ThiefHott Too much of everything

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

StarDragyn I read the book and then watched this version and the 1998 version, all within the span of a couple months, so it is all quite fresh in my mind. My immediate response is that I did not like this version of the movie nearly as well as the 1998 version. The filming quality is rather better, because 10 years newer, and there are subtitles on the DVD, which are advantages. Also this version is an hour longer, so there are a few additional scenes that the other one didn't have. But even for all that, I feel that it's an inferior production.I think hands down the cast in the 1998 version was better, EXCEPT for Alec D'Urberville, who seems closer to what I pictured him as in the book. The 2008 Tess's voice and mannerisms actually got on my nerves. Her look, voice, movements, and acting style all reminded me extremely of Jennifer Garner; she could easily pass for her little sister. Now, I think Jennifer Garner is great in a romantic comedy, but I would never cast her in a time-period drama. That style just does not work in a piece like this. I thought at first that maybe they were having the actress act very immature and use a babyish voice on purpose early in the film, so that it could alter as she grew up, but even after everything Tess goes through and all the growing up she does, the actress comes off extremely juvenile. I just had trouble taking her seriously. The 1998 Tess is way more convincing in the role. The 2008 Angel, I had read previously several complaints about his acting being rather flat, and I pretty much have to agree (though I had hoped to find him otherwise). He also has the problem of coming across simply too young. The actor was in fact the same age as Angel is said to be (26), but he looks very young for his age and again it is difficult to take him seriously. Granted that people got married young, but these two actors look too much like highschoolers with a crush on each other, rather than a convincing romance. Even though there was more material, and therefore a few more scenes, there were more inaccuracies (altering the material rather than simply cutting it) in what it had than in the 1998 version. In general I'd say it followed the book quite closely, considering, but not as closely as the other one. There were several times I just cringed with "But that's not how it happened..." A few things they did treat more accurately, like the last few minutes of the movie.I'm a big fan of soundtracks on time period films, so I think this is important to a good movie. This soundtrack was very prettily recorded, and I think on its own might make good music, but I frequently felt like the music did not really match up with the scene very well, which can be more distracting than cheaply budgeted music. The 1998 music is less impressive in quality, in my opinion, but worked better for the most part. The costumes and the scenery are beautiful, however. Also, as a warning, there are 2 rather vivid sex scenes in this film. This and some of the subject matter may make this movie inappropriate for young children.I came away from the 1998 version liking the book/story better than I had; and I came away from the 2008 version liking it less. This version simply did not carry as much power with it, and I never felt myself feeling for the characters as much as I did in the other one. Still, if you're into this genre or like comparing different versions (as I do), I wouldn't say not to watch it. But I don't recommend this being your only exposure to this intriguing and intense story. It's one that I had mixed feelings about as I read it, but has rather grown on me as it has sunk in more. And perhaps this version will grow on me as well, as I get more used to it.

Anton Chernyavsky *Spolers inside*I thought the film was well produced but god that was a terrible story. I mean soap-opera with a bad ending terrible. 80% of the film is it's characters obsessing about their misfortunes. Maybe that was standard in 19th century, but I found it very frustrating to watch. And I don't mind dramas, not at all. Including with unfortunate endings. I just like to see some sense in it, not just pointless suffering over and over again. There is too much of it in the real life. I just don't understand people who need books or films to see that. Open your eyes people! Go do some volunteering instead.The story just drags the characters behind it, they do nothing to change anything. So anti-climatic. And when somebody does something (the murder) it feels like the stupidest thing ever. Tess tells Angel she never wants to see him again, and then kills the other guy, and suddenly they are all good now? Oh come on.Other things I didn't like. The dialogues are really bad. There is basically nothing witty said in the entire series. The characters are not likable, lack depth, and there is very little development, just things happening to them. I didn't read the book but it looks like the author didn't really understand people well. Compared to the Jane Austin adaptations this was a disaster.

David Murray Me and my girlfriend love period dramas and watch a lot and this started quite well and it looked promising. My complaint isn't with the way it was done it's with the author of the story. It was well produced I thought and I had no problem with the actors. Our problem was just that the story was so depressing. My girlfriend was actually really shaken and upset after watching it. For myself I just found it very frustrating throughout. I was constantly finding myself frustrated at the characters for not just saying this or not just doing that, and then frustrated at the author for being so depressing with everything. I'm a believer that the best stories end well. Great Expectations is a prime example. Yes plenty of things going wrong and plenty drama, but you're left with a feel-good feeling at the end. It's a shame when a TV series just leaves you upset.

jhsteel This is the first BBC dramatisation of this wonderful novel by Thomas Hardy, which I have read several times. I first knew it from the Roman Polanski film which has a different approach to casting - Tess was played by Nastassja Kinski who was more obviously sexual in her appearance, and Angel Clare was Peter Firth, who to me had more charisma than Eddie Redmayne. I loved that film and it was very upsetting to watch, when I was in my teens. Now I'm older and wiser, but Tess's story is so tragic that it still has enormous sadness. I felt that the protagonists in this version were more believable as young people living in a rural community, but the romance between Tess and Angel was not very convincing. Angel was well represented as a weak man who makes bad decisions, but he could have been more attractive, to persuade me that all the milkmaids were in love with him. So on the whole, although the story was told in faithful detail and well done, it didn't excite me in the way I expected. I always have sympathy for Tess as a character - whether or not she was technically raped is open to interpretation, but the main facts are that she was an innocent girl who was preyed upon by one man and let down by another. However, to be a tragic heroine, she possesses character flaws that allow her to succumb to the events that overcome her. It is a sad story that has relevance still, and it is a good introduction for viewers who have never read the wonderful book.