Montana Sky

Montana Sky opens with the death of the family patriarch, a man named Mercy who like Ben Cartwright fathered three children legitimately, except in his case it was daughters instead of sons. But a role model like Lorne Greene this guy wasn't. One daughter Ashley Williams stayed home and learned the ranch business. The other two were from trophy wives, Charlotte Ross and Laura Mennell. Ross is a screenwriter and Mennell is hoping to escape from a batterer whom she married.

For the zillionth time an eccentric will is the thing the plot turns on. The estate after a couple of cash bequests is worth 24 million dollars and the half sisters who don't know each other have to live and work the ranch for a year for any of them to inherit any of it. Eight million dollars is a mighty powerful argument to induce the sisters especially Ross to stay and make a go of it. Poor Mennell just wants to find refuge.

There's also someone slaughtering animals in a particularly sadistic way on the place. It could be Mennell's ex-husband Scott Heindl or maybe someone else also has a grudge.

I have to say that the three women had some nice chemistry between them or otherwise Montana Sky would not have worked. The vast western vistas are really something, better than the mostly studio based photography on Bonanza. Ross especially impressed me as she essayed a character who saw some considerable growth in character over the course of the story.

That's worth seeing Montana Sky in and of itself.

I wondered how they were going to pack all of Roberts' truly great 'Montana Sky' into two hours. Sad to say, they couldn't.

The basic premise packed three relationships, four, counting the sisters themselves, over a year's time, along with all the mysterious happenings within that period. Only the barest of bones of the story were touched on and even those were rewritten and reworked. Other than the names of the characters, hardly anything, including the events, how they unfolded, and how they were resolved, resembled the original story.

As to the actors: Both Laura Mennell as 'Lila' and Charlotte Ross as 'Tess' fit the concept I had of them, but although Ashely Williams did a wonderful job, I couldn't see her as the 'Willa' I imagined in the book. I so adore John Corbett, he was one of the reasons I looked forward to the movie. He had the perfect personality for 'Ben', though in real life he's a good ten years or more older than the character he portrayed. I guess it made sense that 'Nate's' occupation was changed from lawyer to sheriff and Aaron Pearl was good in the re-scripted role. Nathaniel Arcand played a convincing 'Adam'.

I couldn't help but think as I read 'Montana Sky', then watched it, that the novel would have been much better adapted to a mini-series. It would have allowed the characters and the events to be fleshed out and evolve as they deserved. In comparison, Angels Fall made a much better transition from book to screen in that it didn't have as much ground to cover and could afford to have some parts dropped without losing the essence of the story.

I've read the book and of course the book was so much better. However, putting aside that fact, I found this movie lacked....appeal. It was very hurried, which is expected for a 90 minute flick, but it had no, depth to the film. There have been many adaptations from novels to movies that have been wonderful. If this movie had its own zeal and personality, I don't think I would complain about the way it was done. However, it was very...damsel in distress, no brains, and kind of dull. If the chemistry was better, if the actresses added more personality I think it would have been brilliant. I've been looking forward to these movies since I heard they were coming out. I'm not saying this movie was terrible or anything, I am not saying "well the book was like this," I'm just saying it was dull.

First, I have to say I am a HUGE Nora Roberts fan. I have read every one of her books at least twice, and most more than that. That being said, if you've never read Montana Sky and you like typical Lifetime movies, then this is for you. However, if you love the book then don't waste your time on this film; you'll just end up angry at how far from the book it strays. I know it's almost impossible to make a movie as good as a book, but this movie could have done a MUCH better job of at least staying true to the story. Some of the most important parts that make the book so great were completely left out or changed. I guess it's just too hard to fit a 500 page book into a two hour time span (including commercials). I for one am very disappointed in this movie.

I just finished watching this movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I knew it would be a very clean, family film as the author of the book was Nora Roberts, and her books are always that way. They are not explicit in sexual detail. I did not read this book, and maybe that is why I liked the movie so much. I could not find any fault with it, and had no problem understanding that the 3 sisters had different mothers, and there was also a half-brother who was Native American Indian. I don't understand why there are all the negative comments for this movie. Is it just because it didn't match what was in the book? If so, where does it say that everything in a movie has to match everything that was in the book. Last, if you want more sexual detail, maybe you need to go watch the movie "Fifty Shades of Grey."