ok...i'm ticked. nate was never an idiot. and they totally screwed up the plot lines...way too much messed up. i understand that it would be a long movie if done exactly but some of it was down right stupid to mess with. one of my favorite books, but the worse movie from book. is it just me or does anyone else see it too??
shareOMG YES!!! They have totally distroyed this entire book...like i don't get it! I know that it would have been long if they kept it right but still..
shareYes that mad me so MAD! In the book Nate was their Lawyer and went to a ivy league college. And he owned the racnch beside mercy ranch. Raised Horses on it too i think. And when tess went to him to well you know.... they did it. This movie was horrible. i dont think they even looked at the book. This was way worse the the first. did they just pick the actress who played willa off the street she was horrible. They totally ruined this book
share[deleted]
I KNOW.
I couldn't finish watching it. Ugh.
Did it at least end like it should have?
I spent most of the movie going WTF?!? It was like somebody read the cliff notes and then made a movie. Why they changed some of the stuff they changed is beyond me. John Corbett should have been Nate, he has the height and Nate was not a bumpkin sheriff he was a Yale educated lawyer who owned a horse ranch and who was 6'6" tall. Willa should at least have looked half Indian. It was cold and snowy for most of the book and it was cold for like 1 day in the movie. Maybe they should make mini-series instead of movies. It would be a good Lifetime movie if you had never read the book. I loved the book, by the way.
share[deleted]
I agree that the story was more about the sisters than the fact Willa had an Native American mother, but I never read the book so I was VERY confused to how they were related. At first I didn't think anything of it - I assumed they had the same father. But when Adam told his story and how his mother fled his abusive father, then I couldn't understand why she kept calling him her "half brother." I for one should know that it is possible to have a child that looks more like one parent than the other (my mom is part Native American and I inherited her dark features but my sister inherited my dad's pale features), but it just never registered with me that this was the case here. Of course I taped this and watched it late last night after working a 10 hour shift, so my brain wasn't fully functioning. But with so many half siblings running around, it would've been nice if they made things more clear for those who haven't read the book. Although judging by the posts here, I'm missing out on a great book, so I will be reading this soon.
shareHey just wondered did you ever read the book?
And so it goes....http://www.myspace.com/psboston7
i hope you have now read the book after more than 2 years. This was my first Nora Roberts book i read not knowing it was due to be aired on lifetime read it in one sitting took me about 4 hours with in a few hours of reading the book it happened to be on lifetime. I'm going cool lucky me the book is still very fresh in my mind but then the movie just pissed me off. who ever did the screen play needed to have their head examined.
shareTwo years? Oh, that's when the movie came out. I didn't see the whole movie until today, and I didn't start reading the book until Sunday.
I was pretty surprised by how completely different the movie was. I guess I should've listened to ya'll more. *laughs*
I'm on page 245 of the book, so maybe the book has this same problem, but I still need to say something about Jim:
What the hell is that guy's problem? Yeah, he's pissed that he got nothing out of the deal, but his argument makes no sense. He says that the sisters don't deserve the ranch because they didn't know Jack, and that might apply to Lily and Tess, but Willa has been there her entire life. If anything she deserves it just as much as he does.
You know how you told me to let go once in a while? I shot my car.
That's not what I had in mind.
It was pretty off but I wouldn't say it was the worst book to movie change. Have you seen Rose Hill based on the Julie Garwood book For the Roses? God! Now that was a train wreck!
shareMontana Sky was my favorite Nora Roberts book, and while I wouldn't say they destroyed it, they did a could job of trying to. Unlike some of her other mystery-romance, MS was much more involved simply because it also was buiding the relationship of the three sisters. It would have definately done better as miniseries.
I have to agree with sybilla, Rose Hill was a an awful rendition of for the roses. So yes, Montana Sky could have been worse.
It may have been a little better too if the actors had some chemistry on screen. I think the closest couple was Lily and Adam to some real chemistry, the others seemed to forced.
