Tess of the D'Urbervilles

It's Victorian England. Poor country girl Tess Durbeyfield (Gemma Arterton) is told that she is descended from the noble D'Urberville house. She is torn between two men. Angel Clare (Eddie Redmayne) is a well-meaning gentleman from a religious family of its time. Alec D'Urberville (Hans Matheson) is the cruel supposed-cousin. Tess' father is a loving failure. As she struggles in the unforgiving world, she is befriended by the other milkmaids Izz Huett (Jodie Whittaker), Retty, and Marian.

This is competently made for a TV mini-series. Arterton has the alluring beauty and the defiant sadness. There may be other colors that she fails to fill in the eyes of some Thomas Hardy fans but she's perfectly good to me. Redmayne has a fragile goodness nature which is very helpful. This is a female suffering melodrama along the Lifetime mode but with more costumes, more British, and more depth. This is a four-part mini-series. The fourth part does struggle to wrap everything up. The melodrama climax gets a bit cringy. It may not satisfy everybody but it has enough worthwhile.

What a really good production this is. Technically perfect and an excellent cast. Gemma Arterton is a super actress and for me this is the best performance of her career so far. If he could, I'm certain that Hardy would agree! Her newest release "Tamara Drewe" is taken from the Simmons comic strip which in turn was inspired by Hardy's "Far From The Madding Crowd". I read that a new version of "Crowd" is in the works - if they don't have Arterton as Bathsheba Everdene they are making a serious error in my opinion. She was born to play that role. I see that one of the reviews here is personally insulting to the actress. For shame!

I only recently watched this when it was on TV, but have been familiar with the book for years. I was entertained enough to watch all four episodes so that's a good start.

This production has many good points, the leading among them Gemma Arterton. She is fresh, intelligent and passionate and brings just the right touch of melancholy and spiritedness to Tess. She has the right type of natural beauty so that visually she complements the emotional qualities of her portrayal quite perfectly.

In fact, most of the leading characters were well played. I especially enjoyed Hans Mathieson's Alec, the villain with heart but a twisted core.

The photographic qualities of the film are fabulous, a real luxury; but not at the expense of the story. The trials and upheavals of Tess' life are faithfully and movingly shown. I think the story works very well, about 95% of the time, as a particular tale about particular people. This is what I enjoyed about it, but Hardy's novel does more than just tell a particular tale.

For the most part, the archetypal aspects of the leads (Tess, Angel & Alec) are insufficiently hinted at. For example, I don't think it's made clear enough that Angel loves Tess because she represents an ideal of feminine purity to him - in the book he calls her things like daughter of nature and Demeter, and this is unsatisfyingly absent here. Alec's more general role as the stronger force that distorts others' lives for the sake of personal convenience or transient pleasure could also have been more thoroughly explored (but his particular villainy and perverted love are artfully and powerfully portrayed). Angel, too, is more than just a man- he stands for the middle class with uncompromising values, no compassion and unjust double standards, which lead him to see Tess' misfortune as a greater crime than his voluntary "moral holiday" in London. Tess herself is perhaps better depicted as a representation of womanhood in her time - acute and sensitive, intelligent and hard-working, yet at the mercy of forces greater than her, and made to pay for 'sins' that she is not responsible for.

Despite the above, I don't think this is a huge omission; a novel and a mini-series are two different mediums, and if the makers thought they couldn't fit all of this into their production it was as well to leave it out altogether. So overall, still worth watching.

However I also have a gripe about the last episode, where I think the writer/s really dropped the ball. After a lengthy absence in which he sends no word, Angel suddenly reappears and has done a complete about-face with respect to his feelings about Tess. What changes his mind? What happened while he was gone? This seriously undermines the credibility of everything that happens from the moment of his return, because no reason is given for his radical change of heart. I feel that the story, character development and momentum hold up very well until Angel's return- and then drop off. This is a real shame - but while disappointing it doesn't ruin the rest of the production. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.

I read the book and then watched this version and the 1998 version, all within the span of a couple months, so it is all quite fresh in my mind. My immediate response is that I did not like this version of the movie nearly as well as the 1998 version. The filming quality is rather better, because 10 years newer, and there are subtitles on the DVD, which are advantages. Also this version is an hour longer, so there are a few additional scenes that the other one didn't have. But even for all that, I feel that it's an inferior production.

