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 don't agree. I am watching this version thru for the second time and find her acceptably attractive. I prefer GP as Emma, but liked Kate as Emma also.
my god its full of stars
I watched this because I was curious what KB would look like in her younger, pre-hollywood-success days. My main issue is that which others have said...she does not look flattering with the hair and dress of those times. Her hair was the WORST...she always has awesome hair...Underworld, Pearl Harbor (the 1940s totally agree with her), etc. Here, it is flat and curled and awful. The only other real issue I had was her eyebrows!!!! They are too light (most of the female actors had that same issue...the Harriet Smith character's eyebrows were basically nonexistent).
Still, looking at her beauty, in Emma, it's clear she is beautiful...her skin, her smile (when she smiles)...she's very pretty.
Actually, I thought Kate Beckinsale was very beautiful and she did an outstanding job of capturing all the little nuances of Emma.
shareOh goodness. The movie/book takes place in the early 19th century. How do you think people looked without mineral makeup, nose jobs, tans, and flat irons? I wouldn't call it ugly, it was simply natural.
shareJust finished watching this on PBS and was surprisingly entertained. I spent the whole movie trying to figure out who was the actress playing Emma, and when the credits rolled I was surpised it was such a big name. The difference in Beckinsale's apperance is that she is much sexier today as compared to then, when she was a cute little thing.
share[deleted]
Are you serious? I actually thought she was more beautiful than she is right now. I hardly recognized her as the same person.
shareI know what you mean: she did not look as pretty as in Much Ado About Nothing and I agree that this may be due to the Regency dresses and hair styles not suiting her.
I have not noticed her eyebrows but what I have noticed is her "moustache" - in the scene when she sings with Frank Churchill and other scenes and, though I understand that they want to re create Regency looks by avoiding make up, I still think she should have used her tweezers a bit more. It's downright ugly and the problem is that Emma should be outstandingly beautiful.
Apart from that, for me, she impersonated Emma very well and I slightly prefer her to Gwynneth P.
Actually, what Emma should look like, for beauty of the day, is naturally pretty, as Beckinsale is (Austen calls Emma "handsome," not beautiful), and "the picture of health." Kate Beckinsale glows with vitality as Emma. They omit the "picture of health" from the Paltrow version, because, although Paltrow is ravishing, she looks frail, almost ill - more appropriate to Miss Fairfax than Miss Woodhouse.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.
I know you made this post over 5 years ago, but I just recently seen this movie for the first time, and to me Kate was more attractive in this movie than any other movie ive seen her in.
share