[deleted]
I thought it was great too. It's been a while since I read the book, so I didn't mind the discrepancies, but I felt that the filmmakers stuck to the basic gist of the story: three women, coming together and learning how to be sisters and finding love along the way. While I didn't love every aspect of the casting, I thought that everyone did a good job, and the movie was entertaining.
shareI understand updating and changing a book for a different medium, but the spirit of the book was not present in the movie. I never got the feeling of family and togetherness that the sisters shared at the end of the book.
shareall book based movies are not going to be the book. what i hated was the way they changed the plot so much that it changed the chemistry behind the characters. ok, they changed nate's character, to some of the fans, he's their favorite and they made him look like a hillbilly that i once knew. they changed events that led to true sisterhood. that's what most of us are complaining about.
shareit was a good effort and i love john corbett but the chemistry was just not there for me and i was kinda dissapointed
"Your going to get yours Beni!"
"Oh like I've never heard that before!"
I never expected this movie to be just like the book, but i did expect to be able to look into my memory and say oh yeah that happened like that, They changed it all around like they were writting it. I dont mind that willa looked diffrent. I understand that they cant put all of the book into the 90 mins. Everyone keeps talking about the people in the book, Well before people go off talking about how we dont have a clue about what happened well, Its all good if they want to change the looks of people and its ok if you need to change some of the plot but if you going to change the people why bother to even make a book into a movie?
NATE in the movie: he was an uneducated sheriff hick who didnt have a clue about what was going on.
Nate in the book: Educated yale graduate, lawyer, rancher and all around well rounded person.
That to me makes it seem wrong. He didnt look like the nate in the book and thats fine but STICK TO THE PLOT! There was a reason why they made this book into a moive. You cant have a movie without the book. Stick to it. Honor the "ART" as some might call it. There were some things that made me made but i understand that there needed to be some changes to make it into a movie.
I don't think all of the plot lines were screwed up from the book. They still had Jesse after Lily and yes it was resolved in a different way. Jim was still the bad guy and also resolved in a different way. Yes, the biggest flub was making over Nate's character. I didn't like that myself but I don't think it made the movie completely worthless. Of course, I wish there was more growth shown between the sisters but with the time constraint it is very difficult to do. I was hoping they would still go to the spa but with the small amount of time allowed for the film I knew they couldn't. They tried to bring it in with the hot tub scene which fell short but the attempt was made.
Yes, the sex scenes were definitely toned down. I thought Lifetime was a little more risque than that but since they kept it "safe" I just moved on and enjoyed the rest of the movie.
All in all I enjoyed the movie, of course, not as much as the book. I knew they would be limited in what they could do with the time but I think it was still worth watching. Hey, the book wasn't slaughtered like some in the past. Someone else mentioned it but Hallmark's channel "Rosehill" based on Julie Garwood's "For the Roses" was the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. At least Nate wasn't turned in to their brother like Harrison was turned in to Rose's brother in "Rosehill"! For those of you who have never seen "Rosehill" believe Montana Sky rasied high above what Hallmark produced.
"It is a truth universally acknowleged that a single man in posession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."
It is true that the best movies are those that delve away from the book, because then those who read it aren't simply bored when watching the same thing they had read before. However, after seeing this movie, I have to agree WTF. They totally fumbled with Nate's character. Though, unlike some others, Nate was not my favorite character, I just couldn't stand watching him in the movie, and found myself fast forwarding his parts. The screenwriters did a good job in turning him into a sherriff, to fit the plot better, but the actor certainly did not fit the role. He looked at times like he was reading the prompter and his dialogues seemed rather slow and forced. And for a sherriff, he totally seemed inept, especially when Adam was shot, and he simply was standing there after radioing for backup, while the girls were tending to him.
As for Willa and Ben, in the movie there were certain scenes that had potential, I just wish that their were more that showed their chemistry, and the fact that Willa had been denying what is right in front of her. As well, I felt the forging of the relationship between the sisters were lacking, as well they missed a key component, and that was Willa's relationship with Ham, who was more like her father, than Jack Mercy ever was.
However, I am reluctant to say this is the worst movie, because I have seen both Rose Hill (which was a really bad remake of a book) and Sanctuary (which did not live up to my expectations either). As such, I'll just say, this movie is just one to see, when there is nothing else to watch.