neverteller33 This is a very strange film. The first two parts are, of course, exquisite, in the usual BBC fashion. Artistic, true and serious. But it is quite a surprise that they lack any intensity. At first, it seems that all the actors are playing their parts beyond any possible reproach, again, in the unique English manner. Nevertheless, there is something disturbing. They don't seem to respond to one another at all. There is no "chemistry", if you will, between Tess and Alec or Angel. But trust me, upon watching parts 3 and 4, you will ask yourself "What on earth put that thought into my head?" In short, as the conflict escalates, you find yourself watching not a film version of a classic novel, but a masterpiece. And maybe I am exaggerating, but for the moment, the only thing I can say is this: Thank you.

nevandsue What a really good production this is. Technically perfect and an excellent cast. Gemma Arterton is a super actress and for me this is the best performance of her career so far. If he could, I'm certain that Hardy would agree! Her newest release "Tamara Drewe" is taken from the Simmons comic strip which in turn was inspired by Hardy's "Far From The Madding Crowd". I read that a new version of "Crowd" is in the works - if they don't have Arterton as Bathsheba Everdene they are making a serious error in my opinion. She was born to play that role. I see that one of the reviews here is personally insulting to the actress. For shame!

elisaMR Aside from this, I've only seen the 1998 version starring Justine Waddell; I have, however, read Hardy's novel three times, it being my favorite. I have to say that I was disappointed with this production. I felt that the beginning was too rushed from the dance, to the death of the family horse, and while Gemma Arterton is a beautiful Tess, I just couldn't connect with her. I also didn't like the way that they developed the relationship between Alec and Tess. My interpretation has always been that while Tess remained civil with him in the beginning, she wanted little to do with him and shunned him because of his arrogance. In this adaption they make it seem as if they've developed an actual friendship and she's falling in love with him. I don't necessarily think that the acting was bad, but there was just something about this cast, particularly the two protagonists, that made me feel less for them than I normally would. The love between Angel and Tess didn't seem as real; something was missing. Angel appeared to be a young man who's pride drove him away from his true love once her secret was revealed, but in the novel he is so much more intelligent and complex than what this representation suggested. I guess overall I just feel that the characters weren't developed enough. Normally when I read the novel, or watch the 1998 version, I feel so much for these characters and become emotionally invested. Sadly this series did not produce the same effect. It is still, however, a beautiful and tragic story, and I did enjoy seeing Angel's parents and his relationship with his family, which was basically nonexistent in the '98 series. While some scenes and certain dialogue were a stretch in my opinion, the overall story stayed true to Hardy's heartbreaking novel.

alicecbr The distorted look of this actress' face due to her plastic surgery, or collagen pump-up, echoed the disappointing nature of this re-make. It became a pumped-up soap opera, rather than a drama of real life, suffered by many women of that era. Just as "The French lieutenant's Woman" has the actress pitying the English women and how many became prostitutes through no fault of their own, this thomas Hardy novel produces the same effect in me.Send a woman to the gallows for killing an abusive spouse? Of course, when there is no legal help for an ignorant woman who was reacting to the full injustice of her life. There was so many floods of tears, however, I lost sympathy for her about halfway through the series. The 1979 issue of Tess was far superior, both in writing and acting. *********************SPOILER ALERT*******************************I must say that the overall character failure of Angel is made more pronounced by the sight of him sitting on a hill far away from where Tess is executed. And is she really as dumb as this movie makes her out to be? Her life is in danger, and yet she dawdles in the mansion to the extent that she is captured. And how convenient that the famous ring of stones is right on their path. Both their IQs are called into question as you watch them striding across open ground in full sight of any who might be looking. And most certainly they couldn't be far from the scene of the murder, since all this is done afoot.The ignorance and martyred air of this young woman is insufferable. I don't remember having this same feeling when I watched the 1979 movie. Since I also have it in my library, I intend to rewatch it and try to discover why I was caught up in the drama of that one, fully empathetic with Tess and just disgusted with this one.The actress who played the mother did an excellent job of projecting a fully despicable person, complete with the whiskey bottle. I have yet to understand why this girl, pregnant as she was, rejected the first offer of marriage that would have made her baby safe and was allowed to. The second offer of marriage, she accepted after her mother accepted for her, now after the baby is dead. Most assuredly, she could have left then as she did before and wouldn't have had to kill him to get away. Too much stupidity portrayed in this one....but then again, maybe Hardy was trying to show how stupidity can lead to death, especially when Society has no protection for such women.Guess it all serves her right for having so much collagen injected in her upper lip that she looks like a grotesque imitation of a woman. Over the top-ness killed this re-make.