Superb acting, characterization, nuance, and depth. Compelling.
1967 characterizations are loathsome and clunky.
Yes but the 1998 version is slightly better than both the 1967 and 2015 ones.
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/thread/247745514?d=247745514#247745514
The 1967 version is way better than the other two, but the 1998 film was the most faithful to the book.
shareI couldn't disagree more. This film had no heart. No emotion. No subtlety. No character actors. Bad screenplay adaptation. Bad lead actors. It doesn't even come close the '67 version.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
From the ineptitude of the casting to the anachronisms, this movie is horrible.
The 1967 Far from the Madding Crowd, directed by John Schlesinger, with it's earthy characters and sweeping landscapes, ranks among cinema's best adaptations of a great novel to film.
This little film is paltry. The Sgt. Troy actor was effete and sulky, not a raucus, soldier with a tendency to deceive, as portrayed by Terence Stamp in 1967. Sheen tried hard to capture Boldwood.
Btw, I guess Brits, like Americans, have largely forgotten the customs and standards of the past. NOBODY would place a coffin on a dining room table. Think of the reasons why...
There used to be these little structures called 'sawhorses' often used on farms which could be adapted to support a coffin. The very rich used another type of support for coffins.
http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory
Please explain what you mean by a clunky characterisation? An example of this would be helpful. I prefer the 1967 film mainly because it gives a far more rounded account of all the principal and supporting characters, not least in explaining the basis of the relationship between Fanny and Sgt Troy which led to Troy's words and actions. The 2015 version does not, in my opinion, give the viewer any information as to why Troy should say and feel as he did. There are other reasons why I prefer the 1967 film that are in similar vein.
share[deleted]