Reviews (17)

Engrossing and captivating! Highly recommended.
"The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" is based on the Victorian novel by Anne Bronte. It tells the story of secretive, passionate and outspoken Helen Graham who lives quietly with her young son in Wildfell Hall. She befriends a young neighborhood farmer, Gilbert Markham, and he falls in love with her, despite her objections. It soon unfolds that Helen is "on the run" from her privileged life and her cruel, alcoholic husband - Arthur Huntingdon - and a series of flashbacks tell the story of her life with him. The story itself is engrossing and, like Jane Eyre, it's ultimately a story of a strong woman overcoming the odds and coming out triumphant in the end.

The BBC has done a great job with this production. Tara Fitzgerald ("The Woman in White," "Brassed Off") is perfectly cast as the downtrodden but feisty Helen. Handsome actors Toby Stephens ("The Great Gatsby") and Rupert Graves ("Room with a View," "Mrs. Dalloway") are excellent as the devoted Gilbert and the detestable Huntingdon. Tara Fitzgerald and Toby Stephens have a chemistry that most would find irresistible. The performances from the principal actors are excellent and Rupert Graves does such a good job that I found myself hating and pitying him at the same time. I highly recommend to anyone who enjoys Bronte's work or first-rate British drama.

My favourite video!
This video (which runs for 160 mins) follows rather closely to the classic novel by Anne Bronte (except for the ending - nevertheless, it will still please you).

The production is lavish, the costumes beautiful and very correct to the period of time. The cast very capably brought to life the characters of the suffering Helen Graham, the scoundrel Arthur Huntington and the love-struck Gilbert Markham.

Tara Fitzgerald appeared a little miscast, owing to her often unnecessarly harsh displays of emotions and an unsuitable gruffy voice. But because she played the role of Helen Graham (who's an exceedingly likable heroine), I grew to ignore all that and found myself rooting for Helen to find all the happiness she deserves.

I simply love Toby Stephens whom I think, is just perfect as Gilbert, the handsome, young gentleman farmer who sees the goodness in Helen and seeks to protect her from the hypocrisy and prejudice shown by his unkind relatives and neighbours.

The cinematography is lush and breathtaking. It's obvious that this is a well-planned production with no expense spared.

I have only 1 minor complaint - that the romantic scenes involving Helen and Gilbert weren't made more passionate (the way it should be). Instead, we see more displays of love and affection between Helen and Lord Huntington (during their courtship days and early marriage). And to what purpose do they serve? - Since we know just what a brute Huntington turns out to be later!

If you love this video, please pick up the book (ie. if you haven't already) - the book fleshes out the thoughts, emotions and agonies of the love-lorn Gilbert much more effectively than could be captured on film.

Nevertheless, I love this video. It's great to have in one's collection for repeated viewings.

"He only wants for guidance."
In this excellent BBC adaptation of Anne Bronte's novel, an attractive young woman and her young son move into long-neglected Wildfell Hall. The woman (Tara Fitzgerald), Mrs. Helen Graham, claims to be a widow who is forced to make her living as an artist. Some of the local families try to befriend her, but they find Mrs. Graham to be abrasive and unfriendly. Local farmer, Gilbert Markham (Toby Stephens) is attracted to Mrs. Graham, and this does not escape the jealous eye of local lass, Eliza Millwood. Soon spiteful rumours abound about Mrs. Graham and her relationship to her landlord, Mr. Lawrence. Mrs. Graham tells Giles the truth about the past--including her desperate need for secrecy regarding her true identity. It seems that Mrs. Graham is really Mrs. Huntingdon--the wife of a dissolute rake who leads a life of debauchery in his constant pursuit of pleasure.

One of the reasons I enjoy "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" so much is it clearly depicts Victorian notions of womanhood. Bronte, however, through the characters and the story shows the absurdity and unfairness of the woman's role. Helen Huntingdon embodies the Victorian ideal of "the Angel in the House" and certainly Huntingdon expects angelic behaviour from her--no matter what abuse rains down on her head. Huntingdon thinks himself above criticism, and yet he holds Helen to the highest standard. He's a petty bully with a penchant for gratuitous cruelty. While he criticizes Helen's housekeeping abilities, her performance as a wife and as a mother, he also calls her "half mortal, half angelic." Helen embodies this perfect Victorian ideal, but we see the absurdity of her sacrifices as Huntingdon tramples on Helen's "delicate goodness" again and again. Bronte's book was a scandal when it was published in 1848, and while this adaptation no longer has the ability to make the average viewer swoon, nonetheless, there is great power to this story.

