Change Your Image
KurotsutaMurasaki
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Jane Eyre (1970)
A Decent Adaptation for its Time
This 1970 adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is one that I recently found out about and was very interested to sit down and watch. It brings together several components familiar from my childhood: a John Williams score which, even in a 1970 period drama, contains some faint but unmistakable signatures that I recognized from Star Wars, Harry Potter and Indiana Jones; and the lead actors, first known to me as Mr. Scrooge and Mrs. Cratchit from 1984's "A Christmas Carol".
On the whole, this is a fairly good adaptation for how much was cut and how rushed the pacing was - but it did not exceed my expectations. If I were to sum it up in a word, I would say "adequate".
First things first - the cast: Susannah York was a very capable actress. Her Jane is confident, seemingly fearless and not only knows her own mind, but speaks it, boldly and often. She didn't quite capture Bronte's heroine; though that's not entirely her fault (Screenwriter and Director are also to blame) her forceful flavor is unmistakable and, if I'm honest, out of place.
In many ways as vital to the standard of any adaptation as Jane, is Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester. George C. Scott, though too old, was not physically a bad choice. Mr. Rochester is not tall, has broad shoulders, a distinctive nose and a grim jaw: Scott ticks all of these boxes. I must say however that his darker moods are somewhat lost in the screenplay, despite lashing out once or twice, he misses much of the tension in Jane and Rochester's more intimate scenes.
The rest of the cast is quite good with one notable exception - and this one case may be the worst thing about this adaptation: Ian Bannen's St. John Rivers. St. John is stern, even cold, but he's got kindness in him and he's not TOTALLY unapproachable. This portrayal of St. John seems... frankly unhinged. He lurks and stalks in ways that are just plain creepy. I was uncomfortable whenever Jane was alone with him. His lines are either hissed or shouted, rather than spoken and his proposal to Jane made him appear completely insane and honestly frightening. My internal monologue through the whole scene was "Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope!" The way he threw his arms around Jane in a vice-like grip made me fear for her. I almost thought he was going to hurl himself off the outcropping and take her with him. Honestly, he seemed more deranged than BERTHA! It's an insult to a genuinely fascinating and complex character that I'm really very fond of.
Other obvious complaints lie in the rushed pacing, the important scenes such as literally all of the Gateshead material being completely amputated from the story, and shortened dialogue.
It's almost impossible to compare adaptations made earlier than the 80's to the more recent offerings simply because of the way movie making has changed, so I'd like to say it's a good adaptation for its time. In the grand scope, it's far from the worst version out there and really only starts to hit it's pitfalls in the last 20 minutes.
Jane Eyre (2011)
A Masterpiece to Match the Source Material and Far Surpass it's predecessors in both Soul and Heart
Every review is colored by the personal opinions and preferences of those who write them. I am no exception. I have seen several adaptations of Jane Eyre, and have lately read the novel for the first time in order to have a more full understanding of the story and make informed judgments about the versions I watch.
Jane Eyre (2011) is not a perfect adaptation, but of the ones I have watched (2006, 1983, 1996 and 1944) this version stands head and shoulders above the rest. The casting could not have been more impeccable. Mia Wasikowska was chosen for the role of Jane because of her ability to observe as a character and to portray inward emotions without being theatrical. She is also physically suitable for the role, being small, plain and fair.
Michael Fassbender may not have the uncommonly broad-chest, jetty brows and hair, or dark eyes described by Bronte, but he is also not conventionally handsome - his features are appropriately rough-hewn. His attractiveness lies in his charisma, not his looks. He was chosen for the role because he captured well the spirit of Bronte's flawed hero. Admittedly, some of his harsher moods were played down; though, due to the condensed nature of the adaptation (It is a film after all - were it a mini-series I would not excuse it), I think it was not a bad decision - anything more would be jarring in the time the film was allowed.
The chemistry between the leading actors lends tension which is absent in other adaptations, making those versions less engaging and believable.
This beautiful film is carried by an equally beautiful and fitting score. The haunting string accompaniments were always well placed and lent to the Gothic air, once again, without being so theatrical as to overwhelm, and not so dark as to ruin the tone of a love scene.
The dialogue, while slightly altered so as to make it less cumbersome for the screen has been criticized by some as being "Simplified". I would like to rebut by saying that while altered, it is still accurate to the period and the most important passages were preserved accurately, if not totally verbatim.
I applaud Cary Fukunaga's decision to use only what lighting the fire and candles in the sets provided - it really puts into perspective just how very dark everything was in this time period. The fires cast long shadows which added to the dark aspects of the tale.
