|
Post by hi224 on Mar 11, 2020 18:07:16 GMT
it felt at times like Wes Anderson ghost directed specific scenes(IE, some of the still frames), and I liked Anya Taylor-Joy but found her a tad miscast as Emma, she lacks the charm, grace and luminosity of Paltrow. Goth, Flynn(he can act?!) Hart, and Nighy sort of steal the show a bit as well. I believed it also felt a tad too self aware at points, but was a fun enough ride.
|
|
|
Emma
Mar 14, 2020 9:02:55 GMT
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 14, 2020 9:02:55 GMT
Good point about the self-awareness aspect, but I suppose if it was, this was something I kinda liked. It was like a wink\nod approach to the audience as well with the heightened costuming and sets. The actors took it up a notch too, to be seen as larger than life, rather than life as larger around them. This was very much a character interpretation and representation. Need to watch Paltrow's version again, but I don't recall it looking as lovey as this version. I thought is was sublime. I found Emma intriguing, if not exactly riveting. The cinematography is definitely the most compelling aspect. Not only is it appropriately bright and colorful, but the compositions—often featuring a certain "coupling" within the frame—are sophisticated and artistic. And in the same vein, the movie's mise-en-scène is exquisite, especially in its use of paintings and candles. Plus, the editing and score are commendable. On the other hand, I found the plot somewhat difficult to follow and not terribly meaningful in any case. And while the artsy approach to romantic comedy proved laudably off-beat and created some surprises and delayed gratification, the quirkiness was not easily digestible. Overall, I deemed the movie "decent/pretty good," meaning slightly above-average, after an initial screening. Have you seen Portrait of a Lady on Fire? Although much darker and different in tone, it too is very artsy and visually engaging—even more so. Combined with greater and eventual emotional depth, I find that movie to be "good," if also sometimes too quirky to be easily digestible.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 14, 2020 16:02:50 GMT
Good point about the self-awareness aspect, but I suppose if it was, this was something I kinda liked. It was like a wink\nod approach to the audience as well with the heightened costuming and sets. The actors took it up a notch too, to be seen as larger than life, rather than life as larger around them. This was very much a character interpretation and representation. Need to watch Paltrow's version again, but I don't recall it looking as lovey as this version. I thought is was sublime. I found Emma intriguing, if not exactly riveting. The cinematography is definitely the most compelling aspect. Not only is it appropriately bright and colorful, but the compositions—often featuring a certain "coupling" within the frame—are sophisticated and artistic. And in the same vein, the movie's mise-en-scène is exquisite, especially in its use of paintings and candles. Plus, the editing and score are commendable. On the other hand, I found the plot somewhat difficult to follow and not terribly meaningful in any case. And while the artsy approach to romantic comedy proved laudably off-beat and created some surprises and delayed gratification, the quirkiness was not easily digestible. Overall, I deemed the movie "decent/pretty good," meaning slightly above-average, after an initial screening. Have you seen Portrait of a Lady on Fire? Although much darker and different in tone, it too is very artsy and visually engaging—even more so. Combined with greater and eventual emotional depth, I find that movie to be "good," if also sometimes too quirky to be easily digestible. O agree about the plot. but I loved the part where Emma insulted Miranda Heart I mean I loved how that was directed, acted and editing. Really powerful moment that snark and the noble yet hurt reaction.
|
|
|
Emma
Mar 16, 2020 4:02:22 GMT
Post by Maly Class Productions on Mar 16, 2020 4:02:22 GMT
it felt at times like Wes Anderson ghost directed specific scenes(IE, some of the still frames), and I liked Anya Taylor-Joy but found her a tad miscast as Emma, she lacks the charm, grace and luminosity of Paltrow. Goth, Flynn(he can act?!) Hart, and Nighy sort of steal the show a bit as well. I believed it also felt a tad too self aware at points, but was a fun enough ride. I've only walked out of 2 movies in my life and I walked out of this one. It was so damn boring. The other one was from my favorite director. Well one who use to be until he fell in love with CGI and 3D animation. I walked out of Robert Zemeckis' 'Welcome to Marwen'. I finished it when I saw it on TV and I am so glad I walked out. It was an atrocious movie. One that could have been good, but him telling a lot of the story with those toys ruined it.
|
|
|
Emma
Mar 16, 2020 6:03:03 GMT
Post by Maly Class Productions on Mar 16, 2020 6:03:03 GMT
I've only walked out of 2 movies in my life and I walked out of this one. It was so damn boring. The other one was from my favorite director. Well one who use to be until he fell in love with CGI and 3D animation. I walked out of Robert Zemeckis' 'Welcome to Marwen'. I finished it when I saw it on TV and I am so glad I walked out. It was an atrocious movie. One that could have been good, but him telling a lot of the story with those toys ruined it. Sorry you didn't like it. I can see why it wouldn't be for everyone, but I guess one would have to be familiar with other Austen screen translations and also fond of period detail films.
