Poor character development, plot holes everywhere, and melodrama so over-the-top it was approaching camp territory. A decent set of actors who obviously were doing they best the could with what they had...but honestly, I don't know if it was a poor script or too much of the movie ended up on the cutting room floor, but this film was a serious disappointment.
shareFor YOU, not for me. It stayed true to the book, although by trying to fit most of the plot into the movie they rushed through a number of events. I loved the movie.
shareI can't think of one plot hole in the entire movie.
As for the rushed feeling, no, it isn't the script, and it isn't the editing room. The rushed feeling isn't a problem, it's an expression of the movie's theme: Fate.
The events are beyond the characters' control. Bathsheba and Gabriel are destined to fall in love. When Bathsheba rejects Gabriel, the cogs of fate begin to turn. Gabriel loses his sheep due to fate. Bathsheba inherits her uncle's wealth due to fate. Gabriel saves Bathsheba's barn from burning due to fate. Bathsheba's sheep fall to prey to an illness that only Gabriel knows how to treat, thereby forcing Bathsheba to retract his termination, due to fate. I could on and on with more examples.
Next time pay more attention to the weather. Weather is often used metaphorically. Vinterberg uses it here to express Fate.
My rating: 10
melodrama so over-the-top it was approaching camp territory.
I found the scene where Troy does his sword dance and cuts off a lock of Bathsheba's hair, while Bathsheba grows flushed and parts her lips with arousal, to be laughably campy. That scene may be straight out of the book (I've never read the book), but sometimes what works in a book does not translate well to the screen. I found that to be the case here.
I've never seen the 1967 version. Was it worse?
No, the scene was fantastic in the 1967 version, as was the entire movie. Terry Stamp was brilliant as Troy.
sharePlot holes? That's puzzling. Can you name one?
As far as melodrama, well it IS Thomas Hardy, ha. The Return of the Native is even more melodramatic, as are parts of Jude the Obscure.
_____________
I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.
Sorry, I get on IMDb infrequently and only just now saw your post. I think this review from NY Magazine best sums up how I felt about the movie...especially regarding what I regarded as a glaring plot hole:
"Screenwriter Nicholls’s most disastrous change involves Troy and his fiancée, Fanny (a vivid Juno Temple), who in the novel goes to the wrong church for their relatively impromptu wedding ceremony and is spurned by the humiliated Troy when she arrives after his fellow soldiers have departed. Here, Fanny tells Troy what happened at a chance meeting nine months later, when she’s, as we say, “large with child” and begging; why didn’t she find him in between? (He was around.) What did he make of her disappearance? The movie also leaves out Troy’s whereabouts in the last part of the novel, one of its most entertaining sections."
You can read the entire review here: http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/movie-review-far-from-the-madding-crowd.html
My 19 ear old daughter and I watched this on cable last night. It was the first time for both of us and neither one of us has read the book. We weren't confused by this part nor did we think it was a plot hole. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that one or both of them would refrain from seeking out the other due to feeling humiliated at being stood up at the altar. As for where Troy was during the last part of the novel, I imagine that they couldn't fit in everything from the book. They obviously made the decision to stick with Bathsheba as the focal point. I didn't need to know where Troy was all that time as it seemed clear to me that he just wanted to be away.
We both greatly enjoyed the movie and it has inspired me to now read the book.
I agree. The description that came to mind of this movie was that everything was simply very, very obvious. It just felt too simple and not hashed out and shallow and things didn't develop at a pace for the events to seem real - and the emotions didn't correspond with the previous (not well enough explained) actions.
shareI think everything fell way to convenient, even the drama.
I laughed out a lot because I couldn't believe how clumsy the characters interaction was made and how ridiculous events got thrown into the story.
Unbelievable. It's so shallow.
Felt like the War Flowers movie.
And I laugh at the meta rating. But each his own tastes and likes of course. One may like and dislike whatever one wants.
3/10 - and I hardly give such low ratings
To me this is a bad movie. Like a light telenovela.
I can't even say I was disappointed as I didn't expect anything.
Beautiful images, good music (esp. the one from the credits), good and pretty sets and settings. Terrible events and patching. The director is to blame for the incoherence.
I'll recommend this to my sister, she loves watching such stuff. She may like this one.
---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!
I agree. A distastrously lame attempt at a remake. I gave it one star and shall stick with the 1967 version.
share