User reviews

I just finished writing my review for the 2015 version. I saw both versions within 2 weeks of each other for the first time and only 2 months after reading the book for the first time (absolutely loved it!!!).

Of the two movie versions I've seen, this is by far and away the more accurate of the two. Not surprising that Masterpiece Theater would trump Hollywood in that field, especially considering the runtime is twice as long. Granted that the 2015 version is much prettier to look at, I just think a digitally remastered Blu-ray release is what this version really needs. And new cover art! Rarely have I found such awful-looking cover art concealing such a good movie.

The actress for Bathsheba in this movie is way more age-appropriate (she's supposed to be about 18) for this part than Carey Mulligan (who just turned 30) in the new one. Her playfulness and flightiness make more sense at her young age. Paloma Baeza seems less confident as an actress than she is in "The Way We Live Now" (love her in that movie), but since the character Bathsheba is often conflicted about what she should do, it works for the role.

Oak and Troy were well-cast, I thought. The actor for Oak surprised me as a choice at first (I knew him best from the 1998 "Vanity Fair"), but then he seemed to fit quite well. And this Troy did a much better job than the one in the 2015 version, in my opinion.

I really did not like the actor for Boldwood at all at first (sorry, but he seems a bit creepy and his mouth always looks upside-down to me), but I'm watching this through a second time and he's bothering me much less than he did the first time, as I'm getting more used to him. He's still a bit too old for the part. Hardy describes him (I thought at the time I read it that it was a very clever description) thus: "Apparently he had some time ago reached that entrance to middle age at which a man's aspect naturally ceases to alter for the term of a dozen years or so.... Thirty-five and fifty were his limits of variation--he might have been either, or anywhere between the two." Nigel Terry was 53 at the time he made this, but easily looks 60 or older.

Just as a warning, there are a few brief scenes that are not appropriate for children. I tend to make the mistake sometimes in thinking that all PBS movies will be at PG standards (I wish they would), but that is not always the case. It is not extremely explicit (perhaps I will add a parental advisory note for this), but definitely gets to PG-13 content a few times.

Overall this is a very good and mostly faithful rendition of a great book. I'd venture to say that about 90% of this version is portrayed close (maybe shortened or adjusted for the screen, but generally true to the original characters' actions/intents) to what was in the book. And with almost 4 hours of viewing time, they are able to cover most of the story quite thoroughly, including spending some time showing the many minor characters as distinct individuals (which is something that the 2015 version has no time to do, to its loss, as much of the book is spent in the conversations of the farm hands).

I plan to watch this frequently, and if they do make a Blu-ray release, I plan to upgrade as soon as possible!

I sometimes think that a film based on a Hardy novel should be shot at Stonehenge; the emotions brought out by his stories seem to be pre-Christian, the plot points seem to come from some dark corner of the human soul that Dickens and George Eliot never troubled to explore. I enjoyed this production while always remembering my dislike for Hardy's methods. Gabriel Oak is a wonderful creation and Nathaniel Parker is very effective in the part, I liked him more than Alan Bates, as good as Bates was.

Nigel Terry as Boldwood was the outstanding performance; his bull-like determination to have Bathsheba's hand, combined with his insecurities made a great impression. Jonathan Firth's part is a boy-toy basically; he doesn't have the substance to affect the viewer in any way. Paloma Baeza leaves an impression of not having thought out her character much, maybe she was a last-minute addition to the cast. She moves the story along well enough but the intellectual grasp of character is not there. It's the detail that makes the interest, the viewer keeps watching for the sheep-shearing and other aspects of rural life.

As a native of 'Hardy country', I feel I have a duty to comment on this production. I, as with many other people in England, eagerly awaited this series, and I have to say I was not disappointed. As us English have come to expect from our television dramas, the locations and costumes were fantastic, but this has the added bonus of an extremely accomplished screenplay. Also, the acting is superb. The accents, one of the major stumbling blocks to American acceptance, are accurate enough to satisfy English viewers (including those with the same accent!), while at the same time allowing American viewers to understand the dialogue. Particular praise should, I feel, go to Nathaniel Parker, who has achieved something very spectacular, in eclipsing Alan Bates' 1967 performance as the faithful shepherd Gabriel Oak. All in all, a feast of Wessex magic which can be enjoyed by all. Nice one.

