i know a lot of ppl will prbabably be outraged by my comment, but kate beckinsale was sooooooooooo ugly in this movie, i couldnt stand watching her and hated her character cuz of her.
i actually just (right now) realised that it was kate beckinsale and i consider her one of the most beautiful celebrities, so i'm very shocked at the transformation over the years.
I totally disagree with your opinion. I think Kate Beckinsale was beautiful even without the makeup and she did a wonderful job playing the title role of Emma. In fact the entire movie is awesome and had a perfect cast. This movie is one of the best adaptations of Jane Austen's novels and anyone who really likes Jane Austen's works would really appreciate this movie. My only complain with this adaptation was that it wasn't long enough otherwise it was perfect.
shareI agree with Greenwoodelf about Kate Beckinsale but I have to say I prefered Sophie Thompson as Miss Bates, Alan Cummings as Mr Elton, and Juliette Stevenson as Mrs Elton. It is clear from what I read on another thread that we would all make the movie slightly differently if we had the power. I'm beginning to think they should just re-make all the Austen stories each year with a different cast.
shareI think Kate Beckinsale was very beautiful in this one and in "Much Ado about nothing". Certanly better looking than Paltrow. I generally liked Kate's look in older movies better than in Underworld and such...
shareI like Sophie Thompson a lot but i feel she was too young to play Miss Bates.
shareI dont think so. As far I can see she was about 34 when the movie was made. I can't remeber if Miss Bates age is acutally given in the novel, but in the Regency era a woman of 34 is already "middle aged" and forever stuck with being a spinster.
shareUnfortunately, 34 is definitely too young for Miss Bates; Jane Fairfax' mother was the youngest of the Bates daughters; Jane is Emma's age - 21, and her parents died when she was 3. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that her aunt, who was older than Jane's mother, could be 34, don't you think?
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I agree with Greenwoodelf kate Beckinsale as EMMA is an absolute delight. This movie was perfectly cast, perfect sets, perfect music and the only gripe Oh I do wish there was more of it maybe not as many episodes as the equally great Pride and Prejudice withe Colin Firth but perhaps EMMA could have run to four parts. Otherwise perfect.
Anyone know where I can get the Juice of Barley and the final dance of the engaged couples?
- breast implants, cosmetic surgery of the face, chemical peels. I hardly recognized her in her first American film, "The Last Days of Disco"(1998) which was released two years after this.
"Gratitude is not only the greatest of all virtues; it is the mother of all virtues."
Yes, it looks like she had at least SOME work done when she struck it big in US. It's sad that Hollywood usually rewards women who look fake with big roles! Natural beauty (like Kate had in "Emma") is not acceptable, I guess, if a woman wants to be a big star.
shareI don't think Kate Beckinsale looked ugly as such in this, she just looked different enough from normal that I didn't realise it was her until her name showed at the top of the credits.
shareOh, I don't know. I think the wigs and clothing styles in Emma simply didn't compliment her beauty very well. When one examines her appearance in Much Ado About Nothing (1993 -- 3 years before Emma) with The Last Days of Disco and some of her other later work, one sees the same beautiful Kate from her later films. (See linked photos)
http://www.movieforum.com/movies/titles/muchadoaboutnothing/images/rob kate.jpg
http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/muchado984.jpeg
http://www.movieforum.com/movies/titles/muchadoaboutnothing/images/her oclaudio.jpg
The Golden Bowl is another of her later films (2000), however, she doesn't look as beautiful as in some of her other roles. As with Emma, the costumes and wigs don't compliment her beauty very well at all; she looks more like she looks in Emma than the way she looks in Van Helsing or TLDoD. (See linked photo).
http://www.erasofelegance.com/entertainment/movies/golden/bowl27.jpg
eta: fixed broken links
She doesn't look ugly in it, just a bit frowny.
It's above her eyebrows, I think. She had like a mound there or something...
Anti-chav and PROUD.
I find Kate Beckinsdale very pretty myself, actually commented to that effect while watching this movie.
shareYou're ugly.
shareInfatuated_11 said: "kate beckinsale was sooooooooooo ugly in this movie, i couldnt stand watching her and hated her character cuz of her."
Are you really that shallow that you can't watch a program because you don't like the looks of an actress/character? Do you have any idea how savagely Jane Austen would satirize YOU for such an inane attitude?
I thought perhaps the eleven in your screen name represents your age and that might explain your utter ignorance, but that would be a disservice to eleven-year-olds who I'm certain are more mature than you.
you need glasses
shareI think she had some work done on her teeth actually and this is the main difference in how she looked in Emma versus now. This would really be much more realistic before the time of veneers and whitening. HOLLYWOOD! UGH!
shareI agree
her teeth are quite large in this movie
she is hardly SOOOOO ugly lol
I don't think so. She did Much Ado About Nothing before Emma. Compare the photos. As I stated in an earlier post, I think it's the hairstyles and costumes. She did The Golden Bowl years later, but doesn't look so good in that. Again, the styles aren't flattering to her.
shareI normally think she is very pretty, but she looked so different in this movie I hardly recognized her. I think it was before Hollywood got a hold of her. She really can't compare to Gwynneth Paltrow as Emma. GP really does have natural beauty. Look at her old films and she looks the same as she does today.
shareHi again! :-)
I think she looked lovely in Much Ado About Nothing. Here is a photo.
http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/muchado984.jpeg
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/celebdatabase/katebeckinsale/kat e_beckinsale3_180_135.jpg
And this was before Emma and before "Hollywood got a hold of her."
I really think the regency fashions and hairstyles just weren't flattering to her.
eta: fixed broken links
No way is she ugly in this film. I just saw it on TV for the first time last night. It's true, she's unrecognizable from her current self -- she looked 100x better back then. Naturally pretty. I was surprised to see that it was her in the role when I imdb'd the title. What a hottie.
shareI think she is lovely, but the outdoor shots made her frown and the light was not good. The indoor shots are much kinder. And it didn't help that she wore such ridiculous hats outdoors, making her look more homely. But overall, she has a very petite face with a slight overbite.
I personally liked that all the actors were not "movie star" perfect. I found that it was more realistic towards real life. She had that wee overbite and he the receding hairline.
Also, I really think Strong was very good looking, even with needing a haircut. He is not 20, but 37. Perhaps if I were in my 20's, I would not find him so handsome, but I do now in my 40's!