Review of Emma

Emma (2009)
1/10
Disappointing
25 January 2010
Very disappointing. Much of the fault lies with the portrayal of the title character by Romola Garai, a portrayal whose success is obviously critical to the story. I am not sure how much of the blame lies directly with the actress (who I have enjoyed in other adaptations, such as Nicholas Nickleby and Daniel Deronda) or with her director. But Garai's goofy, over-the-top mannerisms and grotesquely contorted facial expressions - such as that boxlike grimace of a grin - transform Emma from a character that is supposed to be capricious yet likable into an obnoxious, appalling clown whose face begs to be punched out. The sophisticated charm and refinement combined with a mischievous nature which is essential for the role is missing much too often.

At four hours, this version is also far too long for the material, and too many scenes feel as if they are just there to fill up the time, causing the entire story to drag and lose the momentum it desperately needs. Too many awkward moments caused by a lack of chemistry between characters doesn't help either.

I am also amazed that for a movie made in 2009, the production values at times are like a made-for-TV production from 20 years ago. This is especially noticeable during some of the ballroom scenes where the dancing is taking place in impossibly bright interiors, with studio lights from above casting harsh shadows across faces, when one would expect the room to be softly illuminated with the warm glow of candelight. The harsh lighting may be a reason why Romola Garai does not appear as attractive here as in her other films.

At any rate, this version falls far short of Doug McGrath's 1996 version. McGrath's version is far more entertaining, charming and even touching while remaining faithful to the spirit of the Jane Austen novel in a much shorter amount of time.
54 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed