WATCH YOUR FAVORITE
MOVIES & TV SERIES ONLINE
TRY FREE TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Emma

Watch Emma For Free

Emma

Emma Woodhouse has a rigid sense of propriety as regards matrimonial alliances. Unfortunately she insists on matchmaking for her less forceful friend, Harriet, and so causes her to come to grief. Through the sharp words of Mr. Knightley, and the example of the opinionated Mrs. Elton, someone not unlike herself, Emma's attitudes begin to soften.

... more
Release : 1996
Rating : 7
Studio : Meridian Broadcasting Ltd, 
Crew : Art Direction,  Production Design, 
Cast : Kate Beckinsale Mark Strong Samantha Morton Raymond Coulthard Olivia Williams
Genre : Drama Comedy Romance TV Movie

Cast List

Related Movies

Once I Was Engaged
Once I Was Engaged

Once I Was Engaged   2021

Release Date: 
2021

Rating: 4.7

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance  /  Family
Stars: 
Clare Niederpruem  /  Tanner Gillman  /  Paris Warner
Notorious
Notorious

Notorious   1946

Release Date: 
1946

Rating: 7.9

genres: 
Thriller  /  Mystery  /  Romance
Stars: 
Cary Grant  /  Ingrid Bergman  /  Claude Rains
Moonstruck
Moonstruck

Moonstruck   1987

Release Date: 
1987

Rating: 7.2

genres: 
Drama  /  Comedy  /  Romance
Stars: 
Cher  /  Nicolas Cage  /  Vincent Gardenia
Sweet Home Alabama
Sweet Home Alabama

Sweet Home Alabama   2002

Release Date: 
2002

Rating: 6.2

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance
Stars: 
Reese Witherspoon  /  Josh Lucas  /  Patrick Dempsey
Play It Again, Sam
Play It Again, Sam

Play It Again, Sam   1972

Release Date: 
1972

Rating: 7.6

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance
Stars: 
Woody Allen  /  Diane Keaton  /  Tony Roberts
3 Men and a Little Lady
3 Men and a Little Lady

3 Men and a Little Lady   1990

Release Date: 
1990

Rating: 5.5

genres: 
Comedy  /  Family
Stars: 
Tom Selleck  /  Steve Guttenberg  /  Ted Danson
How to Make an American Quilt
How to Make an American Quilt

How to Make an American Quilt   1995

Release Date: 
1995

Rating: 6.3

genres: 
Drama  /  Romance
Stars: 
Winona Ryder  /  Anne Bancroft  /  Ellen Burstyn
Must Love Dogs
Must Love Dogs

Must Love Dogs   2005

Release Date: 
2005

Rating: 5.9

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance
Stars: 
Diane Lane  /  John Cusack  /  Elizabeth Perkins
Feast of Love
Feast of Love

Feast of Love   2007

Release Date: 
2007

Rating: 6.5

genres: 
Drama  /  Romance
Stars: 
Morgan Freeman  /  Greg Kinnear  /  Radha Mitchell
Kissing a Fool
Kissing a Fool

Kissing a Fool   1998

Release Date: 
1998

Rating: 5.5

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance
Stars: 
David Schwimmer  /  Jason Lee  /  Mili Avital
Buying the Cow
Buying the Cow

Buying the Cow   2002

Release Date: 
2002

Rating: 5.8

genres: 
Comedy  /  Romance
Say Yes
Say Yes

Say Yes   2013

Release Date: 
2013

Rating: 8

genres: 
Romance
Stars: 
Kali Hawk  /  Lance Gross

Reviews

Solemplex
2018/08/30

To me, this movie is perfection.

More
Exoticalot
2018/08/30

People are voting emotionally.