I have seen it criticized - it has been called gray, dull, inaccurate, simplified and lacking in passion, heart or the Gothic aspect of the novel. And to my way of thinking, those who describe this film as such must indeed lack any sense of subtlety. Flamboyance is not the sum total of a Gothic tale.
The beauty of this film lies not in the colors or flamboyance that other versions have offered as a cheap trick to imitate passion. It lies, rather, in the tension of the in-between moments. HOW can anyone watch Fassbender's Rochester cling to Jane on the brink of despair as Jane herself struggles internally with the battle between her morals and her desires and say that this film lacks the soul or heart of other versions?! I put it to you that this film has as much soul and full as much heart. Those who cannot see beyond a gray landscape and a bleak tone, and miss the fantastic artistry of this film, Bronte's work brought to life as no other adaptation has managed before, completely misses the true nature of Jane's story.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
A movie, based on a novel... based on a novel.
There are good things about this film. There are also some things very, very wrong with it.
As one who is a History nerd, and a fan of the original novel AND someone who also enjoys the concept of a empire waist gown that can be swept aside to access a bladed weapon strapped to a Regency lady's stocking thigh, I had certain expectations (Some of them not very high).
I was rather surprised at how well they handled some things. The Dialogue (at least on Darcy's part) wasn't as terribly dumbed down as I had feared. I was particularly fond of Darcy's admiration of Elizabeth's form and figure while fighting (The comment about her arms being muscular, but no so much as to be unfeminine" particularly tickled me) and the translation of Elizabeth and Darcy's verbal sparring into actual physical sparring in Darcy's proposal scene truly impressed me. The lines were well placed and well executed. In all (apart from some casting objections) the first half of the movie was pretty darn solid.
Lily James was just not a good choice for Elizabeth Bennett. She's not a very good actress to be honest. Again - I KNOW this is not a straight up adaptation of Pride And Prejudice, but as these characters ARE based on those of that novel they must, by necessity, follow the behaviors and action of those characters, or what is the point in naming the film "Pride and Prejudice" when Jane Austen fans everywhere object to its mere existence, and the average Zombie movie attendee probably wouldn't know who Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy are anyway.
Elizabeth is spunky, and uncommonly tomboyish for her time to be sure, but she is also best known for her SENSE. She's got some very strong opinions about Darcy when she meets him yes, but P&P&Z Lizzie is so headstrong as to seem silly and mediocre. What makes her even stranger to the casual viewer is that she is SO vocal about her opinions on Darcy from the offset, that when Darcy insults her looks, she behaves like a teenage girl who's biggest crush called her fat at the prom, it seems a bit stupid.
What is more, Jane clearly shows more Zombie Slaying mettle than Elizabeth. When faced with the undead remains of a mother and baby, she, while horrified, doesn't let sentimentality cloud her sense and dispatches them (I assume - the screen goes black and cuts away as the zombies charge - as she survives the encounter, her only wound being a scorch mark on her hand where her musket backfired)
Sam Riley is passable as Darcy. He does carry off the character as an experienced Zombie hunter; His one great defect in the role is the fact that Darcy, while an expert at Undead Slaying, is also a Gentleman of distinction and pride. Sam Riley simply isn't genteel enough for the role.
Mrs. Bennett wasn't sensational enough, and an over-the-top version of this character with many a loud, EXASPERATED exclamation of "OH, MR BENNETT!" was very much called for, and was not delivered. My only complaint on the count Charles Dance as the dry Mr. Bennett, is that there wasn't enough of him.
And while I love the idea of Lady Catherine DeBurgh being an eye-patch bearing warrior woman played by Lena Headey, she would have been much more entertaining if they had included some of Lady Catherin's more ridiculous lines which would have given Lena some irresistible opportunities to be her Headey-est and chew the scenery in high dudgeon. What is worse, we don't even get to see Lady Catherin and Lzzie fully duke it out, which Lady Catherin DOES directly challenge Elizabeth to combat in the novel (The zombie novel, that is, not Miss Austen's original work.
Matt Smith as the odious Mr. Collins! He might be one of the best, most delightfully cringe-worthy incarnations of the oily parson I've ever seen.
As with all things, it's where the story strayed from the source material that it began to feel shaky. The latter half of this movie is not only a disgrace to Jane Austen's novel, but even of the direct source material, which, rather than taking the characters of Pride and Prejudice and dropping them in a Zombie Apocalypse (I mean that Literally - A (Suposedly)Biblical Apocalypse, except with zombies, simply sets the plot of the original novel in its entirety against the backdrop of a Zombie infested Regency England.