I couldn't even bother with Marwen. Why Zemeckis thought this would be appealing, just shows how out of touch he is, like many in Hollywarped. I really liked Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley, but Jane Austen movies are, except for that one, so damn boring. I even tried reading Pride and Prejudice, but I was like Joe Fox in You've Got Mail. I was very bored by it. I wasn't like him though. I didn't even make it to the 3rd or 4th chapter. Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility, the movies, were also boring. And I loved Zemeckis for making the Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her, Romancing the Stone, Forrest Gump and Cast Away. After 'The Polar Express' though he went way down.
|
|
|
Post by Maly Class Productions on Mar 16, 2020 6:18:32 GMT
I really liked Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley, but Jane Austen movies are, except for that one, so damn boring. I even tried reading Pride and Prejudice, but I was like Joe Fox in You've Got Mail. I was very bored by it. I wasn't like him though. I didn't even make it to the 3rd or 4th chapter. Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility, the movies, were also boring. And I loved Zemeckis for making the Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her, Romancing the Stone, Forrest Gump and Cast Away. After 'The Polar Express' though he went way down. I haven't seen Mansfield Park or Persuasion. I wasn't going to see Emma until I got a recommendation. I did like the look of it though from the trailer. I couldn't be bothered with her books, but I do think that Pride and Prejudice is great with Knightly. I loaded, probably my favorite scene from that movie, onto YouTube. It has become my most watched one on there.
|
|
|
Emma
Mar 16, 2020 7:08:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by Maly Class Productions on Mar 16, 2020 7:08:41 GMT
I loaded, probably my favorite scene from that movie, onto YouTube. It has become my most watched one on there. Knightley knows how to deliver the goods. P&P is also topped off by superb direction by Joe Wright. He knows how to move his camera, direct his actors and compose his shots. I think it is superior to Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility - 95'. By far. That movie gets a big thumbs down.
|
|
|
Emma
Jan 1, 2021 11:56:20 GMT
Post by Vits on Jan 1, 2021 11:56:20 GMT
CLUELESS 7/10 EMMA 1996 (Theatrical) 5/10 EMMA 1996 (TV) 6/10 There's one way in which EMMA 2020 stands out from the rest of the franchise. You see, there's a scene where George Knightley (the love interest) tells the title character that she hurt someone's feelings. In every other version, he would say "Badly done, Emma!" I hated it every time! It sounded like he was scolding his daughter or even his pet! This time, he says "Your treatment of her... It was badly done, indeed!" It's phrased a little differently, yet it feels so dissimilar. What a relief! Among the other changes, there's the wacky comedic approach, but that worsens everything. The actors occasionally mug for the camera unnaturally and Isobel Waller-Bridge and David Schweitzer catchy music score irritatingly accentuates everything. And then there's the scene that's always different in every adaptation: When Emma rides in a carriage with Philip Elton, the local vicar, who confesses his attraction for her. In the 1972 mini-series, he's fairly calmed and always keeps a distance, while Emma gets indignant pretty quickly. She even stops the carriage and gets out. It's not until the later scenes that we get to see his true colors, so her response seemed a little exaggerated. In both of the 1996 movies, Mr. Elton is a little more aggressive (in the made-for-TV one, he even goes for a kiss), so Emma would be justified in getting out, but she chooses to stay in the carriage. Here, Mr. Elton falls on Emma by accident and then keeps his distance for the rest of the scene. Ah, so he's a nice guy? No, because he sucks so much at handling rejection that he stops the carriage and angrily gets out. I don't see the point in comparing those scenes to the one in CLUELESS, since that one takes place in modern day, so gender dynamics are very different. And... That's about it for the changes. Overall, it's just the same story all over again, and to be honest, it's not that great of a story to begin with. Not even Christopher Blauvelt's stunning cinematography can liven things up. 4/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Emma
Jan 1, 2021 11:57:30 GMT
Post by Vits on Jan 1, 2021 11:57:30 GMT
CLUELESS 7/10 EMMA 1996 (Theatrical) 5/10 EMMA 1996 (TV) 6/10 There's one way in which EMMA 2020 stands out from the rest of the franchise. You see, there's a scene where George Knightley (the love interest) tells the title character that she hurt someone's feelings. In every other version, he would say "Badly done, Emma!" I hated it every time! It sounded like he was scolding his daughter or even his pet! This time, he says "Your treatment of her... It was badly done, indeed!" It's phrased a little differently, yet it feels so dissimilar. What a relief! Among the other changes, there's the wacky comedic approach, but that worsens everything. The actors occasionally mug for the camera unnaturally and Isobel Waller-Bridge and David Schweitzer catchy music score irritatingly accentuates everything. And then there's the scene that's always different in every adaptation: When Emma rides in a carriage with Philip Elton, the local vicar, who confesses his attraction for her. In the 1972 mini-series, he's fairly calmed and always keeps a distance, while Emma gets indignant pretty quickly. She even stops the carriage and gets out. It's not until the later scenes that we get to see his true colors, so her response seemed a little exaggerated. In both of the 1996 movies, Mr. Elton is a little more aggressive (in the made-for-TV one, he even goes for a kiss), so Emma would be justified in getting out, but she chooses to stay in the carriage. Here, Mr. Elton falls on Emma by accident and then keeps his distance for the rest of the scene. Ah, so he's a nice guy? No, because he sucks so much at handling rejection that he stops the carriage and angrily gets out. I don't see the point in comparing those scenes to the one in CLUELESS, since that one takes place in modern day, so gender dynamics are very different. And... That's about it for the changes. Overall, it's just the same story all over again, and to be honest, it's not that great of a story to begin with. Not even Christopher Blauvelt's stunning cinematography can liven things up. 4/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|