More
Pluskylang
2018/08/30

Great Film overall

More
ChanFamous
2018/08/30

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

More
patrick powell
2018/07/29

I had just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen when I took a fancy to watching a screen version to see what was made of it, and chose to watch the TV version starring Kate Beckinsale. I was surprised to see it getting an overall rating on IMDB of 7.1Don't get me wrong: it isn't at all bad and for its kind quite good, but after reading Austen's subtle novel and having fresh in mind the nuances with which she conveys all the - essentially trivial - goings-on in Highbury, I do feel it somewhat misses its target. Not a lot, but enough to challenge that 7.1 overall rating.Naturally, a screen or TV adaption of a novel is in many ways restricted, and I have borne that in mind. But there are one or two other details which I feel don't do the novel justice. For example, Emma is undoubtedly a rich woman - her 1816 fortune of £30,000 translates into 2018's more than £2.6 million, and she and her father can afford to live a life of ease.But their circumstances as portrayed in the TV film do over-egg the pudding to an alarming degree. They - and George Knightley - were most certainly not titled. They were simply well-off landed gentry able to live off the rents they received for their land. So the super grand homes they are shown to live in - and the number of uniformed flunkeys the Woodhouses are shown to employ - are, to be blunt, ludicrous. This is TV early-19th century life.The social divergences and disposable income in the early 19th century were certainly far, far wider than they are today (at least here in Britain - I can't speak for the US), but the Woodhouses, Knightley and the Weston's were fundamentally well-off middle-class folk. Yes, they had no financial worries, although fate and fortune could, and very often did, pitch such families down the social scale quite fast as they had no way of insuring themselves.In those days, a candle falling over and starting a fire which could burn their houses to the ground was a perpetual fear for them and did easily bankrupt many a well-to-do family. (A good example is how TV portrays the ball at the Crown: despite the availability of staff, in the novel it was very much a small-scale DIY affair, more a fun gathering than the full-blown event shown.)The TV film portrays them otherwise. As shown in the film they would be living as minor aristocracy. In this regard Knightley's grand pile is especially ludicrous. Austen herself and her family, however impeccably middle-class, were certainly not well-off and were forever teetering on the brink of penury, all to often relying on the goodwill of family. Hence the then sheer necessity of a young woman 'marrying well'. These might be minor points, of course, and after all it is fiction. But as in this regard it does not reflect on Jane Austen's world, other infelicities also creep in.My second reservation is that the TV film falls short of conveying the subtleties of the different situations the characters find themselves in. Again to be blunt it is all just a tad too cut and dried.Screenwriter Andrew Davies, the go-to chap for this kind of stuff, otherwise does reasonably well: though at times a little broad-brush, he does Austen's characters s0me justice, although his script does rather take too little account of Austen's sharp with and satirical eye.The plot of Austen's novel is also far to syncopated in this adaptation, with the various developments simply not being sufficiently established to make much sense. Overall, I was disappointed and would recommend anyone so inclined to head for the far more substantial novel. But that said, as a piece of costume drama this version can still hold its head high for those who go a bundle for this kind of thing.

More
jotix100
2010/12/30

"Emma" one of the most beloved novels by Jane Austen, is perhaps a bit different from the others in that the heroine is not as much interested in the society around her, as much as her desire to make people happy. The 1996 television adaptation of the Austen novel came at about the same time as the big screen production showcasing Gwyneth Paltrow in the title role.In this version, Emma is perhaps more earthy than the one in the film. She is warmer, perhaps more down to earth. After successfully being instrumental in getting her former nanny married to Mr. Weston, she destines the unpretentious Harriet Smith to be interested in Mr. Elton, the parson, not realizing it was not meant to be. Emma is taken aback with the revelation of the engagement of Jane Fairfax to Frank Churchill, something she did not count on because she was under the impression he cared for her. Her disappointment turns out to be what propels Mr. Knightly in coming around to declare his love for her, something that she realized was all she ever wanted for her own happiness.Director Diarmuid Lawrence does justice to Andrew Davies' screen adaptation. It is a more realistic approach. Mr. Lawrence was blessed with a strong cast and an inspired performance by Kate Beckinsale, as Emma. The excellent Mark Strong as Knightley is an asset for this production. Others that excel in the cast are Samantha Morton, whose Harriet is perfect. Olivia Williams as Jane Fairfax. Handsome Raymond Coulthard appears as Frank Churchill. In supporting roles, Bernard Hepton, James Hazeldine, Prunella Scales, Samantha Bond, and Dominic Rowan, contribute to make this a memorable "Emma".

More
hayzlenutt
2009/01/17

Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.

More
Philby-3
2008/06/02

As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!

More
Watch Instant, Get Started Now Watch Instant, Get Started Now