This is a beautifully realized adaptation. Producers took a risk in using the rural dialect, and it works. That's just another touch that makes the story and the characters more real than the Hollywood version. Baeza is a treat, and Parker has never been better. Writing, directing and performance wring out every heartbreaking and humorous emotion of the Hardy novel. My one quibble is that often the rural scenery seemed "too" green for the harvest time of year, but that's a wee mark.

Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that the original version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the second (with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry).

The original version was a great disappointment to me -- Julie Christie was, as another reviewer pointed out, too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- a major casting faux pas, in my opinion. Peter Finch, as Boldwood, did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in his portrayal of the character. The greatest surprise to me, in regard to the first version, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be bland, boring, and, at times, overacted. Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of that version -- the actors appeared to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.

After having seen Nathaniel Parker's interpretation of Gabriel Oak, I cannot imagine anyone else playing the part -- it was the first time I had seen Mr. Parker in any performance, and he ripped my heart out with his portrayal of this noble, dignified, aggrieved and tormented soul. He and Ms. Baeza, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Firth (Sergeant Troy), seemed to have a thorough comprehension of, and sensitivity toward, the characters as they were intended by Thomas Hardy -- they appeared to have walked straight out of the pages of the book! In addition, the sensitive and intuitive direction by Nicholas Renton drew powerful performances from all, including a superior supporting cast. The accurate period costumes, and beautiful sets and cinematography, serve to round out a production of true quality.

I highly recommend to anyone interested in this story, that he or she consider reading the book first. Although this screenplay remains true to the book, some of the detail which enhances understanding and feeling for the characters, the time period, and the plot, was edited due to time constraints, as is common with filmed productions of great pieces of literature.

I just happened to tune into this production on my local PBS station a few years ago and my immediate reaction was "Oh no, not another boring and stuffy Masterpiece Theatre production!" Well, fortunately I was totally unfamiliar with the plot of this film (which is based on the classic Hardy novel) and within minutes became completely riveted to my television when the character of Sergeant Troy appeared on the screen. Like Bathsheba, the female lead, I was completely taken in by Troy as portrayed by the actor Jonathan Firth and then horrified as to the events that followed. Again, this production caught me totally by surprise and it had some of the best acting scenes I have ever encountered .. a far cry from those period pieces where emotions are kept below the surface. That kind of acting is tiresome. The acting here is filled with alot of passion, emotion, and sparks. Best scene: Troy and Boldwood fighting over Bathsheba in the courtyard. It is shocking, despicable, heart-breaking, and sexy all at the same time! Compliments to all of the actors in a most underrated production.

I didn't think it was possible. I'd always loved the 1967 Julie Christie version with Alan Bates as the upright shephard Gabriel Oak. But having seen this version, then reading the book (amazingly readable) and re-watching the 1967 version, I definitely give my vote to Nathaniel Parker as my favorite Gabriel. (OK, so he's even cuter than Alan Bates circa 1967, so that part's a no-brainer!)

Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie. It also became apparent to me that Julie Christie was too old for the part. Paloma Baeza is much more realistic (and likeable) as the headstrong, impetuous Bathsheba. I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version. The final scenes where she accepts his proposal and post-wedding are a lot more passionate (still without a single kiss, alas!) than the cool (dispassionate) ending of the 1967 version.

This is a wonderful adaption of the great Thomas Hardy novel. Though the 1960's version (starring Julie Christie, Alan Bates,and Terrance Stamp) is gorgeous, this film is not so dated and the performances are in keeping with the original intent of the novelist. All the principles are strong but especially impressive is Nigel Terry's performance as doomed Mr. Boldwood whose love for Bathsheba drives him from hope and new-found happiness to despair and frenzy.

The locations are beautiful - almost another character in the story. The dialects of the locals may be difficult to understand at first but my ear learned to listen. The video version allows for playback of difficult to understand dialog.

Definately worth the 4 hour investment. It made me re-read the novel and enjoy it all over again.

I finally saw the 1967 version of Hardy's story, and while I thought it had excellent performances, the 1998 version is more satisfying. I've always liked both Alan Bates and Nathaniel Parker, but I think I'd have to give the latter the nod for his portrayal of the upright, conscientious Gabriel Oak. Nigel Terry is superb as the tragic Mr. Boldwood; his entire demeanor commanded more sympathy from me than did Peter Finch's portrayal -- you simply ache for the poor fellow when he's trying to gain even the slightest bit of encouragement from Paloma Baeza (who is exceptional as Bathsheba). I also thought this version was brighter and warmer than the visually gloomy, bleak 1967 version. (Well, perhaps that's really what Wessex looks like.) I realize this isn't exactly a happy tale, but it's nice to see SOME upbeat moments and sunshine once in awhile. All in all, a very satisfying performance -- a few hours well-spent.

