Emmanuelle

Aesthetically gorgeous. Apart from that, the script is almost laughable, and dialogs even more. No action, no word is believable, hence disconnected from the audience. I'm not quite sure what has been done to the sound, was every line redone post-production? It ends up being very flat and takes away the spice you would expect from such a great actress as Noemie Merlant. On this note, the entire cast is impressive for giving their very best to an empty shell.

A dozen people left the room during the movie, first one after 10 minutes. I myself fought to stay, out of respect for the cast and crew (Naomi Watts is such a good actress) and for Cinema itself. I hardly managed. The end brings nothing. I left running, quite concerned that a 2024 version of a famously erotic name had been stamped on a movie that reflects in no way the evolution of feminism, and women's pleasure, since 1974.

This is a decidedly darker take in style and substance than the original. The cinematography is darker; where the original was mostly outdoors in the lush yellow sunshine of Bangkok, this version is all shadows and dark interiors. The characters are darker, too, more silent and secretive.

Noémie Merlant, while lovely, is sharper and more angular than Sylvia Kristel, and lacking in Kristel's pure, innocent beauty. She tends to play the part much less open and expressive, adding to the mystery.

The secondary and peripheral characters are mostly undeveloped. Naomi Watts is totally wasted in a very minor role, and no one else seems up to the task of becoming an important part of the story. This version also lacks the other beautiful bodies that populated the original. The nudity, such as it is, is far less copious and quite a bit less explicit, making the sexuality of the character almost a sidelight of her personality, rather than an important feature of the story.

For my taste, there's a whole lot more to like in the original, from Sylvia Kristel's stunning beauty, to the lush tropical scenery, to the beautiful bodies filling so many of the scenes. If you aren't going to make it better, why bother to remake it?

Emmanuelle (1974) is legendary. Not in any way because the Just Jaeckin classic is an amazing movie, but because it became widely known for two main things:

1) The boundary pushing eroticism of an adventurous woman seeking sexual emancipation/discovery.

2) Sylvia Kristel, a then 22 year-old, who became an icon of perfect beauty.

Although I have never been a fan of remakes, Emmanualle lends itself well to a reimaging simply because sexual attitudes change over time and the original is now over 50 years old.

Emmanuelle (2024) is actually better than I was expecting. The cinematography is especially beautiful, and the tone rather stylish. Noémie Merlant is elegant, somewhat similar looking to a young Phoebe Waller-Bridge, yet her breasts are just as equally voluptuous as that of Kristel's.

Does the movie push the boundaries of today as the '74 classic once did? No, and although it could have well done this, Emmanuelle conciously refrains from drifting into being a piece of generic sleaze by limiting the nudity/sex to where it feels appropriate. Emmanuelle's journey to sexual enlightenment could have had a clearer narrative however.

The addition of Naomi Watts was a rather delightful piece of casting, but regretfully she does not partake in any sexy shenanigans.

Overall, Emmanuelle '24 is a nice enough update. Yet it won't be a significant title 50 years from now or topple the original's reputation.

Why did this production come into being?

I read the books when they were written and, I saw the movies in Ireland, when censorship was rampent.

Whomever came up with the idea of bringing the stories into the 21st century, should never be involved in cinematopraghy, ever again.

They denigrated the books, the movies, and the memory of Sylvia Krystel. I am so very surprised that Namoi Watts would lend herself to this travesty.

The books were erotic for the '70's, and were ripe for European art movies, which were not always available to us Irish "children".

I read all the books, saw all the movies, and this is a disgrace. Even the Black Emmanual movies that were later produced, are better than this piece of crap.

Avoid, Avoid, Avoid.

Whoever decided to let Audrey Diwan direct and destroy this nostaligic franchise needs to rather donate the production money to animal welfare.

This movie has nothing in common with the other movies in the franchise and labors on and on with infinite reels of redundant dialogue.

I am happy the franchise has been rebooted but please can they hand the movie back into the hands of a man to make and Audrey Diwan is better suited to directing " Grass is green let's watch it grow" Perhaps the moviemakers should spend some time watching the original movies to better understand what made this franchise actually premiere in movie theatres at one point.

Noemie Merlant was not badly cast, she did her best to bring sexuality into the movie but there was nothing to work with.

No idea what Naomi Watts was doing in this movie.