The second half is when it really starts to fall apart. There are some aspects which were wholly unnecessary and go absolutely nowhere. One of the things that really annoys me about adaptations like this is that important characters from the second half of the story, such as Darcy's beloved sister Georgiana, are mentioned due to the use of canon dialogue early on, but are promptly forgotten. After Darcy's initial mention of her as being one of the few truly accomplished ladies of his acquaintance, other than a cameo in a flashback, she's never mentioned again, let alone seen.
The name of Darcy's estate in Derbyshire, Pemberly, is never even mentioned.
Personal issues with the film:
In this Zombie Apocalypse re-imagining of Regency England, young people are sent by their families to study the martial arts of the Orient. Those of wealthy aristocratic families generally receive their training in Japan, while slightly lower class families receive training in China. There seems to be an implication that Mr. Bennett is wiser than other families in sending the girls to train in China as opposed to the flashier Japanese masters with their fancy katanas. I object to this view, as the bladed slicing weapons used in Japanese martial arts are probably more efficient for killing zombies than the straight bladed weapons, staffs and hand-to-hand combat practiced by the Shaolin.
Death Comes to Pemberley (2013)
Fanfiction Comes to Pemberly
Let me just preface this by saying that I am a fan of both Anna Maxwell Martin and Matthew Rhys. Anna is a beautiful, wonderful actress. I've found her enjoyable in Bleak House (2005) and The Bletchley Circle. Matthew is a talented, insanely attractive Welshman with a beautiful, robust singing voice (as evidenced in the Mystery of Edwin Drood). They are both very skilled at what they do when they are in their element.
Regency England is NOT their element.
There are a lot of problems with Death Comes to Pemberly. Some I can't even put my finger on.
The biggest problem is that Anna and Matthew don't feel like Elizabeth and Darcy.
We'll start with Matthew - he's too high-strung for this part. As the conflicted John Jasper, he works. As the Upright and dignified (but still slightly awkward) Darcy - No. He's handsome, but in a very unconventional way, which does not at all fit with tall, dark and striking Darcy. He swings about quite a lot which, apart from being improper for the time period, is simply not a way one would describe Darcy as moving.
Watching Anna in this was not unlike watching her performance in the Bletchley Circle or Bleak House - the parts she plays in both of the aforementioned are women who have been through trials. That's what Anna Maxwell Martin does. But Elizabeth has spent most of her life in comfort without any greater trial than an insufferable mother and a sister running off and eloping. She shouldn't look this tired. The past six years of her life has been spent living in her dream home with her loving (filthy rich) husband.
And then there's the way SHE moves in the part. Setting aside the manner in which they have her speaking, there's her body language. The way she walks and holds herself is quite simply NOT ON for the Regency. At one point she faces a pillar and leans against it with one arm over her head and her other hand ON HER HIP. It's a very masculine post and not at all appropriate for a well bred woman of the era. At another point (when she is speaking with Lady Catherine no less) she is sitting at a table, leaning forward (once again) with her hand on her waist. I half expected her to cross her legs. To top this all off, when she walks away from Lady Catherine, she swings her hips.
Now let's consider Georgiana and the way she falls - sobbing - to HER KNEES in full view of the SERVANTS. This is another unladylike thing for a woman as demure and well-brought-up as Georgiana. Also it seemed like an overreaction considering the situation. Maybe she would react like that if she'd, say, just received news that her brother had died.
We see Lydia (who at least was well cast with Jenna Coleman) wearing QUITE a lot of scarlet. While I'm sure well all amuse ourselves imagining her pushing boundaries without a though for convention, wearing scarlet dresses in that time period is a bit much, even for her.
The story seems to waffle quite a bit as far as the "true character" of Wickham goes. Also, Lydia is way too self aware. Then of course we have magistrates talking about "tampering with evidence" and completely convoluted subplots concerning Darcy's Great-grandfather nearly losing Pemberly (?), Making Col. Fitzwilliam judgmental and of poor character (he's the frickin' nicest guy!) and Mrs. Young being Wickhams half-sister? What in the name of all that's holy?!
Basically, what this all boils down to is that this is an adaptation of... well fanfiction. Published fanfiction by a well respected author, but fanfic nonetheless. And fanfiction (especially of the Mystery genre) get's way to convoluted, way too fast.
