“ ’Tis not my place to interfere in the affairs of others,” claims Gwenyth Paltrow in Emma, the newest movie version of a Jane Austen novel. Her words are meant to capture the trust of luckless Harriet Smith (Toni Colette, best remembered as Muriel in Muriel’s Wedding), although it’s easy to see that behind her innocent façade, Emma is trying to play match-maker. Spoiled and idle, Emma Woodhouse spends her time finding potential fiancés for her friends, a pursuit that fails more often than it works.

Emma is a charming movie, full of the splendor and romance characteristic of the original novel. Finely woven behind the movie’s entertaining story is Austen’s lightly satirical critique of 19th century society, meticulously preserved by writer/director Douglas McGrath. People who enjoy Victorian stories will be easily pleased with the film, Victorian in every dimension. Its costumes and sets, dialogue and mannerisms are all accurate reflections of the original.

McGrath remained very loyal to the novel, wisely deciding against making devastating changes that have tarnished recent classic-to-screen movies like The Scarlet Letter. In maintaining the original feel of Austen’s story, McGrath adds a dimension of authenticity, making it easier to be forgiving of the movie’s short-comings.

Somewhere between concept and finished project, Emma loses its flair. In general, the actors don’t really seem to enjoy their roles. Early on, it’s easy to notice that Gwenyth Paltrow is not as charming on screen as Emma Thompson or Kate Winslet were in Sense and Sensibility. The lines seem true to the speech of the time, but they are delivered with the uninspired dryness of a high school drama production. Watching the movie, I got the eerie feeling that the characters were not really speaking to one another.

The most notable exception is Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley, convincingly sincere and the most human of all the characters. Knightley is Emma’s brother-in-law, so close to Emma that they might as well be brother and sister. Knightley acts as Emma’s conscience while she is busy meddling in the romances of the other characters. He calls to her attention the fact that she seems to be manipulating the loves of her friends more for her own amusement than for their future happiness.

The story originally concerns itself with Emma’s attempts to make her friends and acquaintances fall in love with one another, but it slowly develops as the movie progresses. Soon, we notice that the true point of the story is Emma’s ignoring her own romantic unattachment in favor of “improving” the love lives of her friends. When Emma’s plan to make Mr. Elton, the local preacher, fall in love with Harriet backfires with Mr. Elton professing his love for Emman instead, she realizes that her interference in other people’s business does not always turn out as she expects. Although she vows to stop manipulating Harriet’s love interests, Emma finds the idea much too interesting to put aside . . .

Emma successfully manages to avoid boring the audience (a fate not shared by Persuasion, another recent Austen screen adaptation), but fails to draw us far enough into the story to feel close to the characters. Fans of Sense and Sensibility will most likely be disappointed by Emma, quickly recognizing the limitations of its actors and its script.

I was quite surprised to find that Emma was not as much fun as Clueless, an updated version of Emma that centers around a group of Beverly Hills teenagers. After seeing Emma, I actually appreciated Clueless more because I was able to see how closely the “Valley-girl” comedy was modeled after Austen’s original.

Deciding which movie to watch depends entirely on what type of movie you’re looking for. If you want a movie that will transport you out of the present into a place where it’s always Spring and everyday is spent at a party or a picnic, then Emma is perfect. However, if all you really want is a light romantic comedy, Clueless is a much better bet.