ThiefHott Too much of everything

Console best movie i've ever seen.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

James Hitchcock Despite his prominent position in the canon of English literature, Thomas Hardy has never really been a mainstay of the cinema in the way that, say, Dickens or (at least in recent years) Jane Austen have been. Although there have been occasional excellent Hardy adaptations, such as Schlesinger's "Far from the Madding Crowd" or Polanski's "Tess", a number of his novels have never been the subject of a feature film. There were, however, television adaptations of two of his novels in the mid-nineties, "The Return of the Native" in 1994 and "The Woodlanders" three years later. I deliberately watched the two films over the same weekend for the purposes of comparison. The two novels have basically similar plots, both being organised around a "love pentagon" along the lines of "A loves B, who loves C, who loves D, who loves E", although in "The Return of the Native" things are complicated by the fact that D (Eustacia) still has feelings for C (Wildeve) despite her marriage to E (Clym). In "The Return" the pentagon involves three men and two women; in "The Woodlanders" it is the other way round. A is Marty South, a young peasant girl who is in love with the woodsman Giles Winterborne (B), but he is in love with his childhood sweetheart, Grace Melbury (C). Grace, however, rejects Giles's proposal of marriage under pressure from her nouveau-riche father, who regards him as being not good enough for his daughter. She eventually marries the well-born young doctor Edred Fitzpiers (D), but the marriage is not a happy one and he begins an affair with a rich widow named Mrs. Charmond (E). Hardy regarded "The Woodlanders" as one of his best novels, and many contemporary reviewers agreed with that assessment, but twentieth and twenty-first century critics have not always followed suit. Certainly, as a film this version is not anywhere near as good as "The Return of the Native" which contained some excellent acting performances, especially from the young, pre-stardom Catherine Zeta Jones. The main weakness is the casting of Rufus Sewell as Giles. Giles Winterborne is reminiscent of some of Hardy's other characters, notably Gabriel Oak in "Far from the Madding Crowd" and Diggory Venn in "The Return of the Native". All three are plain and simple countrymen, decent and uncomplaining, who patiently and faithfully continue to love a woman despite an initial rejection. The difference is that Giles is the tragic hero of "The Woodlanders", whereas Gabriel and Diggory are eventually rewarded for their patience. (In those two novels the full force of the tragedy falls upon others). Sewell, however, seems to mistake Giles's patient stoicism for stolidity and lack of emotion, and plays him throughout as a dull, unresponsive fellow, wearing virtually the same expression, one of hangdog resignation, in every scene. I was surprised to see him smile briefly at one point, but presumably he needed to keep a second expression in reserve, just in case the first one should get worn out through overuse. None of the other acting contributions stand out, and Emily Woof makes a bland and forgettable Grace. The most memorable thing about her is her odd surname; I had to see it in print several times before the penny finally dropped and I realised that she was not called "Emily Woolf". (Just as it took me a long time to realise that Uma Thurman really was called "Uma" and not "Una"). As with most British "heritage cinema" productions the costumes and period detail are well done, and the woodland scenery is attractive, but this is far from being the best historical drama of recent years. 6/10

Leofwine_draca Don't go in expecting a great deal of fun, romance or a happy ever after, as this is quintessential Thomas Hardy: dour, gloomy and glum. One of the best elements of THE WOODLANDERS is the setting: it takes place in a wooded village in a rural little corner of England, sometime in the 19th century. Such locales are bound to have plenty of atmosphere, and THE WOODLANDERS possesses it in spades. It's just a shame the story is so unappealing and determined to be depressing.Rufus Sewell, in an early role, brings warmth and life to the film as humble woodsman Giles. He's in love with Emily Woof, who ends up betrothed to another man entirely (local doctor Cal Macaninch). Fleshing out the cast are Tony Haygarth (extremely typecast as a gruff but lovable type, but so good at it) and ROME's Polly Walker, vamping it up as the sinister Mrs Charmond.This adaptation is well shot and, dare I say it, authentic. The main problem is that the cold characters are so hard to like, and that even includes heroine Emily Woof, who doesn't seem to see what's right under her nose. The only appealing character of the bunch is Sewell and he gets only a little screen time. Yes, this production is moving in places and the themes are engaging, so it's not all bad, but I would have preferred something with a little more drama and oomph.

trimmerb1234 I found this very involving and affecting in a way that I've not found other Hardy adaptations or the books themselves. As a film it has an unusual combination of modesty of style - no great acting showiness - and of the characters themselves, allied to an inspired and faultless control of light and mood.It has an immense integrity - the recreations of the woodlander's homes and workplaces, as mentioned earlier the superb faultless control of the quality of light (longish scenes shot just after dawn, at dusk etc etc), the authentic period behaviour and manners, the unforced pace mirroring the mood. It is full of traditional understated virtues both the story itself and in the way it wears its technical virtuosity.If Titanic (mentioned by an earlier reviewer) was a great clanking iron CGI mechanical monster, heavy handed in all departments, this is all living and breathing humanity on a human scale - an increasingly rare treat.

vnpns I haven't the slightest idea what a spoiler is and I doubt whether many folks who are not film buffs will know either, so I'll just have to hope that my comments don't enter that category and request that you use a non-jargon word in order that us ordinary punters can understand.I cannot agree with comments made concerning the scenes dragging or the film itself lacking cinematic scope. Some critics have taken this view but I believe this is rather an indication of how susceptible critics can be to saying what they think people will expect them to say (whilst conveying the distinct impression that they are the most bravely objective critics in the world).No, this is a film which refuses to go at the pace expected of it but, rather, courageously moves at the precise pace demanded of it by the overall direction and approach. I am glad I haven't read the book because it might have tempted me to try to make a like-for-like comparison and thereby go on to make erroneous deductions.The two mediums, film and literature, demand different approaches and, to me anyway, this thoughtfully filmed tale is at ease with itself and that is all we can ask of it. It is not trying to be Gone With The Wind or even Pride and Pejudice, nor should it make the attempt.Like Bleak House, it will completely glide past the attention span of the viewer who is anxious for untimely progression or who is not mentally prepared for its purposely ponderous and understated theme. What I would suggest, most humbly, is that anyone with doubts set aside a whole evening with nothing else planned and no interruptions possible. Then forget anything you have previously experienced concerning this tale and view it afresh. Put away any cynical prejudgement and consciously assume that the film's understated acting is fully intended as such. Then I believe your experience and enjoyment of this film will improve no end.The director was no doubt under immense pressure to make this tale more paced and juicy. I, for one, fully commend him for resisting this and producing a magnificently restrained U film, a truly English shared countryside, domestic and subtly romantic experience - at least for anyone allowing it the space to embrace them. VNP.