Emma (2009)
Far Superior to Paltrow and Beckinsale
1996 brought us a bright and fun feature film adaptation of "Emma" starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam which appealed to the romance-centered Austen-fan. In Frebruary of 1997 a more sober and text accurate adaptation with Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong appeared. Scripted by Andrew Davies (Of Pride and Prejudice 1995 Fame) it calmed the Austen- purists who burst into flames of rage at the Hollywood Travesty which they dared to christen "Emma".
Frankly, I don't care for either of those adaptations. Even though much of the dialogue in both version was ripped straight from the page, Northam was to easy-going, Strong was too harsh, and neither Paltrow, or Beckinsale were able to make Emma likable. This is because her character was pulled from the page and never given any spirit.
Then, in 2009, ITV gave us this version. ITV's adaptations of Austen novels have not, in the past, been received well by Janeites. And neither was Emma. Which I think is a shame.
Romola Garai was a fantastic Emma. She succeeded where Paltrow and Beckinsale both failed in my opinion. She made Emma spirited and likable, in spite of her numerous faults. She was the "picture of health" as Mrs. Weston describes Emma in the book. As for Jonny Lee Miller, he is the only Knightley for me. He portrayed an ideal balance of Mr. Knightley's qualities. Knightly is one of my favorite Austen heroes (second only to Col. Brandon) because Miller's performance is exactly what I imagined as I was reading the book. And for those of you who complain about how Jonny Lee Miller looked too young for Knightley, I would remind you that Knightley is but seven or eight-and-thirty: the same age as Miller when he played the part in 2009.
Laura Pyper might not be as fair skinned as some other Jane Fairfaxes, but I found her to be the only one of the three actresses I've seen in the role who really made me believe that Jane was exhausted from the emotional strain of keeping her engagement a secret. Rupert Evans played a most agreeable Frank Churchill - he had a charisma that drew me, as a viewer, in.
I liked Michael Gambon as Mr. Woodhouse, Emma's charming (if ridiculous) hypochondriac father. Let me just clarify - I NEVER, but NEVER like Gambon in ANYTHING. Yet by some miracle, which I can only assume is the character transcending the actor, I find him the least annoying of the Mr. Woodhouse portrayals I've seen. Tamsin Grieg was an amazing Miss Bates, displaying a different visual model that Prunella Scales or Sophie Thompson, but still wittering on without a thought. And words do not describe what an amazing Weston Double-Team Robert Bathurst and Jhodi May were. Bathurst wasn't too old and he didn't over-act the part like other actors have done; and Jhodi was far more likable than Samantha Bond or Greta Scacchi ever could be.
On the other hand, I do NOT care for how Blake Ritson played Mr. Elton - he was neither agreeable or pleasant. As soon as he slunk onto the screen, his true character was apparent. This detracted from his sub-plot with Harriet Smith. Harriet, in a truly great casting choice, was played by Louise Dylan who, though extremely pale in the part, was quite well suited to it. As for Mrs. Augusta Elton, I can only say that though I disapprove of too much editing, I count the removal of the Maple Grove references to be a blessing. I'm fine with reading it, but hearing that over and over again makes other versions vexing to watch. It works better on the page than it does on the screen; it didn't detract from the essence of the character - to say that would be over-reacting. Christina Cole was superb in the part. She was just as presumptuous in interfering with Jane Fairfax's affairs as she was in the book, and she was certainly as self-centered, desiring to be the focus of attention in any scene in which she appeared.
I will not say that this adaptation gets EVERYTHING right. I do not smile upon reassignment of lines or breaches in historical accuracy (such as characters kissing in public or Frank resting his head in Emma's lap). I also do not approve of simplifying dialogue (but that is a wide subject, which this review has not the space for).
I find this series to be the most accurate to the book, in tone if not in text. It has a depth of emotion that the other versions lack. Emma's loneliness upon Miss Taylor's leaving was shown in good detail - as it should be, since Austen devoted so much description to it in the novel - and yet that was barely shown in the 1997 Kate Beckinsale version. In the 2009 adaptation, Emma is shown imploring Harriet to exert herself and move on from Mr. Elton after he returns, married, to Highbury. (this was also deemed to trivial to include in the 97 version.) Another excellent example of acting on Garai's part is Emma's very affected reaction to Knightley's rebuking of her conduct on Box Hill. Whatever other's may say about the "egregious" kiss in the last episode, this proposal scene is one of my favorites in this series, and possibly in Period Drama history. Miller and Garai's performances are so much more comfortable than Strong and Beckinsale's because it's not so clichéd. Miller's delivery of the lines "You know I can't make speeches; If i loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more" was infinitely superior than Mark Strong's.