The fine detail , the time given to a glimpse of everyday life on the estate , gentle period and period style music , sweeping landscapes photographed from the ground ....... and superb acting to go with it . Parker , Baeza and the rest of the cast shine so much brighter than the principals in the big 2015 movie ; there is nothing in the least contrived in any of the scenes . Treat yourself to this , whether you've seen the latest version of not , especially if yo enjoy the gradual unfolding of a great novel , instead of a truncated version . You won't be disappointed .

This superb extended film, or mini-series (which may have been its format when originally broadcast), of the famous novel by Thomas Hardy was made for British Independent Television and deserves to be much better known. It is greatly superior in authenticity and detail to the 1967 John Schlesinger film, with its prominent stars and large budget, and vast media coverage at the time of its release. This film runs 3 hours and 21 minutes and is thus able to include much material necessarily omitted from shorter films of the novel (a new one is being shot at the moment, presumably for 2015 release). This film also contains an extraordinarily high level of authenticity. The characters speak in genuine local dialect, much of Hardy's original dialogue is retained in all its piquancy and 19th century eloquence, and the farming scenes are very accurate. (Now we know all the details of how to save a hay rick in a storm, how to shear a sheep with the old clippers before electricity came in, how to persuade a reluctant new-born lamb to suck, and how to sharpen our shears on a rotating whetstone without cutting our fingers.) The atmosphere conveyed in this excellent production is therefore just what Hardy wished us to experience. The story is set in the 1850s and early 1860s. The young independent farmer (an aspiring yeoman) Gabriel Oak is ruined by the loss of his entire herd of sheep and has to go in search of a farm labourer's job to survive. He is excellently played by actor Nathaniel Parker. He has just the right blend of solid character, patience, devotion, rectitude, and generosity of spirit. Even more brilliant casting was Nigel Terry as the tragic character Farmer Boldwood, whose emotional loneliness haunts him nearly to madness in his fine manor. He conveys the silent suffering of the character intended by Hardy far more convincingly than the late Peter Finch did in the 1967 film, which I must say, as much as I admire Peter Finch's wonderful work and career. Similarly, Parker exceeds the performance given by Alan Bates in 1967 as Gabriel. But the central performance of all in this film, and its very heart and soul, is given by the actress with the unusual name of Paloma Baeza. She has a Mexican father, hence her name, and an English mother. She perfectly portrays the fiery, almost manically independent, Bathsheba, in a wholly convincing manner. She is a very model of early feminism. Her task was the most difficult of all, and in it she succeeded splendidly. I noticed to my surprise that my cousin Susan Conklin, who is active in American television, was script editor for this film, which was a British-American co-production with PBS and WGBH of Boston. The film was directed by Nicholas Renton, one of British television's most talented directors. The following year, he directed the marvellous mini-series WIVES AND DAUGHTERS (1999, see my review), in which he found another extraordinary young woman, Justine Waddell, to create a memorable and unforgettable central role. Certainly one might say that the late 1990s appears to have been Renton's creative golden age. If he had done nothing else in his career (which is far from being the case), Renton could rest on the laurels of this film and that other series as crowning achievements, sufficient to carve his name in the stone of memory. Anyone who wants to know and experience the real Hardy on screen, and to see what life was really like in Hardy's 'Wessex', need look no further than this authentic, heart-breaking saga so brilliantly produced, acted, and directed, with all its emotional intensity. In our age of falsities and simulations, we get further from real life every day, and so far from the earth and the land, the beasts and the fields, that we live increasingly in a kind of Truman Show where everything is artificial. Now everyone has a thousand Facebook friends whom he or she has never actually met. Why not see what it was like to live in a small isolated community with only a few people and the urgencies of Nature on every hand at all times, the social difficulties and confining circumstances of traditional rural life, and see something of Real Life as lived by our species for most of its history. In those days, you could not escape reality, no matter how deeply you wished to do so, and that is the precise opposite of large numbers of lives today, which are devoted in so many ways to an escape from reality. In the 'old days' shown here, characters might become desperate or even deluded, but even the delusions then were real. Whereas today, so much reality has ceased to be real that the word has nearly lost its meaning. We need wonderful films like this to give us back our perspective and to remind us of what humans were, until now.

