उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

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.

Let's let John know he should cut his hair and play only cowboy parts. This wasn't his best performance, but he does look good on a horse and has a great sexy smile. He seemed kinda uptight, but don't think he has played a cowboy part enough. I thought the women played their parts well, but was disappointed with Nate - not the right person for that part. Adam did great and I thought he was the perfect person for his part. Think the movie would have had a much higher rating if it had been a mini-series, so they could tell the whole story. No, the movie wasn't the same as the great book, but it was OK. Why can't they make some GREAT true to life - westerns anymore??

Nice scenery, interesting character cast. Could have been subtitled, "The Ladies of Mercy Ranch". This must have been promoted to Lifetime Network as an afternoon movie for women. Lots of bonding between the sisters, a hot tub with candles and wine, trying on dresses, and other "girl" things. There are enough pickup trucks, horses, gunshots, and mild action scenes to keep the guys interested, but the ladies will enjoy this film much more.

So I just finished reading the book yesterday when I noticed that Lifetime would be airing the movie, I thought oh that's perfect. Unfortunately I was VERY disappointed. The writers of the movie took out a lot of what made the book wonderful, the characters didn't fit what the book wrote about them, I mean Corbett as Ben, his age alone prevents him from being the person wrote about in the book, his acting was fine. They had the sisters all wrong, the women who played Lily should have been Willa or Tess and Willa should have been Lily. The casting truly was a mess! Overall the actors didn't do horribly they just didn't fit the parts they were playing. Another HUGE problem was that the movie moved to quickly and either changed some of the best moments in the book or left them completely out! It's sad to say that I liked Beach Girls a heck of a lot better than Montana Sky as far as a movie goes, at least it stuck to some of what the book wrote. Perhaps 2 hours just wasn't long enough to do justice to a truly wonderful book.

It is such a wonderful replication of the bestselling book by Nora Roberts. It is a move to be seen and cherished by lovers and friends. I would recommend this movie for every Nora Roberts' fan out there. Anyone who reads and enjoys her stories should watch the movies and see her characters truly come to life on the big screen. The acting was wonderful and stayed true to the characters first developed by the imagination of Nora Roberts and the script followed the book in the most important details. Montana Sky is not the only book made into a movie and I am so excited for the rest of the Nora Roberts movies to come out on T.V and video.

After reading the book ( and loving it), I thought I'd watch the movie. I tried twice and only got 25 minutes in before I shut it off. The acting is horrible and the movie hardly follows the book - so many differences to characters and story line. Very disappointing!!

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 have read Montana Sky over and over. Unfortunately I wish I could give the TV movie a 10 out of 10. I feel that the characters for Ben and Adam could have been chosen better to suit the description of the book. Ben is made to be a true tough rugged and handsome built rancher. A quote from the book says "...and looks fabulous in Levi's...it's a fine butt, and I have excellent eyesight." Tess made those statements. In the movie Ben leans in Willa refrigerator and his butt isn't fabulous in those jeans at all. I really like John Corbett in his earlier films but this was one I wished that he wasn't in. Now Adam was described as having "...hair that streamed to his shoulders...a face a beautiful as a painting." I understand you can't always match exactly the character but at least close would have been nice. When characters (in reality the author)make descriptions about other characters you get a certain picture and expectation of them. I definitely recommend the book to everyone!!! Nora Roberts truly is an amazing writer and i love every book I have read of hers.

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."

I thought this movie was excellent. John Corbett is always excellent. I thought they should have picked someone a little older for his love interest but the actress playing the lead role as the cowgirl daughter did a great job in the role. I wish John Corbett would do more lead roles. He is one of the sexiest actors around but I don't think he gets enough credit. The location picked for filming was a beautiful area. I think this is a movie I could see more than once and still want to see it again. Nora Roberts is one of my favorite authors and I can't wait for Blue Smoke to be aired next week. Angels Fall was a fantastic movie also and I hope to see it again.

I give them one point because there was only one thing that is fine in the movie that was the sisters.And about 2 hours of my life is wasted with that. Movie doesn't have anything that thrills you or nothing about romance either drama either comedy. Its nothing at all.In the movie the Scenes pass so fast.It was like some highlights.There were supposed to be some thrilling scenes that should make ppl feel a bit fear at least but in this movie u only but only say " What time is it " to your friend that is watching the movie with you.Romance it says movie has but if kissing lips and some love words is romance, my 3 years old brother can write romantic movie. As i said women there were beautiful and i could only stand the movie thanks to sisters. Don't watch this one,read the book. Maybe u cant see some lovely women but u can imagine.

The scenery is beauty. The movie is just so sweet. Get lost in romance and a trip to Montana. Wishing you had a rich life like that. A tad bit of mystery.

