Scarlett

I read the book 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley and enjoyed it very much and I anticipated to TV movie. The thing was the movie was greatly different from the book. Honestly, if you read the book and saw the movie you would think they were two different stories. I believe the book had greater merit and a more interesting story. The movie wasn't that bad, its just that the book was better.

Frankly my dear, I was quite happy that a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" had finally been made. I had never been satisfied by the way the original movie ended. I could not see Rhett Butler walking out on his wife forever. Maybe temporarily.

Robert Hami did an excellent job with the cast and production. It was delicious. Joanne Whalley-Kilmer did such an excellent job as Scarlett O'Hara that when I first saw it, I had difficulites trying to remember Vivien Leigh's face. She was also cheated out of an Emmy nomination. Timothy Dalton was marvelous - as usual.

What I best liked about "Scarlett" was the fact that from Part 1 to Part 4, it was strictly one genre. Meaning, it was strictly a costume melodrama. It did not suffer from a schizophrenic genre, like GWTW (going from a historical drama to a costume melodrama in such a startling manner). "Scarlett" also benefited from a superior ending, in compare to GWTW. On the whole, it was excellent.

I often see movies without reading the book and never judge a movie by the book. Maybe it deviated from the book but look how many movies they make each year that deviate from the books they are based on. That's HOLLYWOOD for you. I think the movie was very well done and followed the story faithfully from the end of the first movie (Gone With The Wind). I really loved the lavish costumes and brilliant scenery. You have to write a lot of story for an 8 hour mini-series and there were lots of writers with a lot of imagination. Bravo to the writers for such a good movie!

This very long sequel to "Gone with the Wind" is an EPIC disappointment. What the storyline is will vary from viewer to viewer - my take is that it started with the funeral of "Melanie Hamilton" (unseen), proceeded with the death of "Mammy" (Esther Rolle), and meandered around until "Scarlett O'Hara" (Joanne Whalley) found her "Roots". She does this by going to Ireland, and stands in some Stonehenge type rubble, which is the original "Tara". If you don't know what "Tara" is, you probably shouldn't be watching this one. As in Margaret Mitchell's original story, "Rhett Butler" (Timothy Dalton) pops in and out of Scarlett's life.

Neither Ms. Whalley nor Mr. Dalton are very impressive, and the script doesn't help them very much; since the "Rhett" character is (and always was) more secondary, Whalley fares worse. In lesser roles, other actors have good moments. Probably, the best performance arrives later in the running time - with Sean Bean's wicked "Lord Richard Fenton". When Mr. Bean takes the screen, he TAKES the screen - he will wake you up. "Fenton" is purely evil, and may not belong in Margaret Mitchell's cast of characters, but at least Bean brings some passion to the proceedings. The original book and film were full of PASSION, and this follow-up has so very little… The sets, costumes, and locations are extremely beautiful, though…

***** Scarlett (11/13-17/94) John Erman ~ Joanne Whalley, Timothy Dalton, Sean Bean

I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.