When I saw the 2015 version of Far from the Madding Crowd with Carrie Mulligan and Matthias Schoenarts, I was taken with Tom Hardy's story, the characters, the landscape, the incredible color and spectacle of the surroundings. It is so breathtakingly gorgeous, with cinematography befitting of a Merchant Ivory production. The acting was accomplished Although Oak was not very verbal, he projected a simple and stalwart shepard. What he did deliver was fluid and uncontrived. Schoenarts made a rugged and loyal Gabriel Oak. Carrie, a smart, sassy, and clever tongued Bathsheba. Much more striking and heady than the giddy, and far too matronly Julie Christie in the earlier production. But despite the verdant forest breathing with life at night and the harvest scenes reminiscent of a John Singer Sergeant oil painting, somehow, when I saw the 1998 BBC version, I realized 2015 fell short and that in the 1998 version a richer story was revealed. Nathaniel Parker's impeccable acting so beautifully crafted Gabriel Oak's character. He made Oak fully rounded, repleat with insecurities, jokiness and physical and emotional strength. He nailed not just every phrase, but every innuendo, pause, glance, gaze and motion. He seemed equally comfortable as a common Sheppard and later as the bailiff, in who he was. Nigel Terry was beautifully cast as Boldwood. As was Michael Sheen in the 2015 version. Both are exceptional actors. Paloma Baeza was great as Bathsheba, but Carrie Mulligan was better in that you had a clearer understanding of her thought process. With Paloma it just seemed that she spoke in absurdities to be arrogant, overly vain, or just odd or something... The industrial revolution and the change from country servitude to a Master to more independent city life (as it turned out,servitude to a more formidable master -- feeding a factory machine) is addressed on in the 1998 version,but these changing times are not addressed in the 2015 film. Likewise, the 1998 version does not dwell on Bathsheba's education and higher status on the social ladder as a reason for initially rejecting Oak. And in the 2015 version, he is a shepard still and not her Bailiff, when they unite. Implausible in that day, but no doubt lost on today's audiences. This 1998 BBC version is a find -- truly excellent.

The book is a masterpiece, it's perhaps Hardy's most accessible book and one of his best, his way of words and vivid descriptions as well as the beautifully realised characters demonstrate that. Between the 1967 film and this, both are very good in their own way but there is a personal preference to this. The 1967 film has the slightly more authentic visuals and the more beautiful music score, but the casting is on the most part superior and more age-appropriate here. The rustic and evergreen scenery are still absolutely beautiful here and the photography compliments that. The costumes blend within the setting to great effect. In the music score there is less emphasis on the woodwind like there was in that of the 1967 film, instead the strings and woodwind have equal amounts to shine and is appropriately wistful. The dialogue shows fidelity to Hardy's writing without it dragging things and is remarkably literate, tragic and with even some wit in the interplay in Bathsheba and Troy. The attempts at the rural dialect comes across very well too. The story is compelling, well-paced and moving, and there are several memorable moments like the fight over Bathsheba, how the characters are dressed, the sheep-stampede, the shearing supper outdoors that echo those in the 1967 film, as well as some original ones like the grim views among the peasantry, the shear-sharpening scene, Oak and Bathsheba catching fire, the singing of The Banks of Allan Water. The acting is very good, the best being the heart-wrenching Gabriel Oak of Nathaniel Parker(Nigel Terry comes off equally effectively for the same reasons as well). Jonathan Firth is a rakish and appropriately crusty Troy, a character that you grow to like and Natasha Little is charming as Fanny. Paloma Baeza is not quite as good as the rest, she is handsome and has great moments of sassiness and fire but there are other moments where she is on the plain and dramatically dreary side. And yes you do miss the kiss in both versions. On the whole, excellent adaptation and the superior version, though the 1967 film while not perfect is also very good. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I am a big fan of movies that follow the novel, and this version does not disappoint. It helps if one truly loves literature, as I do, but even so this story is incredible. The film makers did a wonderful job with this. It makes me want to move back to England when I watch it.

I gave up watching this after I heard the line, "Do you want a job then?" The dialogue was so modern and unconvincing I was soon irritated by it, and the line in question was the last straw! Another reviewer has commented on the rural dialect. I am an Englishman who lives in the West Country (where this story is set) and am familiar with West Country dialects and accents as they were before television destroyed them. The dialect and accents used in this version were hopeless, and would have been best avoided. (I haven't heard realistic West Country speech in films or on TV since the '60s/'70s - actors seem unable or unwilling to make the effort.)