I think hands down the cast in the 1998 version was better, EXCEPT for Alec D'Urberville, who seems closer to what I pictured him as in the book. The 2008 Tess's voice and mannerisms actually got on my nerves. Her look, voice, movements, and acting style all reminded me extremely of Jennifer Garner; she could easily pass for her little sister. Now, I think Jennifer Garner is great in a romantic comedy, but I would never cast her in a time-period drama. That style just does not work in a piece like this. I thought at first that maybe they were having the actress act very immature and use a babyish voice on purpose early in the film, so that it could alter as she grew up, but even after everything Tess goes through and all the growing up she does, the actress comes off extremely juvenile. I just had trouble taking her seriously. The 1998 Tess is way more convincing in the role. The 2008 Angel, I had read previously several complaints about his acting being rather flat, and I pretty much have to agree (though I had hoped to find him otherwise). He also has the problem of coming across simply too young. The actor was in fact the same age as Angel is said to be (26), but he looks very young for his age and again it is difficult to take him seriously. Granted that people got married young, but these two actors look too much like highschoolers with a crush on each other, rather than a convincing romance.

Even though there was more material, and therefore a few more scenes, there were more inaccuracies (altering the material rather than simply cutting it) in what it had than in the 1998 version. In general I'd say it followed the book quite closely, considering, but not as closely as the other one. There were several times I just cringed with "But that's not how it happened..." A few things they did treat more accurately, like the last few minutes of the movie.

I'm a big fan of soundtracks on time period films, so I think this is important to a good movie. This soundtrack was very prettily recorded, and I think on its own might make good music, but I frequently felt like the music did not really match up with the scene very well, which can be more distracting than cheaply budgeted music. The 1998 music is less impressive in quality, in my opinion, but worked better for the most part. The costumes and the scenery are beautiful, however.

Also, as a warning, there are 2 rather vivid sex scenes in this film. This and some of the subject matter may make this movie inappropriate for young children.

I came away from the 1998 version liking the book/story better than I had; and I came away from the 2008 version liking it less. This version simply did not carry as much power with it, and I never felt myself feeling for the characters as much as I did in the other one. Still, if you're into this genre or like comparing different versions (as I do), I wouldn't say not to watch it. But I don't recommend this being your only exposure to this intriguing and intense story. It's one that I had mixed feelings about as I read it, but has rather grown on me as it has sunk in more. And perhaps this version will grow on me as well, as I get more used to it.

As much as I fell in love with this 'mini TV series' after the first few minutes, and as much as I love writing reviews on here I was determined I wouldn't write anything until I'd seen all of it, I was right to do so.

I admit, I haven't read the book, I probably will now though, so maybe it isn't fair for me to say ti's a good adaption, maybe the book is better I honestly don't know but it feels like it's been well adapted.

Certainly in terms of acting performances, editing, mise-en-scene and the like it's excellent. I was completely taken with the look of it the moment the opening credits started, maybe it's just because I love period films and series' in general but there was something about the look of it that was just pleasing to the eye. The costumes arn't particularly realistic, in one scene Tess wears an in-probably rich shade of red but i don't care, it's all artistic license as far as I'm concerned. And lets face it, the BBC don't exactly have a reputation for realism what with the cast of Robin Hood all looking like they'd all previously been part of a boy-band, but this was better.

Going back to acting performance's I say perfectly honestly they are some of the finest I've ever seen. Say what you like but i think the girl who plays Tess is excellent, maybe the accent is a little exaggerated but her conveyal of the emotions makes the character compelling and it can't be an easy part to play. Both Angel (I hate his name too) and Alec are excellently portrayed as well, particularly Angel in the last few scenes (you almost like him, despite how annoyingly nice he is) but also the supporting characters Rettie is moving in her patheticness and their Groby is too creepy for words, he literally sends a shiver down your spine.

As for conveying the story, I don't see how it could have been done better. I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone but I will say, have a box of tissues next to you, it was sadder than Steven Speilbergs 'A.I.: Atificial Intelligence' it was like the second act of Les Miserables, the same amount of tears (and thats a lot, an hour and a half of tears streaming down your face) compacted into two minutes. The stupidest thing was I watched it on BBC i-player so it ended with a message popping up saying 'I hope you enjoyed this programme' well not enjoyed as such, but I'm glad i watched it.

It'd going on my Christmas wish list right now.