Fans of the novel should be happy with this adaptation. It is perfectly cast--even in the fairly minor roles. The photography is stunning, the costumes marvelous, and a haunting score accompanies the drama. There are several very clever camera shots. In one scene, the camera sweeps slowly and lovingly along the curve of Helen's shoulders, and in some scenes, the camera appears to take a bird's eye view of ballroom dancers. Tara Fitzgerald is always wonderful in these period piece roles. As Mrs. Graham/Huntingdon, she has a veneer of coldness, and Markham at first finds her "too hard, too sharp, too bitter." Helen Huntingdon's character is explored very well in the flashbacks of her awful married life to Arthur Huntingdon. Toby Stephens as Markham is in complete contrast to Huntingdon (Rupert Graves). Markham plays a solid, genuine lover--conscious of his social inferiority to the Huntingdons. Rupert Graves is an old hand with these sorts of roles, and he really does a spectacular job as Huntingdon--a man who's used to using his boyish charm to get what he wants, and yet the most unpleasant side of him shows after Helen is at his mercy while he runs with his pack of equally dissolute friends. Huntingdon delivers some of the very best lines in the film. Bronte fans, and BBC costume drama fans should be equally delighted with this production. The video is 160 minutes long, and it's worth every penny--displacedhuman

I'm Wanting to See This Wonderful Movie Transferred to DVD!
I haven't read the Anne Bronte classic novel yet but I saw this movie version of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall on cable one day and this is the movie that made me love watching British period costume movies. It is a wonderful movie with some terrific acing from the whole cast. Tara FitzGerald and Toby Stephens are wonderful but I think Rupert Graves gives a standout performance and I very greatly recommend this movie and I'm hoping it will be transferred to DVD! I'm also thinking about reading the classic novel!

The spirit of the original left out
I read Anne Bronte's book, loved it, then checked out the reviews for the VHS version here at Amazon. I couldn't find it to rent anywhere, but the reviews convinced me that I could safely buy a copy without viewing it first. Now that I've seen it, I am scratching my head wondering why it got the great reviews it did (and KICKING myself for buying it). Compared to the book, this BBC rendition I just watched last night made me think of cutting the arms and half the body off of your favorite sweater so that you could pack it better; it may fit in your small suitcase now, but it's not at all what it was. I gave the movie two stars instead of one star because the filming locations were good, and the costuming and the acting were not distracting - but the spirit of Anne Bronte's original story isn't there at all. The only thing that keeps it going for two cassettes is whatever the screenplay writer picked out of the book to make it recognizable. I think the worst misconstrued line in the movie comes from Gilbert, and it illustrates my point about the spirit of Anne Bronte's work being cast aside: Gilbert goes to Helen when she is with her husband, who is still alive - NOT in the book - and tells her (by way of trying to woo her), "It's not a sin to be happy." This line has become a classic in our generation, but this spirit was nowhere to be found in the book, and makes a completely different Helen and Gilbert than Anne Bronte would have given her permission for, which says a lot, since Helen and Gilbert are the principle characters. This video adaptation ruins the message of Anne Bronte's wonderful work. ... Read more

Description

Romance, suspense and wrenching jealousy abound in this adaptation of theDaphne du Maurier novel. Charles Dance stars as Maxim de Winter, a brooding English nobleman who marries a much younger woman is forced to live in the shadow of de Winter's first wife, Rebecca, whose memory is tenaciously preserved by a sinister housekeeper. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Du Maurier and Not On Par With Hitchcock
When I first heard of this production on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre, I was thrilled with anticipation regarding how it would be played. Would it rival Hitchcock's masterpiece? Would it be marketed as a romantic escape?

Unfortunately, althought this version of Du Maurier's classic follows the book very closely and is over 2 hours longer than the original 1940s film, it just doesn't measure up to either Hitchcock or the book. Hitchcock downplays Du Maurier's portrayal of the strange relationship between men and women. Men are omnipotent---women, merely serve. Rebecca, too strong must go. Hitchcock plays up the Gothic touches with fog, music and a weakly played Max De Winter. The nameless heroine gathers strength as Rebecca is revealed to be intrinsically evil. But this is not Du Maurier's 'Rebecca'. In the book there is no win in the ending---the heroine simply remains a caretaker as she was in the beginning of the novel; her charge has changed from Mrs. Van Hopper to Maxim. The couple drifts like sad wanderers from place to place; as Du Maurier puts it, "There is no resurrection." In this adaptation and in Hitchcock, love seems to conquer all---an idea completely alien and misunderstood by most readers of Du Maurier.