I find this adaptation to be Most Agreeable. It has some first rate qualities and I therefore award it 87 points out of 100.
Emma (1996)
Badly Done Indeed!
I have known about this adaptation for a while, but I held off on watching it due to my apprehension at the idea of Mark Strong playing Mr. Knightley. I was concerned because when I watched this I had already seen him as Sir John Conroy in "The Young Victoria" and as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes", both very unpleasant characters. But in my time there have been several instances of my expressing displeasure with casting choices only to eat my words when I actually saw the movie. So I entered into watching this with an impartial and optimistic outlook, sure that Mark Strong and Kate Beckinsale would surprise me with brilliant performances. And I would like to say that they did, but that would be an untruth.
My Biggest fear about Mark playing Knightley was that his rebuking of Emma was going to be a watered down version of the 'RAAAWWWRR' that I was familiar with. And unfortunately, it was. Whenever Mark raises his voice, the right side of his face pulls up into a snarl. I'm sure it's unintentional, but I have seen that snarl before, and it does not belong on Mr. Knightley. As for Kate, her acting as Emma was also exactly what I feared it would be: a mere reiteration of Flora Poste, her character from "Cold Comfort Farm" - a girl who just carries on making everything go her way, and who emotes NOTHING. Oh, she said her lines, but there was nothing behind her cold dark eyes to make me believe that she felt what she said. What's more, I thought the hair styles and costumes suited her VERY ill.
My sister found this intolerably boring. Only I determined to watch it to the end. The pacing is practically a paradox - it seems to drag on forever, despite the fact that several of things were rushed through. I've seen a lot of praise for how Kate and Mark portray Emma and Knightly to perfection etc. and I have no idea why because I didn't believe a word that passed between them. There are other acting and editing issues: After Mr. Elton is married, we never hear anything about how Emma has to help Harriet get over him. There is no appeal and no emotion; When Mr. Knightly says his "badly done" line at box hill (having just practically shoved Emma into the carriage) his voice breaks as though he's about to cry; Emma never really seems to be effected by being rebuked, because the next day when she goes to see Miss Bates it's almost as if the whole thing never happened.
Olivia Williams was a passable Jane Fairfax, but much like Polly Walker's portrayal, Olivia failed to show the degree of Jane's distress. I found Raymond Coulthard's Frank Churchill adequate, but insignificant. Dominic Rowan was,admittedly, probably the most accurate Mr. Elton I've ever seen, but also the most unmemorable. As for Bernard Hepton as Mr. Woodhouse, I don't really care for him in the first place. The shining star for me in this version was Alistair Petrie as Robert Martin. I like him as an actor and I think he was the ideal choice for Harriet's Mr. Martin. He and Samantha Morton (Who was her usual fantastic self as Harriet Smith) played off of each other so well, even when the actors around them weren't giving them much to work with. I consider their scenes (Few as they are) to be a good reason to watch this at least once.
I would probably think this a tolerably good adaptation were it not for some gargantuan elephants in the proverbial room. First is Mrs. Elton: Is she British? Is she Texan? Is she even of this world? What is with her ACCENT? Then of course there is that ludicrous harvest feast at the end of the movie. The whole concept for this scene was not at all Janely. I was under the impression that I was watching a Jane Austen adaptation, not "Far From the Madding Crowd".
There were somethings that were written oddly, I found. And by "oddly", I mean "creepily"
The first of these is Mr. Knightley's strawberry line. This is delivered as a voice over transition to the scene in question and is thusly portrayed as a formal invitation: "Mr. Knightly invites you to taste his strawberries, which are ripening fast." THAT was a... questionable way to word that if you ask me. In addition, that line in the book was not worded as such, and was NOT intended to be a formal invitation. It was said to Mrs. Elton and was first meant to be a joke. I quote "You had better explore Donwell then," replied Mr. Knightly. "That may be done without horse. Come eat my strawberries, they're ripening fast." 'If Mr. Knightly did not being seriously, he was obliged to proceed so...'
Another of these is Mr. Knightly's proposal. I was feeling good about this scene... until he drops the "I held you in my arms when you were three weeks old" line, and I immediately felt uncomfortable. Maybe DON'T talk about how you held her when she was a baby after you just asked her to MARRY you.
