Les oiseaux se cachent pour mourir: les années oubliées

Just saw your review of the movie and it made me smile. My son Zach played Dane in the movie. The funny part is that Zach is anything BUT a goody-goody; how he was able to turn on the charm when the cameras were rolling is beyond me. The character definitely was a bit too sappy and innocent, but it worked within the framework of the story. My opinion is that Amanda Donohoe was poorly cast as Meggie, which was the mini-series' downfall. You say that the movie is available on video, but I haven't seen it anywhere, nor has Warner Bros. released it to video stores. ( I do, however, have my own copy of it, sent to me by the studio. )

Shooting the film in Australia was a complete blast -- the best experience we've ever had in this business. Thanks for your comments. It's interesting to read reviews about my son's work!

I liked it. Better and better. At first I found the lady cold and not at all like the Meggie I had grown used to from watching the series over and over, but she was farther along in her story now - she'd borne Ralph's child and raised him to the age of thirteen. The world was at war. She was lonely and becoming a pragmatist. She didn't expect to see him again. (We didn't either.) THAT is the gift here - more time with the lovers.

Before commenting on the consistently good performances, which were (for the most part) written and played true to the characters lined in the book and performed in the original mini, I must protest the unsympathetic, growling characterization of Vittorio, Father Ralph's mentor at the Vatican. The writer was dead wrong in having him threaten Ralph with his love for Meggie. "Get over it!" he says, essentially. "Get on with your life!" Vittorio would never have acted so. Maximillian Schell was serious miscasting, but he didn't write his own lines. The same judgments apply regarding the casting and meddling attitude of Meggie's mother- too sensational, too cruel. And out of character.

The confrontation between Ralph and Vittorio comes so early in the story that one is tempted to judge the entire production by it, but it is important to keep watching. Eventually the characters fit in to the almost sacred memories we have of the earlier version and stand as logical segues to the time-line that they must fit into. The son Dane, by the way, is a real goody-goody. I didn't like him as an adult and I didn't like him as a kid, but he was true to character.

Look - Richard Chamberlain is the best. The love story stands. It was the main reason we watched the first one - that and the wonderful performances by the major stars - Kiley, Stanwyck, Simmons. Those folks aren't there; two of them we will never see again, and we will miss them, but we have Richard Chamberlain here again, and he was, after all, the heart of the story.

Look - try thinking of it as a road company performance with a star turn. It's worth seeing. Take another look and see if you don't agree- it's available on tape.

I cried.

I read the book and loved the original mini serie. And yes, 19 years were skipped in it.

But only one thing from the book is here in The missing years. The brothers who went to fight in ww 2. The rest is totally made up for this unnecessary flick.

Luke never came back to Meggie and abducted Dane. That storyline is utter rubbish. It makes these so called missing years a hidious deviation from the original story by Colleen McCullough.

Only Richard Chamberlain reprised his role as Ralph de Bricassart, the other characters are replaced with other actors. On top of that they act completely out of character. Complete waste of time, this thing.

I liked it. Mainly because this was actually filmed in Australia. I never found the original credible. The awful attempt to make Hawaii look like rural Australia by chucking a few sheep into the background failed dismally and the Drogheeda mansion looked like a poor relation of the house from 'Giant'. As for the weird, definitely non-Aussie out-buildings - what a joke. This time the authentic location made 'The Missing Years' much more believable. As for the young Dane being criticized for having a broad Aussie accent - how dumb can you be. He is an Australian character being played by an Australian boy - what would you prefer - one of those fake cockney Hollywood versions of an Australian accent? The plot was fine, if a bit predictable, the acting was as good as any in the original, if not better. So it was not the original cast. So what? Accept it for what it is - entertainment - and enjoy it.

To this day, I still read the book; it's a book you can't put down and it's a story you can't forget. An unattainable love true but SO deep and consuming! Richard Chamberlain is a versatile actor and though he was the only member of the original cast present; I was happy the whole time I watched this. Amanda's portrayal of Meggie is different from Rachel Ward's - cynical and harsher- but she had Meggie's vulnerability as well so I say Ms. Donahue's performance was good as well. And I loved the boy who played young Dane; I hope he's still acting presently- young Dane was just like adult Dane in the original mini-series; sensitive, loving and knowing what he wants. What I didn't like about the film; the Vittorio was completely different from the Vittorio in the original mini series. Christopher Plummer was an understanding, shrewd and compassionate man, this one was rather narrow minded and unsympathetic! Didn't he watch the original? And where on earth was Bob Cleary, We only saw Jack! But the biggest surprise was Fee- gossipy, talkative Fee! I love this film all the same.