First and foremost, the girl playing the narrator is not gauche or dependent enough--she has too much spunk and sparkle lurking behind the lank hair and the school girl dresses. Fontaine was ever so much more desperate to please as I think Du Maurier's heroine was meant to be. Du Maurier doesn't even give her a name. Dame Diana Rigg is an equally austere Mrs Danvers, but her portrayal is much too sad, not malicious enough and definitely suggests a [physical] attraction to her former mistress which seems mournful rather than simply obsessive like DuMaurier's character in the novel or Dame Anderson's character in Hitchcock's film. Charles Dance is not as taut nerved as Olivier, but he passes as an okay Max DeWinter with perhaps a third of Olivier's charm. Still, he comes off as weak as does Olivier in Hitchcock's version---neither fully portraying the strong silent brooding character of Maxim in the book. Lastly, giving Rebecca a voice and a body, is a mistake. Du Maurier's book is so compelling simply because we don't know anything about Rebecca and hence can envision whatever femme fatale we choose--the real Rebecca is a ghost; she remains a mystery to the very end--we don't know if she is really malevolent---we only have Maxim's word--or excuse for his own violent actions. We don't even understand her motives fully even after the production moves to the final scene at Manderley.

Nevertheless, if you simply love everything 'Rebecca', you will at least like this version, but, I guarantee it will provoke you to find a copy of the Hitchcock version at your local rental store or better yet a worn copy of the book at your library!

Certainly awesome
I watched this movie only after I read the book by Daphe Du Maurier several times at different ages. I am glad to say that it was very close to what I had imagined while I read the book. I certainly feel 3 hours are required for doing justice to the book. Though, it would have been much better had they spent more time showing how Maxim de Winter and the narrator fall in love in Monte Carlo. I feel that was too hurried and several details were left out. The last part where Max de Winter tries to save Danvers from the burning Manderley ought to have been avoided as it wasn't part of the story and only added melodrama.

The cast for this second version with Charles Dance, Emilia Fox and Diana Rigg couldn't have been better. The perfect English looking Charles Dance is the only one who could portray the reserved, austre and noble Max de Winter. I feel the difference in age between Max De Winter and the narrator was very accurately portrayed in the film. An older, more mature looking man was very vital for this role. Though the book says that Maxim was about twice the age of the young narrator, around 40, I always imagined Maxim to look older than that with all the fear and suffering he had undergone. Olivier certainly was not cut for this role in Hitchcock's version. I think Emilia Fox was also great with her lost, shy look.

I feel this version is probably the closest it can get to the book and the characters. The cast chosen was the best by far.

great !
A film highly recommended for Diana Rigg friends and fans. I like most. Terrific and great play Dame Diana !!

Love this movie but I too wish Hollywood would do a version
I liked this version of the movie much better than the original 1940's version; and it certainly does justice to the book. But I would love it if Hollywood did a version with Ralph Fiennes as Maxim, Jillian Anderson as Mrs. DeWinter (because she has those big doe eyes), Maggie Smith as Mrs. Danvers, and shown as the ghost of Rebecca, Madoline Stowe. The Rebecca in the current version is not mean and brooding enough.