Surprisingly Good! I'm not a big Nora Roberts fan. I admit to reading romance novels, but I prefer historical ones. But I tuned in for this based on the trailer and main stars, Williams and Corbett. Ashley Williams is known for adorable from her Good Morning Mami days, but she pull off hard line, just trying to hold everything together pretty well. Jon Corbett is a favorite of mine! You never know what you're going to get, but he always looks cute doing it!! The chemistry works well between them! The characters are well developed, with an interesting and twisting plot line. I really hope this becomes available on DVD. It's one to watch over and over again!!

I haven't read the book, but other reviewers comments mentioning all that was left out and changed doesn't surprise me. With 4 relationships in the movie (3 male/female and the one amongst the sisters), running the ranch, and the several "bad guy" stories over a year's time, they don't leave much time for much else in a 2 hour (1:36 without commercials) TV movie.

This movie's story just skips along like a stone on water, touching the surface every so often to cause a small ripple that quickly disappears to no effect before finally sinking under the surface. Pretty to look at as it skips, but quickly forgotten when it is done.

I was disappointed in the story's lack of depth. Then again I thought of how I like romantic comedies from the 30s through the 60s and they aren't known for their depth. Why I am more ready to accept the lack of depth from these older movies? It may be because they are old and I am more ready to suspend belief and accept the story and characters because the movie is "from a simpler time".

Another reason I would overlook a shallow story would be if the actors were movie stars. In this movie the actors were good, but no one sizzled and was a star like Gary Grant, Rock Hudson or Doris Day. John Corbett comes closest to a movie star, but I am a guy so the bar for a male actor is higher and Corbett doesn't interest me. He is pretty but bland.

The female actors.... um, who were they again? The black haired, the blonde, and the brunette? The frightened, the Hollywood Californian, and the ranch 'chip-on-her-shoulder'. Three sisters who knew each other? Knew OF each other? More of their back story would have been nice instead of them just being stereotypes.

Another reason I would have trouble overlooking this shallow story and characters is the movie takes place in Montana. While I don't live in the Bozeman area of Montana, I live among the Montana mountain ranch way of life and people. This movie is the Hollywood version of the Montana image. The scriptwriters may have spent a little time in Montana in order to notice a few obvious things such as many Montanans dislike of Californians and their rich Hollywood ways. Unlike the sheriff in the movie, the typical Montana man, after spouting off to the Hollywood sister on Californians like he did, wouldn't immediately express interest in her unless it really was for the reason she thought it was for and not the type of relationship he wanted.

In other words... the Montana men depicted in the movie are not your typical Montana man. And this ranch and house were certainly NOT your typical Montana ranch!

The movie was predictable, but that is not always bad. Sometimes one wants a comfortable movie that conforms to ones beliefs and/or wishes. This movie is that. No rough edges. No major surprises. Reassures one's stereotypes and ends happily.

When characters disagreed, the writers were careful not to overdo the disagreements so as not to create a bad impression in the viewers mind that would be difficult for the character to overcome when the 'feuding' characters changed course and became friends (or friendlier *wink* *wink* as this is a romance movie).

Part of the problem with the lack of feeling is I am not sure why some of the characters didn't like one another to begin with other than the story called for this to be so. I am still puzzled why the 'ranch, chip-on-her-shoulder' sister didn't like John Corbett's character. Was it because he had flirted with other women in his past and was not a virgin? Consequently when they later liked one another it seemed arbitrary. What changed? I guess time passed and it was now or never for her, though if I were Corbett's character I would have moved on from her a long time ago as nothing she did or said impressed me. This is where a movie star charisma comes in handy - who cares why they now like one another, you just are happy they do.

When it came to the bad men in this movie, they were so one-note bad and evil that they were not believable. Watching them in their threatening scenes was like watching the villain at the end of a James Bond movie. The villain spouts off some crazy nonsense as to why he is acting this way and doing what he is doing, then the hero races around shooting until the villain is dead or captured. One puts their mind in neutral until the scene is over as it is so unbelievable. It was the same for this movie. Fortunately this movie was more on the romance side and only had the bad men as subplots to have some sort of dramatic tension in the movie. Just one skip of the stone.

Before anyone complains about my assessment of the bad men subplots, that "no, this was more realistic", I disagree. These guys had anger and impulse control issues and were not smart at all. No way do I believe they would act, then wait 6 months and do nothing over a Montana winter before completing their revenge plan. And there are other examples of their over-the-top behavior which I won't bother to mention.

I wasn't unhappy with the movie. I was fine with it. When I watched it, it was what I thought it may be, and wanted, a predictable romance TV movie. Kind of like watching a James Bond movie when one is in the mood for a mindless action movie.

Maybe the movie would have been better off as a four hour mini-series where it could have had some more depth.