Tess of the D'Urbervilles

I read the book as part of my A2-Level English course, and then I saw the mini-series as both my English teacher and best friend recommended it highly. I loved the book, it is one of my favourite Thomas Hardy books, and probably the one I was devastated most by, and yes I have read Jude the Obscure. This mini-series is very evocative and just brilliant, like the book it is sad and it is emotionally devastating, as the book provides a pretty accurate depiction of what happened to servant girls who proved themselves unfaithful during the Victorian Era. The acting, period detail and writing are top-notch, and the mini-series sticks quite closely to the source material.

Visually Tess of the D'Urbervilles is very stunning. The photography is fluid, the scenery is wonderful, the costumes are wondrous and the settings are stunning. It was like coming out of a time-machine and finding yourselves in the middle of the actual Victorian Era itself. The music and sound effects really added to the atmosphere; the music especially is beautiful and haunting. The story I admit is not the easiest to get into at first, as I have said already and several others already it is devastating and sad, but it is truly effective and was told so well it did have the same emotional impact that the book had.

The direction is rock solid, and serves the actors and story well, while the writing is intelligent and avoids being clichéd. That just leaves the acting, Gemma Arterton is perfect as Tess, it is a completely different role to any other role she's played, and she conveys a sympathetic, poignant and innocent character to perfection- in the end I was hoping I would feel sorry for Tess as she goes through such a lot, and I did. Eddie Redmayne is not quite as good as Angel Clare, but he is very effective in his role, while Ruth Jones, Christopher Fairbank, Kenneth Cranham, Jodie Whittaker, Donald Sumpter et al. do superb support work, with honourable mention to Hans Matheson who was brilliant as Alec, both sympathetic and malevolent.

Overall, just a brilliant adaptation of a brilliant book. 10/10 Bethany Cox

It's Victorian England. Poor country girl Tess Durbeyfield (Gemma Arterton) is told that she is descended from the noble D'Urberville house. She is torn between two men. Angel Clare (Eddie Redmayne) is a well-meaning gentleman from a religious family of its time. Alec D'Urberville (Hans Matheson) is the cruel supposed-cousin. Tess' father is a loving failure. As she struggles in the unforgiving world, she is befriended by the other milkmaids Izz Huett (Jodie Whittaker), Retty, and Marian.

This is competently made for a TV mini-series. Arterton has the alluring beauty and the defiant sadness. There may be other colors that she fails to fill in the eyes of some Thomas Hardy fans but she's perfectly good to me. Redmayne has a fragile goodness nature which is very helpful. This is a female suffering melodrama along the Lifetime mode but with more costumes, more British, and more depth. This is a four-part mini-series. The fourth part does struggle to wrap everything up. The melodrama climax gets a bit cringy. It may not satisfy everybody but it has enough worthwhile.

I am going to be frank, without giving too much away: if you're looking for a happy, light-hearted love story, look elsewhere! That said, however, this movie is very interesting. It is, for the most part, well acted, and contains some extremely thought-provoking material. Particularly the events at the beginning of the second episode... you will understand my meaning once you have watched. It is so interesting, and often heart-breaking, to see these issues handled in society in this time period - to see the reticence and misery that must be endured. I found myself constantly wondering who was right, and who was wrong, or if anyone in the film could really be considered right or wrong. And by which standards? This is not the typical BBC love story where we love the heroes, admire their virtues, and despise the villains, while secretly amused by them. I personally found myself disliking each character very much at at least one point in the film. These characters are very real people. Each one is flawed, and each one knows it too. This makes for a remarkably interesting tale, that kept me riveted from the very beginning.

With all that said, it is exceedingly dramatic... a little overly so at times. And it is harsh... very harsh. and very raw. So yes, do watch it, but do not expect it to be a sweet, witty love story. You may expect, however, to be very impressed. After all it made me cry, and I very rarely cry in movies!

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.

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!