I wish...
if only holleywood would undertake a newer modern version of this film. I've read the novel, and I like that this movie shows us a bit about rebecca. When reading the book I pictured Hugh Jackman as a wonderful Maximilian and Julie Benz as the ghostlike Rebecca with flashbacks to this mystery woman. I know it sounds strange, but I really feel they should remake this film. Maybe get Tim Burton to do it or something? :)
It was overall dissapointing. I hope they shall redo this someday. My friends agree with me on the casting though if it should ever be made. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The BBC adaptation of Anne Bronte's moral tale The Tenant of Wildfell Hall will be a delight to those who revel in classics brought to the screen. Tara Fitzgerald stars as Helen Graham, a secretive woman who seeks independence for herself and her son from her cruel husband, Arthur Huntingdon. Huntingdon, a rake taken with women and drink, is played to perfection by Rupert Graves, believable as both the young lover who seduces Helen and as the depraved and brutish man he becomes. Toby Stephens is Gilbert Markham, the suspicious yet adoring yeoman farmer smitten with the supposed widow. The scenery and costumes of this period piece are lush, although the use of flashback as a narrative device is at times jarring. This tale is darker than the Jane Austen adaptations that BBC audiences are used to, yet the two-part film has an ending satisfying enough for even the most cynical of romantics. --Jenny Brown ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Engrossing and captivating! Highly recommended.
"The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" is based on the Victorian novel by Anne Bronte. It tells the story of secretive, passionate and outspoken Helen Graham who lives quietly with her young son in Wildfell Hall. She befriends a young neighborhood farmer, Gilbert Markham, and he falls in love with her, despite her objections. It soon unfolds that Helen is "on the run" from her privileged life and her cruel, alcoholic husband - Arthur Huntingdon - and a series of flashbacks tell the story of her life with him. The story itself is engrossing and, like Jane Eyre, it's ultimately a story of a strong woman overcoming the odds and coming out triumphant in the end.

The BBC has done a great job with this production. Tara Fitzgerald ("The Woman in White," "Brassed Off") is perfectly cast as the downtrodden but feisty Helen. Handsome actors Toby Stephens ("The Great Gatsby") and Rupert Graves ("Room with a View," "Mrs. Dalloway") are excellent as the devoted Gilbert and the detestable Huntingdon. Tara Fitzgerald and Toby Stephens have a chemistry that most would find irresistible. The performances from the principal actors are excellent and Rupert Graves does such a good job that I found myself hating and pitying him at the same time. I highly recommend to anyone who enjoys Bronte's work or first-rate British drama.

My favourite video!
This video (which runs for 160 mins) follows rather closely to the classic novel by Anne Bronte (except for the ending - nevertheless, it will still please you).

The production is lavish, the costumes beautiful and very correct to the period of time. The cast very capably brought to life the characters of the suffering Helen Graham, the scoundrel Arthur Huntington and the love-struck Gilbert Markham.

Tara Fitzgerald appeared a little miscast, owing to her often unnecessarly harsh displays of emotions and an unsuitable gruffy voice. But because she played the role of Helen Graham (who's an exceedingly likable heroine), I grew to ignore all that and found myself rooting for Helen to find all the happiness she deserves.

I simply love Toby Stephens whom I think, is just perfect as Gilbert, the handsome, young gentleman farmer who sees the goodness in Helen and seeks to protect her from the hypocrisy and prejudice shown by his unkind relatives and neighbours.

The cinematography is lush and breathtaking. It's obvious that this is a well-planned production with no expense spared.

I have only 1 minor complaint - that the romantic scenes involving Helen and Gilbert weren't made more passionate (the way it should be). Instead, we see more displays of love and affection between Helen and Lord Huntington (during their courtship days and early marriage). And to what purpose do they serve? - Since we know just what a brute Huntington turns out to be later!

If you love this video, please pick up the book (ie. if you haven't already) - the book fleshes out the thoughts, emotions and agonies of the love-lorn Gilbert much more effectively than could be captured on film.

Nevertheless, I love this video. It's great to have in one's collection for repeated viewings.

"He only wants for guidance."
In this excellent BBC adaptation of Anne Bronte's novel, an attractive young woman and her young son move into long-neglected Wildfell Hall. The woman (Tara Fitzgerald), Mrs. Helen Graham, claims to be a widow who is forced to make her living as an artist. Some of the local families try to befriend her, but they find Mrs. Graham to be abrasive and unfriendly. Local farmer, Gilbert Markham (Toby Stephens) is attracted to Mrs. Graham, and this does not escape the jealous eye of local lass, Eliza Millwood. Soon spiteful rumours abound about Mrs. Graham and her relationship to her landlord, Mr. Lawrence. Mrs. Graham tells Giles the truth about the past--including her desperate need for secrecy regarding her true identity. It seems that Mrs. Graham is really Mrs. Huntingdon--the wife of a dissolute rake who leads a life of debauchery in his constant pursuit of pleasure.

