Fackeln im Sturm - Buch 3

After Books I & II, what a let-down! First--what's with no Orry in Book III? Hmm. . . too cheap to hire Patrick Swayze? And randomly inventing a brother (Cooper) for Orry that was not in the first 24 hours of the mini-series, but is apparently important enough for the final 6 hours? That's pathetic! Oh, and didn't Elkanah Bent (your favorite villain and mine) did in that huge barn explosion in Book II?

I grew up watching the first two books of "North & South", and I refuse to even recognize this third book as part of the mini-series.

Where was cooper Main in the first two parts? Didn't Stanley and Isabel go to jail at the end of part 2? Why are they back as if nothing happened? Did Bent not get blown up in part 2? He looks good for a dead man. This is one of the worst follow-ups in history. Instead of following the concept that the first two mini-series follows, it decides to follow the book by John Jakes. It does do a pretty good job at following the book that it is based on, but unless you have read the books, you would be lost. A note to Hollywood: Do not make a movie that does not follow the book, than decide to make a sequel to it that does. It makes no sense as does this mess of a mini-series.

Just like so many people before me I also am disappointed by the third part of North and South. In part the problem is that too many changes from the original story in books 1 and 2 had been made in the mini series. Therefore a lot of things didn't quite work out. In John Jakes' novels, Orry Main died in "Love and War", having been shot in the head by Elkanah Bent. So he wouldn't have been there anyway. But the biggest problem was the omission of Cooper Main in the first 2 mini series. For those who didn't know the book his sudden appearance must have been quite puzzling. Also, in the mini series part II Virgilia Hazard is executed, but not in the second novel. She shows up in the third novel! As to the murders mentioned in other comments, there are quite a few in the novel. And what I also don't like about part III is that so many actors were replaced. Was that necessary?

Although this movie follows the book more closely, with a few exceptions (Bent miraculously surviving everything, Cooper Main appearing out of nowhere), it is not as bad as everyone states.

The production values and editing of certain scenes could have been up to par with the first two books. Not to mention that Patrick Swayze declined to reprise his role of Orry Main, which is probably why the producers decided he will be killed in this one. Also, I think that the storyline involving Ashton scheming to take Mont Royal for herself could have been expanded.

As for the other characters, I liked the original Charles Main (played by Lewis Smith), although Kyle Chandler delivered a satisfactory performance. And, to agree with everyone else, the appearance of Cooper Main makes no sense, especially since there is no mention of Cooper in the first two movies.

If the movie were twelve hours long like the previous ones, then more explanation for certain things would have made the movie a better piece.

6/10

After watching the first 2 books, this was a bad one. But book 2 totally strayed from the actual story. If Book 2 would not have strayed so far, this story would have made sense in conjunction with the others. I thought this story was well done. It showed a lot of the problems that existed with the Reconstruction era, and the problems associated with a Democratic president from the south, and the Radical Republicans in power in Congress, who were previously all abolitionists before the war. I do think it was weird for George Hazard and Madeline to marry after the death of their spouses. Also they used a different actor for Charles Main. After seeing the same actor for the 2 previous books, they should have tried to get the original guy back. In the whole trilogy, they also used 3 different women for Isabel Hazard, and also 3 different men for Billy Hazard. That's confusing for those who have seen this whole trilogy over and over.