Tess of the D'Urbervilles

This movie was FANTASTIC. I haven't yet read the book, but this has incited me to do so. The characters were fascinating. Every one, even the evil ones. The story was great, all the things that happened greatly added to the suspense towards the end. DO NOT MISS THE END. The end is the best part. I waited a week to see the second half of this movie and it was well worth it.

Shortly after reading this book for the first time, I ordered this movie and loved it. I had had rather mixed feelings towards the book while reading it (kind of a love-hate relationship), and this film actually made me like the entire story much better. I liked it so much that only a couple weeks later I ordered the 2008 version, and just finished watching it last night. Wow, what a difference! Although the 2008 one has the advantage of some higher quality filming and an extra hour of screen time (more is usually better in my mind when it comes to my literature-based time period films), I found the newer to be considerably inferior to this one! This version has a MUCH better cast all around. I don't think you can beat this actress's rendition of Tess; I knew she was good in it, but couldn't fully appreciate HOW good until I saw the other version. 1998 Tess is way more convincing than 2008 Tess. My heart goes out to her, whereas 2008 Tess actually got on my nerves. 1998 Angel is much much better as well. The difference in both roles is astounding. I even thought the smaller parts, like Tess's parents and the other milkmaids, were better done in this one. The only exception I make, is that I did think the 2008 Alec D'Urberville more like how I pictured him when I read the book; 1998 Alec does a fine job, is more subtle in his portrayal, but simply does not match so much what I thought he would look and sound like.

Although there is an hour less in this film than the other, I still felt like this one is more generally accurate. I am much more tolerant of deletions from book to film (of course they can't fit everything in) than I am about alterations. There was more material in the 2008 version, but they took more liberties, which simply annoys me. This version, while it couldn't have every detail, what was there was very accurate for the most part. And it captures the story in its entirety quite well for its time constraints.

If you're a Jane Austen fan (as I am), understand that this is NOT a Jane Austen story, which tend to be like fairy tales with happy endings; there are "bad guys" in her books, but they are not a real hindrance to the real heroines. This is a grittier story, not set in the posh genteel society of the gentry and nobility; lots of low people, lots of hard labor, lots of reality. And there are the "bad guys", and then those characters which tread the line between "good" and "bad". It's definitely more complex, definitely more drama, but very worthwhile if you're up to it and know what you're getting into. If it is your first experience with this story, don't expect your viewing to be a relaxing ride. There is plenty to make you furious, happy, sad...lots of strong emotions.

When I first read this book, it was something of an emotional roller coaster (I'd absolutely adore one character, only to hate them intensely a few chapters later, and so on), but now that I'm more familiar with the story, I can appreciate it better. It sinks under your skin and makes you keep thinking about it. This movie leaves you like that, too. It's an excellent rendition of an excellent book.

I first saw this as a 3 parter on UK ITV in 1998 and was bowled over by it - imho it's the best ever screen adaptation of any Thomas Hardy novel full stop. Over the years I've seen many films and TV plays adapted from his books many of them very good, but all of them way behind this outstanding LWT (RIP)/ A&E co-production.

Poor, pure and simple country girl gets buffeted by Fate between 2 wealthy men, one essentially bad and the other essentially good, and she nobly suffers all the emotional troubles they bring her. All of the phases of her life as delineated by Hardy are brought out in the screenplay by Ted Whitehead, who did an excellent job in condensing down a long complex novel into a mere 3 hours but still not losing anything of importance. The rosy photography is lovingly and befittingly Constable/Turneresque with so many gorgeous hues and colours of simple rustic scenes and is never rushed - Hardy would surely have approved! The anguished music reflects the emotions at all stages and complements the visual sumptuousness of it all. One very minor niggle was the sometimes sloppy sound dubbing - they presumably had to work to get the accents correct later in the studio. Jason Flemyng as Alec was suitably caddish and young Oliver Milburn was realistically idealistic. But excellent as this was in all departments Justine Waddell was still the best thing about this production: she fitted my idea of tragic Tess perfectly - was she Fated to play her? If you don't crack into a million pieces when she repeatedly whispers "It's too late" to Angel you're made of sterner stuff than me!

If you like Hardy's novels you shouldn't miss this, it's a beautiful, heartbreaking, haunting and vividly memorable version of the tragedy.

Staying true to the novel, this film reflects the richness of Hardy's novel, as it does his affectionate portrayal of Tess. The stunning settings are beautifully shot making Tess of the D'Urbevilles a pleasure to watch.

The imagery in this A&E movie is wonderful. I have not read the novel yet, but the movie is an awesome feminist romance/tragedy that addresses the double standards which were set upon women in the 1800's. The actress who plays Tess is talented and believable.