GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

m-kavakebi this isn't about the movie. this is about the person suggested it to me. besides its a wonderful romantic movie for most of the girls, I guaranty; i as a man can't stand wondering how beautiful i can see through a lively woman's eyes. thank you director. thank you my special subject.

SimonJack It's interesting that as of April 2017, IMDb fans rate this 2009 BBC TV mini-series an average of 8.2 – the highest of all the "Emma" stories ever made for the silver screen or TV. Yet it's the least of the lot of the films generally available. This late rendition comes nowhere near the 1972 BBC mini-series. And, compared to the best of the "Emma" films (1996, Gwyneth Paltrow), this one is no better than fair. The critics of the day saw the inferiority of the script and the weak casting. Most of the performances just weren't that good. This series has three glaring shortcomings. One is the more serious overtones of the script, which tend to diminish the humor in those scenes when it should be paramount. Another is the modern touch to the culture of 19th century England in the manners of Emma and others. The last is the casting. Romola Garai is fair as Emma, but no better than just fair. And, most of the casting after that misfires. Mr. Knightly is supposed to be 17 years older than Emma, but Jonny Lee Miller looks close to her age. Most of the young characters in this series appear to be very young – barely out of their teens. Michael Gambon is a fine actor, but his Mr. Woodhouse isn't nearly as genuine as is that played by Donald Eccles in the 1972 series. Again, it likely is due to a script rendition that seems to steer to a plot that is both more serious, modern and then silly in its humor. This contention gives the story a feeling of uneasiness. Whereas the earlier series and the 1996 film with Gwyneth Paltrow move along smoothly between the serious notes and the humor, with the humor dominating them, as most scholars, students and fans of Austen think she intended.One suspects that many who saw this late rendition of Austen's wonderful comedy of manners, probably had not seen other productions. Many probably were young and just being introduced to a broadcast or film of Austen's novel. Those who rated it so highly surely would enjoy the other productions. And, after viewing the 1972 TV miniseries and the 1996 Paltrow film, viewers would be able to make fair comparisons. At the very least, I recommend the 1996 movie, which is readily available on DVD. That film is sure to delight anyone who enjoyed this just fair 2009 production. It's the best "Emma" made to date, and one that will be hard to top in the future. This is one that the BBC had best not attempt to outdo – even though it's not a BBC product.

jjnxn-1 Richly produced, endearing version of the Jane Austen classic, Romola is spirited and charming in the title role with Jonny Lee Miller a most desirable and solid Mr. Knightley. While it is a fine rendering the excellent Gwyneth Paltrow version cast a shadow over this if you've seen it. Again the leads are very good and although different are a fine match who inhabit the characters fully. Where this version falls short is the supporting cast, they are professional but don't really stand out as Polly Walker, Toni Collette and Ewan MacGregor did in the 1996 film. The one who comes closest is Jodhi May as Mrs. Weston but still Greta Scacchi had a knowing stillness that is missing. The one who is really missed is the matchless Sophie Thompson who was a brilliant Miss Bates, it would be impossible to improve on her classic performance and the actress who essays the role here doesn't try, giving a much more recessive interpretation which while good is rather colorless. Taken on it's own though without comparisons to the other version this is a very solid BBC offering.

Monseigneur Romola Garai portrays Emma to near perfection: youthful, smiling, vain, open-tempered and playful. The natural relationship between her and Mr. Knightley was so well done I cannot help but admire the actors' unabashed characterisation of two people who I don't believe were ever meant to be glamorous - but real and flawed and nevertheless endearing.For those who argue that Romola Garai's Emma is too expressive, casual, unladylike etc. I'm afraid you should do a little more research into the times. Firstly, as an independent woman of ample means, her behaviour would have been regarded as unusual - at most - but not unacceptable or scandalous. Even 'eccentric' behaviour in rich people was accepted in Victorian England - BECAUSE they were rich! The middle classes did not have as much wealth, and therefore had to concentrate more on correct manners as a way to gain notice and status in society. It was not unheard of for some wealthy ladies to behave 'as they liked' e.g. have a frank and forthright manner, ride/walk alone, wear unfashionable dresses (compare Emma's over-simple dress to Mrs. Elton's Wedding Cake and lace confections!). And I would recommend that in any time period the diversity of personalities should allow for an Emma such as the one of Romola Garai's portrayal.This version of Emma discards cardboard cut-out stiff upper lip acting for vibrancy, life and authenticity. It remains true to the spirit of the book so lovers of Emma should be well satisfied that their favourite scenes from the book are adapted smoothly and enjoyably. I was highly gratified to see natural people on screen with real reasons for what they did (forgive me, but Gwyneth Paltrow's 1996 Emma I recently viewed again and was nearly put off by the stiff jointed stiff paced affected script and acting).I really felt keenly for Miss Bates and for Emma's father, as opposed to finding them (as they have been interpreted in the past) one dimensional, annoying and almost superfluous characters.And I was very taken, I who have read Emma more times than I can remember, that this version highlighted something that was new even to me. The Loneliness of the characters. There was a running theme of loneliness that was deftly threaded through the script: Miss Bates' loneliness as she cares for a silent mother in increasing poverty; Emma's loneliness after Miss Taylor leaves her to marry Mr Western, that drives her to seek Harriet as a friend; not to mention the more obvious loneliness of Jane Fairfax, who must remain reserved in the presence of Frank Churchill, and who could easily have been friends with Emma, but cannot bring herself to share her secret to a woman who is so apparently a rival for his affections.This version is by far the best I have ever seen. I am always partial to Mark Strong's Mr Knightley in the Kate Beckinsale version, but overall the script, casting, characterisation and pacing of this Emma surpasses all.