One of the reasons I enjoy "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" so much is it clearly depicts Victorian notions of womanhood. Bronte, however, through the characters and the story shows the absurdity and unfairness of the woman's role. Helen Huntingdon embodies the Victorian ideal of "the Angel in the House" and certainly Huntingdon expects angelic behaviour from her--no matter what abuse rains down on her head. Huntingdon thinks himself above criticism, and yet he holds Helen to the highest standard. He's a petty bully with a penchant for gratuitous cruelty. While he criticizes Helen's housekeeping abilities, her performance as a wife and as a mother, he also calls her "half mortal, half angelic." Helen embodies this perfect Victorian ideal, but we see the absurdity of her sacrifices as Huntingdon tramples on Helen's "delicate goodness" again and again. Bronte's book was a scandal when it was published in 1848, and while this adaptation no longer has the ability to make the average viewer swoon, nonetheless, there is great power to this story.

Fans of the novel should be happy with this adaptation. It is perfectly cast--even in the fairly minor roles. The photography is stunning, the costumes marvelous, and a haunting score accompanies the drama. There are several very clever camera shots. In one scene, the camera sweeps slowly and lovingly along the curve of Helen's shoulders, and in some scenes, the camera appears to take a bird's eye view of ballroom dancers. Tara Fitzgerald is always wonderful in these period piece roles. As Mrs. Graham/Huntingdon, she has a veneer of coldness, and Markham at first finds her "too hard, too sharp, too bitter." Helen Huntingdon's character is explored very well in the flashbacks of her awful married life to Arthur Huntingdon. Toby Stephens as Markham is in complete contrast to Huntingdon (Rupert Graves). Markham plays a solid, genuine lover--conscious of his social inferiority to the Huntingdons. Rupert Graves is an old hand with these sorts of roles, and he really does a spectacular job as Huntingdon--a man who's used to using his boyish charm to get what he wants, and yet the most unpleasant side of him shows after Helen is at his mercy while he runs with his pack of equally dissolute friends. Huntingdon delivers some of the very best lines in the film. Bronte fans, and BBC costume drama fans should be equally delighted with this production. The video is 160 minutes long, and it's worth every penny--displacedhuman

I'm Wanting to See This Wonderful Movie Transferred to DVD!
I haven't read the Anne Bronte classic novel yet but I saw this movie version of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall on cable one day and this is the movie that made me love watching British period costume movies. It is a wonderful movie with some terrific acing from the whole cast. Tara FitzGerald and Toby Stephens are wonderful but I think Rupert Graves gives a standout performance and I very greatly recommend this movie and I'm hoping it will be transferred to DVD! I'm also thinking about reading the classic novel!

The spirit of the original left out
I read Anne Bronte's book, loved it, then checked out the reviews for the VHS version here at Amazon. I couldn't find it to rent anywhere, but the reviews convinced me that I could safely buy a copy without viewing it first. Now that I've seen it, I am scratching my head wondering why it got the great reviews it did (and KICKING myself for buying it). Compared to the book, this BBC rendition I just watched last night made me think of cutting the arms and half the body off of your favorite sweater so that you could pack it better; it may fit in your small suitcase now, but it's not at all what it was. I gave the movie two stars instead of one star because the filming locations were good, and the costuming and the acting were not distracting - but the spirit of Anne Bronte's original story isn't there at all. The only thing that keeps it going for two cassettes is whatever the screenplay writer picked out of the book to make it recognizable. I think the worst misconstrued line in the movie comes from Gilbert, and it illustrates my point about the spirit of Anne Bronte's work being cast aside: Gilbert goes to Helen when she is with her husband, who is still alive - NOT in the book - and tells her (by way of trying to woo her), "It's not a sin to be happy." This line has become a classic in our generation, but this spirit was nowhere to be found in the book, and makes a completely different Helen and Gilbert than Anne Bronte would have given her permission for, which says a lot, since Helen and Gilbert are the principle characters. This video adaptation ruins the message of Anne Bronte's wonderful work. ... Read more

Reviews (83)

Strong showing from God.
Finally a movie that has the courage to tell the REAL story! I found the movie's unabashed historical accurancy to be quite refreshing. It offers a necessary corrective to the biased one- sided account that Genesis has been stuffing down our throats since 54 A.D. Jon Voight, although a little young for his part (though only by 540 years), gave a performance that was Oscar-worthy, his presence electrifying, both on-screen and off. God's confused and feeble voice really gave him a human touch. The decision to include the oft overlooked insanity of Noah's family's was a welcome and refreshing interperation of what went on those long 150 days of the prevailing waters. To its credit the movie did have some pirates, but it could have used about 20-25 more, approximately. The question is not whether this movie will change the way people read the Bible, but when.

