sjean7772000 Read the novel many years ago. John Ridd was a huge man!! What a disappointment to see a medium sized man play the part, because much of the romance of the story (especially from a woman's perspective) was based on the 'size' of John Ridd. Also, Lorna was 'very' beautiful. The actress was lovely, but not what I would call 'unforgettably' beautiful. The story lost its appeal the minute I saw John Ridd the size of any other man. Also, he just did not sell me on the part he played. This is not the first time I have been disappointed to see a movie after I read the novel, and saw the movie industry take great liberties with some of the basic story line.

laneybe2004 Sorry folks, but I must concur with "httpmom" from SF above - - this was pretty weak by BBC standards and I've seen very, very many BBC productions. The acting wasn't terrible, but it wasn't up to BBC standards (with the exception of the fabulous Michael Kitchen, who made Judge Jefferys totally believable like he does with every role he undertakes!) The accents were all over the map - - literally. Some of the actors sounded American, others sounded English, some Welsh, Irish, etc. It had an almost Hollywood-shallow ("Hollyschlock") feeling to it. The actors were all beautiful to be sure but the dialogue didn't ring true (sounded more like 19th century dialogue than 17th century, but maybe that's what the book's like?). Everyone had perfect teeth and skin and the sister who was wearing glasses - - HELLO?? This was supposed to have taken place in 1675. It wasn't until 1730 that a London optician named Edward Scarlett devised the rigid sidepieces that rest atop the ears and turned the spectacles that had been used for the previous 500 years into eyeglasses. Before that, people used spectacles that had to be held in place or mounted on a holding device to be held up to the face. So why was the older sister wearing regular glasses? Oh, maybe she stopped at LensCrafters after getting her blonde highlights put in at Super Cuts. (Looks like somebody didn't do their research on this one.) At least they weren't all cosmetically made up to the hilt. Anyway, I bought the Romance Collections I and II and this is the stinker of the first collection, in my opinion. Watching this version of Lorna Doone is not a waste of time but the previous gushing reviews about it have me puzzled.

Hans C. Frederick There are times when a story should contain more than just the plot,and the facts.There are things such as mood,tone,and symbolism that add up to make a story more than just a rousing tale.And,due to the lack of an appropriate villain,that's what this adaptation is missing. "Lorna Doone"is moe than just a story about valorous English rurals fighting an oppressive gang of outlaws.It's also a nostalgic look,seen from the perspective of the Industrial Revolution,at a rustic way of life which has vanished.It's also a positive affirmation of what was referred to,during the Victorian period,as"muscular Christianity."And,it's also the sotry of a gallant,but inarticulate and lonely man's struggle,to find love,and romance with an attractive woman,consumating in a sharing sexual union. John Ridd,the hero of this work,is a bright,physically strong,but unguided and silent man,whose struggle is at least as much within himself as it is with others.And to symbolize this arduous and difficult journey,her requires a worthy opponent. Carver Doone,therefore,is John's alter-ego,and must provide a dark,Satanic antagonist,of formidable nature and significant evil.John MUST conquer his own shadow personality,as personified by Carver.And,on a more realistic level,Carver must be strong,virile,and physically attractive,as a worthy contender for Lorna's love. The actor playing Carver,in this production,is certainly evil,vicious,rodent like,and psychopathic.But he lacks grandeur,authority,presence,and that elemental quality to provide a characterization accurate with the book.Sean Bean did a much better job.

zettel-2 Lorna Doone was the Victorians all time favourite novel, and it does contain everything a sentimental reader could ask for: love and treachery, revenge and sudden twists, all set against a colourful local and historical background... Today we can't help noticing that the plot contains more holes than a farmer's sieve, but this production covers them up by its drive and opulence, supported by convincing casting and some very good acting. The only discrepancy is Lorna's Estuary English, but as she's so pretty and acts well –