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.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie (see options below)?
Pick your answer from:
(A). negative
(B). positive...I think the answer is
(A).