"And He did suffer Noah to wear a parrot on his head and evil spirits did infest Noah's soul with insanity for 20 days and 20 nights." (Genesis 27:40).

Let's Rewrite the Bible
NBC created a two-part epic of the story of Noah's Ark. It was created by the team that did Merlin and Alice in Wonderland but will probably be remembered as being by the same people who did The Tempest. It was really bad.

Just how bad the show was can probably be summed up by saying that in one scene Noah greeted Lot. For those a little rusty on their Old Testament, Noah can be found in Genesis chapter 6 while Lot is Genesis chapter 19. This epic opened with the tale of Lot (minus Abraham) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (also minus Abraham).

One thing that really puzzled me about this production was the way the locals kept treating Noah as if he were a fool. This puzzles me because the locals all knew that Noah had the only farm in the land where anything would grow. So would frustrated and hungry farmers merely laugh at Noah or would they hate him and raid his farm? I was also amused when some of the locals began quoting Shakespeare. At another point a Michael Palin look-alike runs up dressed in rags and with a long scraggly beard and says, "Its." A brief moment of humor for Monty Python fans but I don't know why it was in there.

But the writers of Noah's Ark did take from one good source, mainly the Broadway musical Two by Two starring Danny Kaye. Unfortunately the stolen scene was one of Noah's sons claiming the Ark was not finished because it did not have a rudder. Now if he were right and the Ark needed a rudder then God made a mistake. But it would also meant that Noah's son would have to be strong enough to operate a rudder on a boat three-hundred cubits in length. But the ark was built by God and not Noah. The writers also kept pushing the idea that an ark is a boat. No, but Noah's Ark took the form of a boat. An ark is simply a sacred container for the safe storage of something precious. Any fan of Indiana Jones knows that (or did he dig up a boat in Tannis?).

This production is available on video and DVD and my recommendation is that it should be avoided.

Horrible : The worst biblical film I have ever seen
I should have known from the opening scene this movie was going to be a disaster; there was a message " WE HAVE TAKEN POETIC LICENSE IN THE CREATION OF THIS FILM". That was an understatement. The movie twisted all the facts, timeframes etc that were in the bible. For example, having Noah deal with Sodom & Gomorrah???? What bible were they reading to create this movie? This movie was not inspired and it shows. I threw this DVD in the garbage can. Do not buy this movie it is worthless.

About time
The living word of god is finally made manifest in this film for the ages. The movie was refreshingly devoid of the obsequiety with which the creator is portrayed in so many other works. It was about time Hollywood got away from the likes of "Braveheart" and tells the story as it really happened.

YET ANOTHER TITLE FOR BAD MOVIE NIGHT...
Religiously, this movie is so way off-base that your jaw will drop in disbelief at what goes on within the script (such as God abandoning Noah during the flood because He needs time to "think" about the fate of the human race, or admitting to Noah that He sometimes makes mistakes, too). But, hey, the movie's been made and the damage is already done. As a putrid piece of celluloid fluff, this one ranks up there with other bad movies like "Can't Stop The Music" and "Xanadu". It's perfect for Bad Movie Night, if you're into that sort of thing. The plot line is flimsy, the special effects are cheap, and the acting is bad. The movie did elicit a few chuckles, but I don't think that was the producers' intention. Some scenes are downright ludicrous, such as when Noah and his wife try to find one good person in Sodom. They settle on Lot who, although he participated in a drunken feast and orgy earlier in the movie (offscreen, thankfully), is chosen ONLY because he's Noah's best friend. This is how they pick people to be saved from the wrath of God! Or when Noah gets help from God after complaining that he'll never get the Ark finished in time for the flood; he wakes up with what looks like the lumber yard at Home Depot (didn't know they had 2 X 4's in those days?...you do now!). Or why Noah and his wife have American accents, while their three sons have British accents, which they still have well into their early 20's! The inaccuracies go on and on. One thing that must be mentioned is that this is a heavily edited version of the original that appeared on TV: gone are the flood-surviving fireball-throwing pirates (fireballs in a wooden ship, go figure!), the anti-pre-marital sex gorilla, the obnoxiously stupid talking puppet made from an orange, and the (unintnetional) hysterically funny pooping koala blooper scene. So what's left is a story that rushes through everything and gets nothing accomplished. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Another in Robert Salmi's march of modern TV classics, Noah's Ark brings the ultimate disaster story to the small screen with impressive effects and handsome production design. "Liberties were taken for dramatic purposes," warns the opening credits and, to be sure, this shouldn't be taken as gospel (pardon the pun). Noah (Jon Voight), the last good man on Earth, is spared from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and chosen to build an ark to save his family and the creatures of the Earth from a cleansing flood. Like a bad penny, his best friend, Lot (F. Murray Abraham), a decadent hedonist turned brigand, keeps turning up in the most unlikely places, including a postapocalyptic sea battle that owes more to Waterworld than the Old Testament. It's an entertaining if episodic story led by an appropriately humble Voight, with Mary Steenburgen as his whiny wife (she musters a surprising amount of dignity for the part) and James Coburn as a jolly peddler. Jim Henson's Creature Shop fills up the floating zoo with a charming array of animals. It never compels as Salmi's previous telefilm epics, notably The Odyssey and Merlin, but liberal amounts of deadpan anachronistic humor (Lot and his wife, played by Carol Kane, come across as nothing less than comic-strip couple the Bickersons come to life) and spectacular scenes of destruction keep the film aloft through its lengthy running time. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (83)

