropriate scene necessary? If in dialogue the film follows the book quite accurately, then these silent scenes, added to it to show us the author’s vision, seemed to me to put it mildly ambiguous. Yes, there's on-screen chemistry between Anya Taylor-Joy and Johnny Flynn, they're really trying. But this is not a mutual respect that is established between people who have known each other all their lives and have a difference of 16 years. The scene at the ball, after which the characters rethinked their relationship with each other, plunged me into even greater perplexity. I won’t go into details in order not to accidentally reveal the details of the plot, but it was not the best decision. To reduce the mutual interest of these two to such a primitive desire is not at all in the spirit of the original work. Again, the author's vision, let's say. Otherwise, the picture is very pleasant to the eye, the music is suitable, the outfits are interesting. Of the secondary characters, there is no one to mention. The outcome was sad for me personally. If Emma isn't Emma at all, and Mr. Knightley isn't Knightley at all, then what is all this about? I'll read the novel again, and watch the 1996 film adaptation with Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role.
Screening the classics, the creators face a difficult task: how to make a fresh, commercial movie without desecrating the original? In my opinion, the team, the main of which (director and screenwriter) are women, succeeded.
'Emmu' filmed many times and many versions are very successful. But what I love about modern interpretations of classical literature is its boldness and lightness. The trend ' to modernize' characters, to give them the emotions and mannerisms inherent in our century seems to me very attractive and funny. Let’s not forget that the main characters are young people who can forget and allow themselves some looseness in behavior. Of course, Jane Austen's novels, which I love a lot, don't have the ignorance that the characters in this film allow themselves. But we all know that the writer herself was not averse to mocking the order in her modern society. And, screenwriter Eleanor Cutton, quite carefully treated the original.
The cast was selected successfully. The name Ani Taylor-Joy is now on the ears and for good reason. The talented play of the actress perfectly shows the image of a complacent rich woman, but it is difficult to believe in the image of a repentant lover. And Mr. Knightley is a little different than we used to imagine, but also very interesting. Characteristic characters Miranda Hart and Bill Nighy came out funny and frivolous, so that the audience was not bored.
Well, the most beautiful thing in the film is costumes, camera work and musical accompaniment. In general, the work of the production artist was done with great skill. Costumes, interiors, landscapes look great, the eye rejoices! And it wouldn't work that way if you didn't try the operator. The symmetry of the frame, the plans from above, the frozen camera - that's what distinguishes this film adaptation from the rest! The change of frames shows the modernity, dynamics and ease of the film. Authentic costumes of the era, on which well worked and which are pleasant to look at, as well as the corresponding instrumental and vocal music, performed with great skill - all this immerses us in the atmosphere of the brilliant aristocracy of the Regency.
I liked the movie, I recommend watching it. But people not familiar with the work of Jane Austen, it is better to see first 'Emma' 1996.
9 out of 10
I was really looking forward to this movie and was a bit disappointed.
If we consider this film as a separate story, it is not bad. Funny, easy. Just what you need after a hard day.
But if we look at it as a film adaptation, it's not good. Too much farce. This is no longer the world of my beloved Jane Austen.
If you take the cast, then, in my opinion, Jane is beautifully selected. Emma looks just as good. If you take purely external data.
Of course, beauty is very subjective, but still. Frank's supposed to be pretty, which I didn't see in an actor. Everyone has different tastes, but there are such types as Brad Pete, about whom no one will turn their tongue to say that he is not beautiful. Not human, yes, but not ugly. So is Mr. Elton. He should be a nice and beautiful young man. But personally, he immediately caused negative emotions with his appearance.
It is worth mentioning Knightley separately. It's one of my favorite male characters, and it got so messed up. There's nothing in his looks or behavior like an impeccable gentleman. The kissing scene proves that. The real Mr. Knightley would never kiss Emma with her father in front of her like some high school kid. And even more so about the perfect inconsistency of Knightley’s cinematic behavior, the gentleman says a scene in which Mr. Knightley invites Garriet for a walk, only to anger Emma. Knightley! Who so condemned Elton and helped Garriet in a difficult moment. This is a real abuse of the poor character.
Fortunately, I’ve watched all the movies since this one. And now I think I'd like Keira Knightley with her battered McFaden if I'd seen it before the legendary BBC version. But something convinces me that the absurdity of the film would have alienated in any case.
This is just the opposite situation. Half a ton of looks, against the background of stunningly appropriate musical accompaniment, not to mention all the arranged visual series, and even real blood in the final scene - all this was appropriate and harmonious.
Maybe the author has already cursed all the participants of these sketches, but after this beautiful and dynamic film to withstand the early versions was torment. And from the unreliability of the play of actresses who played some other, not similar to the book, Emma, and from the repulsive uglyness of Knightley (also against the background of bad acting work of some of them).
Later it turned out that the actors of the current fresh film are very friendly to this day, and spent a pleasant time on the set for everyone, in one acting impulse, so to speak.
Probably confused only Harriet, and then only the fact that the actress is cute, but obviously ugly. Plays a stupid girl who is not even stupid, very convincing.
As for the main characters, Knightley is expressive in most scenes, although in the film it was really tried to portray with youthful fervor suddenly surging feelings, this may have been somewhat exaggerated. Well, Emma frankly does not cause sympathy at the beginning of the film, but everything changes, and although (as in the book) there is no special transformation of the image (although she becomes much more humble), it turns out that, in general, she is quite tolerable. It does not turn into a pocket baby, but it is even more pleasant that without this sugary falsehood.
In general, the lack of history of previous views played a role.
Shot by the photographer, the next adaptation of the novel by Austin from the first minutes makes you pay attention to the details and do not take your eyes off the palette and costumes. All the outfits of the characters are thought out to the smallest detail: so, rich Emma wears yellow - an expensive dye and at the same time distinguishes her from others due to the brightness and associations with Disney princesses. However, everything, thanks to the pastel scale, creates a sense of fairy tale. Here is a hipster-cut farmer with clean clothes and costume, the cover of which is envied by Guy Ritchie, and a heroine who resembles the Beast with his lion's mane.
You can pause every minute and take a photo. But the aesthetic side isn’t the whole movie, although that’s why many people love Wes Anderson. The plot almost literally follows the book, there are no radical interpretations here. But unlike Emma' 96th, caste is younger, which creates more 'romcomic' perception. It is a pleasure to watch and feel the joy of recognizing Tanya Reynolds, in which teenagers recognize Lily from 'Sex education'.
The film is very frivolous and does not pretend to be deep and ' psychological' that can be considered as a rough reading of the original and careless work with the material and script in order to make the target audience younger (and young people are not familiar with Jane Austen), and a pleasant pastime for one evening - sit, flip through a fashion magazine and listen to a good neoclassical parody of Burgess harpsichord. As a second, I would consider it.
As much as I like Jane Austen's novels, I don't (mostly) like their adaptations. The saddest fate, in my opinion, befell Emma. And here. This is another failed attempt to bring a great novel to the big screen. This film version is distinguished by bright colors (in the interior, clothes), exquisite outfits, surprisingly unsuccessful casting, so adapted scenario in which white crows roar vilely violence and out of place attracted vulgar moments with an erotic background. For example, Mr. Knightley's overly detailed dressing and Emma's naked ass could easily be omitted. During these moments, I was openly ashamed. In fact, what Austin's novels have been read for two centuries is missing from this film. With all the desire in “Emma dot” do not find interesting psychological portraits of the characters, simplicity and harmony of the plot, magnificent satire on manners and the complete absence of even a hint of vulgarity.
Emma Woodhouse is Austin’s most controversial heroine. Of all the protagonists, Emma can easily be criticized for her actions, even for her thoughts, but for all her imperfections, Miss Woodhouse conquers the reader with her immediacy, vitality and beauty not only externally. Emma drives the plot of one of Austin's easiest and funniest stories. And the way it's adapted is unpleasantly surprising. Perhaps Mrs. Allen would appreciate such attention to clothing, style and material, and a complete lack of interest in content, but I was so depressing about costumes and decor, while completely ignoring important points. Emma performed by Ani Taylor-Joy does not look interesting in itself, not in a duet with Mr. Elton, Frank Churchill, or Mr. Knightley. With the latter, by the way, the scenes looked particularly pathetic. Maybe because we saw the most deplorable Mr. Knightley in film history? And it's not just Flynn's good-looking, but his unworthy behavior as a gentleman, a man. A hysterical, impulsive, stupid boy is a complete mockery of the image. The heroes were vulgarized, and the action itself was lowered to the level of low-grade vaudeville. Here, if they take a child in their arms, then he will surely shit himself, if we confess love, then we will erase like five-graders, and divide the grooms for the amusement of the viewer. This, indeed, “Emma dot”, because after such a performance there is no desire to waste time on the next adaptation of the novel.