Montana Sky

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 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'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.

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.

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.