Strong showing from God.
Finally a movie that has the courage to tell the REAL story! I found the movie's unabashed historical accurancy to be quite refreshing. It offers a necessary corrective to the biased one- sided account that Genesis has been stuffing down our throats since 54 A.D. Jon Voight, although a little young for his part (though only by 540 years), gave a performance that was Oscar-worthy, his presence electrifying, both on-screen and off. God's confused and feeble voice really gave him a human touch. The decision to include the oft overlooked insanity of Noah's family's was a welcome and refreshing interperation of what went on those long 150 days of the prevailing waters. To its credit the movie did have some pirates, but it could have used about 20-25 more, approximately. The question is not whether this movie will change the way people read the Bible, but when.

"And He did suffer Noah to wear a parrot on his head and evil spirits did infest Noah's soul with insanity for 20 days and 20 nights." (Genesis 27:40).

Let's Rewrite the Bible
NBC created a two-part epic of the story of Noah's Ark. It was created by the team that did Merlin and Alice in Wonderland but will probably be remembered as being by the same people who did The Tempest. It was really bad.

Just how bad the show was can probably be summed up by saying that in one scene Noah greeted Lot. For those a little rusty on their Old Testament, Noah can be found in Genesis chapter 6 while Lot is Genesis chapter 19. This epic opened with the tale of Lot (minus Abraham) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (also minus Abraham).

One thing that really puzzled me about this production was the way the locals kept treating Noah as if he were a fool. This puzzles me because the locals all knew that Noah had the only farm in the land where anything would grow. So would frustrated and hungry farmers merely laugh at Noah or would they hate him and raid his farm? I was also amused when some of the locals began quoting Shakespeare. At another point a Michael Palin look-alike runs up dressed in rags and with a long scraggly beard and says, "Its." A brief moment of humor for Monty Python fans but I don't know why it was in there.

But the writers of Noah's Ark did take from one good source, mainly the Broadway musical Two by Two starring Danny Kaye. Unfortunately the stolen scene was one of Noah's sons claiming the Ark was not finished because it did not have a rudder. Now if he were right and the Ark needed a rudder then God made a mistake. But it would also meant that Noah's son would have to be strong enough to operate a rudder on a boat three-hundred cubits in length. But the ark was built by God and not Noah. The writers also kept pushing the idea that an ark is a boat. No, but Noah's Ark took the form of a boat. An ark is simply a sacred container for the safe storage of something precious. Any fan of Indiana Jones knows that (or did he dig up a boat in Tannis?).

This production is available on video and DVD and my recommendation is that it should be avoided.

Horrible : The worst biblical film I have ever seen
I should have known from the opening scene this movie was going to be a disaster; there was a message " WE HAVE TAKEN POETIC LICENSE IN THE CREATION OF THIS FILM". That was an understatement. The movie twisted all the facts, timeframes etc that were in the bible. For example, having Noah deal with Sodom & Gomorrah???? What bible were they reading to create this movie? This movie was not inspired and it shows. I threw this DVD in the garbage can. Do not buy this movie it is worthless.

About time
The living word of god is finally made manifest in this film for the ages. The movie was refreshingly devoid of the obsequiety with which the creator is portrayed in so many other works. It was about time Hollywood got away from the likes of "Braveheart" and tells the story as it really happened.

