Going to see this but already feel that nothing could ever beat the original film with Alan Bates, Terence Stamp, Julie Christie etc. I adored that film and have watched it so many times. Also loved the book.
I haven't seen it yet, but it is getting good reviews. Classic works of literature are often filmed repeatedly, so there is nothing new there. A check on Imdb reveals that FFTMC has actually been filmed only three times - the first being a silent offering from 1915, which makes it something of an exception. There have been quite a few TV adaptations over the years, though.
In general, I am not a great fan of remakes - especially when there was nothing wrong with the original film. Can you imagine Casablanca without Humphrey Bogart or Ingrid Bergman? In this case, however, it isn't who was in it that makes it what it is, it is the original story. Thomas Hardy wrote a great book, which has since been translated into at least one great film (possibly two). I suppose the essence of any Hardy adaptation is how the film expresses the writer's greatest strength: his depiction of the countryside and life in Victorian Dorset, which he called 'Wessex'. of course. John Schlesinger's film did that superbly. I have only seen the trailer for the new one so far, but that seems to capture the same sort of atmosphere.
Just home from watching this. I did enjoy it but it really isn't a patch on the Julie Christie/Alan Bates/Terence Stamp version.
Christie was the perfect Bathsheba and absolutely stunning whereas the actress in the new version is just OK and no more. She's not a great beauty and wasn't as believable as Christie.
Had I never seen the earlier film then the male characters would have been OK apart from Sergeant Troy. Terence Stamp was irresistible, dashing, bewitching, hypnotic as Troy and this new guy wasn't even handsome.
However if you've never seen the older version, you should enjoy this and the scenery and photography are very good.
Only one minor niggle ..... Modern plastic buttons on garments from the 1870s :D
It's all right if you didn't know the book but it's a bit slow moving whereas the novel is full of action. It's a bit polite and sexless.
I wish they'd picked a different Hardy story; lots of them haven't been adapted for screen at all. Return Of The Native would be an obvious choice and filmmakers couldn't weasel out by trying to make the film conventional.
It's all right if you didn't know the book but it's a bit slow moving whereas the novel is full of action. It's a bit polite and sexless.
I wish they'd picked a different Hardy story; lots of them haven't been adapted for screen at all. Return Of The Native would be an obvious choice and filmmakers couldn't weasel out by trying to make the film conventional.
The cinematography however was lovely.
Really? Having not known the novel, I thought the film was bonkers, random stuff happening all of the time. I've begun reading the novel and had to put it aside as it was a bit stodgy and my brain can't deal with long sentences right now.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It's my favourite genre anyway so that will be one of the main reasons for me loving it. I'm not into high action films so the pace of this film was fine.
The sets, musical score and the cinematography were beautifully presented. The acting was very good too. I haven't been into Michael Sheen very much in the past but I was very impressed with his performance in 'Far From the Madding Crowd'. And Gabriel Oak, well he was gorgeous.:D
I thought they were going to forget to take the horse with them at the end.:p:D
Indeed. If ever there was a film that did NOT need re-making, FFTMC is it. The Alan Bates/ Julie Christie version nailed it perfectly.
Absolutely right.
Also on the Hardy theme, I haven't seen any version of Tess of the D'Urbevilles which can erase the huge impression made on me by the Polanski version, in spite of Kinski being an unlikely English maid, looks-wise.
Comments
In general, I am not a great fan of remakes - especially when there was nothing wrong with the original film. Can you imagine Casablanca without Humphrey Bogart or Ingrid Bergman? In this case, however, it isn't who was in it that makes it what it is, it is the original story. Thomas Hardy wrote a great book, which has since been translated into at least one great film (possibly two). I suppose the essence of any Hardy adaptation is how the film expresses the writer's greatest strength: his depiction of the countryside and life in Victorian Dorset, which he called 'Wessex'. of course. John Schlesinger's film did that superbly. I have only seen the trailer for the new one so far, but that seems to capture the same sort of atmosphere.
Christie was the perfect Bathsheba and absolutely stunning whereas the actress in the new version is just OK and no more. She's not a great beauty and wasn't as believable as Christie.
Had I never seen the earlier film then the male characters would have been OK apart from Sergeant Troy. Terence Stamp was irresistible, dashing, bewitching, hypnotic as Troy and this new guy wasn't even handsome.
However if you've never seen the older version, you should enjoy this and the scenery and photography are very good.
Only one minor niggle ..... Modern plastic buttons on garments from the 1870s
I could watch the above over and over again but not the newer version.
I'm really looking forward to watching this film. It's been a while since I've read FFTMC so it will be good to go back to it afterwards.
The sets and cinematography look stunning. As does Gabriel ha ha.
https://soundcloud.com/sony-soundtracks/sets/far-from-the-madding-crowd-original-motion-picture-soundtrack
^The score sounds beautiful too.
I wish they'd picked a different Hardy story; lots of them haven't been adapted for screen at all. Return Of The Native would be an obvious choice and filmmakers couldn't weasel out by trying to make the film conventional.
The cinematography however was lovely.
Really? Having not known the novel, I thought the film was bonkers, random stuff happening all of the time. I've begun reading the novel and had to put it aside as it was a bit stodgy and my brain can't deal with long sentences right now.
The sets, musical score and the cinematography were beautifully presented. The acting was very good too. I haven't been into Michael Sheen very much in the past but I was very impressed with his performance in 'Far From the Madding Crowd'. And Gabriel Oak, well he was gorgeous.:D
Absolutely right.
Also on the Hardy theme, I haven't seen any version of Tess of the D'Urbevilles which can erase the huge impression made on me by the Polanski version, in spite of Kinski being an unlikely English maid, looks-wise.