x
Breaking News
More () »

Review | The movie world didn’t need another rendition of Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’

This is one of those stories that didn’t need a second remake. It’s boring, uninteresting, and forgettable.
Credit: Focus Features

ST. LOUIS — I find it hard in certain films to care about rich people who don't know what love is, yet manipulate those who are desperately trying to find it.

While I respect the writings of Jane Austen and find her to be irrevocably honest about life's toughest tribulations back in her day, I didn't feel like the world needed another rendition of "Emma." The 1996 version with Gwyneth Paltrow did the trick. Autumn de Wilde's new update never feels as true or honest to the material, dancing around with a hapless gaze that leaves one feeling not only disconnected yet disenchanted.

The story goes that the rich and respected Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor Joy, "Split") is a revered matchmaker in her town, a devoted daughter to her restless father (Bill Nighy), a man who gets reminded of his lonely life every time the winds kicks a gust through his living room.

When Emma makes a new friend in the innocent Harriet (Mia Goth, who blazed a trail through Claire Denis' "High Life"), she finds her own yearning to be desired tested through the presence of the equally respected George Knightley (Johnny Flynn). Enter into the fray the much talked about yet little seen Frank Churchhill (Callum Turner) and the nervy-energy of Mr. Elton (Josh O'Connor), and there's more than enough love triangles and deception to go around.

While Douglas McGrath's film did its best to paint a picture 24 years ago, I am beginning to wonder that perhaps some of Austen's words were simply better suited to the page than the big screen. There's an ongoing flatness to Eleanor Catton's screenplay here that never quite sticks its ending, leaving the audience in disarray about who to root for. For most of the story, I wanted to send Emma off to a boarding school for discipline due to the way she was treating just about anyone who came into her path. If she's not manipulating Harriet like a doll with a string behind its back, she's ridiculing the friendly town chatterbox, Miss Bates (Miranda Hart, much better in "Spy"). Joy doesn't put enough care and sincerity into her portrayal to make you buy into her long-term happiness.

It doesn't help that the film is utterly boring for a majority of its running time. Scenes take so long to develop and seem tedious by the end. The film has a laborious running time of 125 minutes, but will feel like three hours. The film's tone dances between dry comedy, momentarily earnest drama, and a flicker of romance that only lights up when Flynn and Goth share the screen together. If you're thinking that's not right in relation to the book, you have recognized my main issue with the central story. Nobody cares!!

The direction and writing don't do much to stand outside of a tired “Downton Abbey” episode. Greta Gerwig's "Little Women" found a way to spin the material in a creatively empowering way that you didn't notice it was the 19th version of that particular story on a stage, small screen, or large auditorium. Wilde and Catton simply don't muster up the spark that would be needed in another adaptation of Austen's work.

While none of it is directly bad, little of "Emma" comes off as memorable. I watched it, left, and couldn't recall a high quality thing 24 hours later. The biggest reaction I had was, "why?" Outside of Goth and Flynn doing what they can, and Nighy doing his usual comedic flair, there's nothing to recommend here.

I'd pass on it and check out the 1996 version. Better yet, grab the book and create your own version in your head.

ST. LOUIS - CGI dogs... can you dig it? That's the mountain a viewer will have to climb over in order to appreciate Chris Sanders' adaptation of Jack London's famous kids novel, "The Call of the Wild."

More Movie Reviews From Dan Buffa

Before You Leave, Check This Out