YET ANOTHER TITLE FOR BAD MOVIE NIGHT...
Religiously, this movie is so way off-base that your jaw will drop in disbelief at what goes on within the script (such as God abandoning Noah during the flood because He needs time to "think" about the fate of the human race, or admitting to Noah that He sometimes makes mistakes, too). But, hey, the movie's been made and the damage is already done. As a putrid piece of celluloid fluff, this one ranks up there with other bad movies like "Can't Stop The Music" and "Xanadu". It's perfect for Bad Movie Night, if you're into that sort of thing. The plot line is flimsy, the special effects are cheap, and the acting is bad. The movie did elicit a few chuckles, but I don't think that was the producers' intention. Some scenes are downright ludicrous, such as when Noah and his wife try to find one good person in Sodom. They settle on Lot who, although he participated in a drunken feast and orgy earlier in the movie (offscreen, thankfully), is chosen ONLY because he's Noah's best friend. This is how they pick people to be saved from the wrath of God! Or when Noah gets help from God after complaining that he'll never get the Ark finished in time for the flood; he wakes up with what looks like the lumber yard at Home Depot (didn't know they had 2 X 4's in those days?...you do now!). Or why Noah and his wife have American accents, while their three sons have British accents, which they still have well into their early 20's! The inaccuracies go on and on. One thing that must be mentioned is that this is a heavily edited version of the original that appeared on TV: gone are the flood-surviving fireball-throwing pirates (fireballs in a wooden ship, go figure!), the anti-pre-marital sex gorilla, the obnoxiously stupid talking puppet made from an orange, and the (unintnetional) hysterically funny pooping koala blooper scene. So what's left is a story that rushes through everything and gets nothing accomplished. ... Read more

Description

While Hitler was raising an army, he was also raising the hopes of Oswald Mosley, England's own fascist leader. This powerful tale tells of one man's ruthless rise to power, dispassionately fighting the nation's leaders while reserving his passion for sleeping with their wives. His charm seduced many, and those not easily seduced soon found themselves persuaded by the violent actions of his Blackshirt army. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

fasinating fascist
sir oswald mosley was a charismatic figure from the time he entered the army as a flier in world war I, was discharged because of an injury to his leg, married the foreign secretary's daughter, won a seat in parliament, changed parties, despaired of politics as usual and formed the british union of fascists in 1936. A serial womanizer, mosley was a brilliant speaker who mesmerized his followers. this four hour bbc production, based upon the memoir of his son, is beautifully done. it spurred me to further reading about mosley and his family. first-rate film. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

ADULTRY, LIES, PROFANITY and THEFT
This movie is shameful to say the lest! If you like Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensiblity, Mansfield Park, The Girl is not a romantic story at all. Movie will be a waste of time and money.
Hannah is a thief from the very beginning as a child, she commits adultry, profanity is used throughout the movie every now and then. Not worth seeing, but you judge for yourself
Be warned!

Totally amazing!
Wow - this movie is just fantastic. Siobhan Flynn is amazing as Hannah. She is beautiful, passionate and wonderful and you find yourself hoping she will find happiness in this epic story that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Siobhan Flynn just tears up the screen and makes it look easy the whole time as the young girl in love. Miss Flynn is obviously destined to be a great star.

The Girl
A must see film! A few changes from the book but the characters and plot are wonderful! Hannah(Siobhan Flynn)you just root for from the begining to end. Hannah grows from a meek young girl to a splendidly beautiful woman. She overcomes many hardships and challanges in her quest for happiness. Ned Ridley(Jonathan Cake) is the very handsome and proud "bad boy" you just can't help but fall in love with. Who, unknown to Hannah, is her "knight in shining armor". The settings, costumes and scenery are beautiful as are Ned and Hannah! The English countryside is just breath taking in the film. All the cast is very convincing in their roles in the film. But, in the end, it's the casting of Hannah and Ned that makes you want to meet Siobhan Flynn and Jonathan Cake. I loved their preformance.

high school wana be gets popular rock guy
this movie is one of a kind it was very deep and moving high school girl falles hoplessly in love with town rock star who has had every willing girl in town but she changes him then says good bye .

the girl
This movie was one of the best that I have seen lately. Hannah was just a character that you loved. She was wonderful when she realized that she loved Ned. Ned was just so tormented in the beginning and transformed by his love for Hannah. I just wich I could find the book to read. ... Read more