MovieChat Forums > The Land Girls (1998) Discussion > Paul Bettany's screen time amount was a ...

Paul Bettany's screen time amount was a joke.


If you wish to see The Land Girls because of Bettany, don't bother! He barely appears at all - literally five minutes altogether. No idea of the reason why, on his IMBD page, this film is listed in his "known for" titles... He is a super-secondary character. 
If, on the other hand, you want to see this film for Rachel Weisz, it's worth it. She is one of the titular characters, and lovely as usual.
Aside from her, The Land Girls is not a very good film, and largely a waste of time.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

reply

Maybe females want to see Mr Bettany? Blokes want to see the chicks?
Waste of time? I loved every minute of it, (almost, the sex scenes were ridiculous, if hilarious as well?)
It is a plausible story, and much better than the book.
Count the number of times Stella (Catherine McCormack) expresses the emotion, without having to say a thing. That is superb acting. ie, when Mr Lawrence tells her.. "No, there's too much work to be done." Disappointment. ++
Then, when she ploughs the East Meadow and we see Mr L striding across the stream... and she is thinking... "He's going to shout at me, send me home" Worry++. Brilliant writing that Mr L then says "You'd better finish it, you're doing a good jarb".
After seeing your poor Philip in the hospital, Stella goes to the beach again. Nothing said, but we (or I anyway) can read the thoughts... "He needs me, I have to stay beside him"
Of course, it's only my opinion, but Weisz is well down the list. Anna Friel is brighter and more interesting. (Great in "The Tribe" too, that's on UT too.)
Another Alas... Some movies have great actors in them for tiny minutes. No point in moaning about it, just relish the ones where he/she is on screen a lot. ie, Dangerous Beauty for Catherine!

hi,
...it's a whole lot harder to shine.... than undermine.

reply