Lastly we have Frank Churchill praising his lovely Jane at the end of the movie. Which would be fine if we wasn't whispering in Emma's ear about how fine his dead aunt's jewels will look against Jane's skin. Can I just be the first to say "Ehehewgaugh" (shudders). It's just creepy. Frank does talk about how Mrs. Churchill's jewels will be given to Jane, but he says he means to have them reset in a head ornament that will look nice against her dark hair. Hair - Normal. Skin - weird.
Really this has been a long review when three simple words would have sufficed. "Badly done indeed."
Emma (1996)
Not Truly Accomplished, but Tolerable
I will say this right away: This is not, in my opinion, the best adaptation of Emma... but it is a tolerable one.
I thought the tone (which in many cases can make or break a period drama)was pretty good: It was light and warm. The pacing is pretty rushed, and I didn't particularly care for the cinematography, but the costumes were pretty and fairly accurate. The settings were appropriately lavish. I did think the lurid pink walls of Hartfield's parlour and the gold and teal tapestries at Randalls were over-the-top, but the music was pleasant and seemed well composed (if not well placed at times.)
Initially I had my doubts about Gwyneth Paltrow being cast as Emma, but I did have faith in Jeremy Northam's ability to portray the mature and exceedingly pleasant character of Mr. Knightly. I wasn't entirely disappointed by either. Gwyneth wasn't stellar as Emma. She didn't fit the image of the character because she looked a bit skinny and she should never have her hair pulled tight against her head.The delivery of her lines was sometimes nasal and she often appeared vapid or vaguely mournful. Worst of all, she failed to make Emma likable, which is possible,and indeed necessary. Jeremy Northam was physically perfect for Mr. Knightly. I did think some of his lines were not delivered as they should have been, but that is probably as much the director's fault as his own. Toni Collette, while a good actress I'm sure, was entirely wrong for Harriet Smith. Harriet is short plump and fair, where Toni (with red hair and wearing almost exclusively pink) was tall plump and rosy.
Ewan McGregor was dreadfully miscast as Frank Churchill. An actor such as he should never be in period pieces. And he had that same horrid, frizzy red/brown hair that you see on young Ebenezer Scrooge in the George. C Scott version of "A Christmas Carol". Now we come to Jane Fairfax, played by Polly Walker who I don't particularly care for in general. Don't think that's the only reason why I would say that she's wrong for Jane though. My issue is that she appears to physically and emotionally strong to play a demure character who spends almost the entire story love-sick. Oh and I may have forgotten to mention this about Polly Walker, but she's Beelzebub. Did you see her smile? In her first scene, that red light around her head was not the sunset. It was the glow of hellfire.
Alan Cumming as Mr. Elton was as agreeable as he was supposed to be, but not quite handsome enough, Juliet Stevenson was quite annoying as Mrs. Elton, but I don't think some of her lines were as funny as they were supposed to be. Sophie Thompson's Miss Bates was certainly chatty, but I think she was a bit too young. Lastly, I didn't really care for Greta Scacchi as Miss Taylor, and James Cosmo over-acted Mr. Weston.
The story got the important plot points across and apart from the re-location of various moments to sceneries other than those described in the book, there were only two things that I majorly objected to.
1) the portrayal of Mr. Woodhouse. So many of his lines seem critical or harsh. In one of the first scenes, during his "Poor Miss Taylor" rhetoric, Mr. Woodhouse says how he cannot understand why Miss Taylor would leave her comfortable place with them to "raise a family of mewling infants that would bring the risk of disease every time the enter or leave the house." and he says this right in front of one of his TWO daughters. In addition, his eldest daughter has quite a good number of children all of them quite young, of whom he is very fond and is always delighted to see.
2) The Archery Scene. This is the part where Mr. Knightly and Emma argue over Harriet's rejection of Robert Martin. This is a pretty intense scene in the book because Mr. Knightly's manner goes from astonished, to indignant to truly vexed. In this movie it begins casual enough, which is good, but it stays casual. Not only that, but when Emma protests that "Harriet is a gentleman's daughter," she doesn't seem to be arguing a case so much as complaining. The delivery of the line is high-pitched and insipid, and after she says it she stands there, looking up at Knightly with her mouth hanging open as if there is nothing going on in her head whatever. Then, in her frustration and already shooting poorly Emma's arrow goes wide and into the general direction of Knightly's dogs. As a totally out-of-place comedic moment Knightly says "try not to kill my dogs,". My problem with this is that this further mocks the idea that Knightly is really irritated with Emma; and Knightly should have made sure that his dogs weren't sitting behind the targets BEFORE they started shooting.
Apart from those issues it's an okay adaptation of the book, but not the best.