Emma.

If nothing else this was one of the most stylish Jane Austen adaptation, but that was about all it had going for it. Then again, the period in its title should have clued us in that this Autumn de Wilde adaptation would be more style over substance. The costumes were the real star of this film and if still remains in the conversation at year-end, it might get a nomination for Best Costume Design. Anya Taylor-Joy and Austen's prose were a tied-second. The former had large, expressive eyes and wore the period fashion beautifully, while the latter's prose made the film came alive although there was a strong discordant with the rest of the screenplay by acclaimed novelist Eleanor Catton which unfortunately seemed clunky and inelegant next to Austen's rhythmic monologues.

De Wilde told the story aptly and succinctly, but other than gorgeous costumes and sumptuous production designs, she did not elicit anything new from the source novel that has not already been done. Consequently, this iteration might appeal more to newer audience who are unfamiliar with the novel or the previous films.

Taylor-Joy portrayed Emma with bright-eyed confidence and it was not difficult to imagine that her Emma was as Austen described: clever, handsome and rich. However, she seemed to lack the inherent wit that characterised Austen's heroines and which was so wonderfully personified by the likes of Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley.

The boys, played by Johnny Flynn and Callum Turner, appeared to match, physically at least, with Taylor-Joy and the period itself, but neither had the flair or charisma to light up the screen or ignite genuine chemistry with Taylor-Joy.

Bill Nighy was hilarious and he and Josh O'Connor got the best laughs with their physical comedy.

Also getting some laughs were the mostly-silent manservants and maids.

Cinematography was by Christopher Blauvelt who did a great job with a lot of the indoor scenes; music was by Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) and David Schweitzer, and it was time-period appropriate but also not entirely memorable.

Emma. was a beautiful film that offered little to seasoned movie-goers and Janeites, however it will be a good, simple introduction to Austen's works and the beauty of her language.

Onward

This was a mid-to-lower tier Pixar animated film that had the usual Disney/Pixar heart but lacked the innovation or originality that elevated the best of pre-merger Pixar. It was a G-rated fantasy/action quest that was solely targeted at children and hence the simplicity of the story, the emotions, and the action. Also, its lead characters -  though capably and convincingly voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt - lacked depth and were more annoying than endearing. Their quips, some good ones by Pratt, also felt more juvenile than layered. Then again, it could have been a directorial choice for realistic teenage portrayal, but in that case, Dan Scanlon failed to connect that angst with audience's empathy.

The animation here was nothing to shout at and I highly doubt that this film will even crack the Best Animated Film Oscar shortlist next year. It was a 103 minutes long child-friendly animation that seemed like yet another placeholder until Pete Doctor's Soul arrives later in the year.

The story was straightforward and uncomplicated, but the journey was littered with well-tread tropes that could seem refreshing to young viewers, but for adults it bordered on tediousness and repetitiveness. Thematically, the film was on-brand for Disney/Pixar and the bright colours, large-eyes, cuteness factors will surely enchant the younglings, and the lesson was definitely worth learning for them. Accompanying parents and other adults will not be utterly bored. At least the film was brisk.

The voice cast was a highlight. Holland, with his Peter Parker/Spider Man, could be the embodiment of America's awkward male teenage angst. Pratt was more Andy Dwyer than Star Lord which suits him better. Julia Louis-Dreyfus seemed to be having fun, but not more so than Octavia Spencer who sounded like she was on some sort of sugar-rush!

Music was by Mychael and Jeff Danna, and unfortunately it was unmemorable. Similarly, the title song, "Carried Me with You" by Brandi Charlie was also forgettable. They  will not be getting any Oscar nominations next year.

Onwards was a watchable Pixar film - as they all are - but it was definitely not one to remember. Although I will not be surprised if a sequel comes along.

The Invisible Man

Elizabeth Moss is the main reason to watch this film. Leigh Whannell wrote and directed this modern reiteration of the classic story and he definitely gave it a refreshing spin. However, after an excellent opening sequence, the story started to drag and Moss played the victim for far too long. Unfortunately, when she started kicking-ass, the movie was almost over. As brilliant and as enrapturing as Moss was, her character was too passive to be totally engaging. And Whannell also succumbed to the M Night Shyamalan syndrome with an unnecessary double-ending (hint hint...no spoilers).

Whannell is a great horror director and the first Saw and Insidious can rightfully be claimed as cornerstones of the modern horror genre. And he used his skill to great effect here with long, wandering shots and wide-angles, daring you to blink or take a breath just in case you missed something.

However as a writer, Whannell tended to be indulgent and clunky. His storylines lacked depth and his characters lacked substance. They all appear as stock characters with default emotions and storyline. If it was not for Moss, this film would have been even flatter.

This film ran just over two hours (124 minutes) and it could have been shorter and tighter. The story is well known so there is no surprise there regarding who/what the antagonist was, and in that case the narrative had to focus on the journey, but in that regard it just meandered. Whannell's screenplay was too simplistic and predictable to be effective, so thankfully we had Moss to make it all worth it.

Moss is going to win an Oscar one day. With Mad Men, Top of the Lake and The Handmaid's Tale, she has established herself as a tremendous actress with incredible range and depth. And once Handmaid's is over, perhaps she can focus fully on her feature film career and that might lead to a lot more exciting projects.

In The Invisible Man, Moss commanded the screen and her emotional breakdown was spectacular. A pity Whannell did not harness that raw power to his advantage. Everybody else around her were less spectacular, so luckily the antagonist was invisible and Moss really only had to act against herself.

This film was a showcase for Moss and reaffirmed Whannell as an accomplished, albeit unexciting, genre director. But it will be so much more exciting if we paired Moss with Hereditary/Midsommar's Ari Aster or The Witch/The Lighthouse's Robert Eggers.

The Gentlemen

This film returned Guy Ritchie back to his roots of the low budget, gangster/crime caper after doing his tours of tentpole blockbusters like “Aladdin”, “King Arthur” and “Sherlock Holmes”. However, “The Gentlemen” is still no “Snatch” or “Lock, Stocking and Two Smoking Barrels”. 

It maintained Ritchie's signature unreliable narrative with a twisty-turny plotline, and coupled it with Ritchie’s patented quick edits, smash cuts, slow-mos and of course British wit. But, the general story was essentially too simplistic and unnecessarily complicated. It seemed at times to have been deliberately stretched out just to fill the run time. Then again, at 113 minutes, the film was not that long. 

Thankfully Ritchie assembled an ace cast that helped to sell the film and maintained the audience’s attention. 

Hugh Grant was the main standout and he is definitely having a late career renaissance embodying more dastardly characters than the lovable fops of his youth. Grant’s main scene partner was Charlie Hunnam who was great as the straight man to Grant’s whimsiness and also to Matthew McConaughey’s even straighter crime lord. 

McConaughey was well cast here but it begs to wonder how much of the story was changed, if any, to have this American take centre stage. His casting probably led to the casting of Jeremy Strong as the other American., although Strong delivered on Ritchie’s dry, Brit humour better than McConaughey. The campiness helped. 

The other standout was a barely-recognisable Colin Farrell who only had a few scenes but was  great/hilarious in them. 

Michelle Dockery held her own but she really was the Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s Eleven” - pretty, independent, but superfluous. 

And new “heartthrob” Henry Golding needs to try harder. 

Ritchie needs to make a full fledged all-British gangster caper again, but at least with “The Gentlemen” fans know he has not fully sold out...yet.