Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Staying true to the novel, this film reflects the richness of Hardy's novel, as it does his affectionate portrayal of Tess. The stunning settings are beautifully shot making Tess of the D'Urbevilles a pleasure to watch.

Though all three adaptations I've seen have been very good in their own way, the other two being the Polanski film and the Gemma Arterton mini-series, all three do a noble job adapting a literary classic. Of the three personal favourite and best has to go to this version, and while that it is the most faithful of the three to the book what is done on its own is even more remarkable. The locations are evocative and manage in being really beautiful and atmospheric. The photography matches those qualities with its richness, this is a really beautifully shot adaptation and of the three versions it is the most striking visually. The music adds a lot to the atmosphere too, a great mix of haunting and emotive, very well suited for the nature of the story and the impact of Tess' plight. The dialogue is intelligent and has the spirit of Hardy's writing with the vivid descriptions and his way of words, phrases and poetry. The story really packs a powerful impact and adapted in a way that doesn't make the telling of it feel too complicated. the ending is absolutely heart-breaking. The acting from the three leads is spot on. Justine Waddell is a Tess that we feel immediately feel sympathy for and Waddell also brings dignity to the character. Oliver Milburn's Angel Clare has a sense of optimism though he doesn't make him too one-dimensional, we still get a sense that Angel Clare is not as innocent as he seems. In contrast we have Jason Flemying who portrays Alec as a genuine sleaze and cad and in a malevolent way but there is still the sense that he did love Tess. All in all, brilliant and the best of the three adaptations personally seen of Tess of the D'Urbevilles, if there is a better version I've yet to see it and it has to be really amazing to beat this. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I watched Tess on TV when it was first aired an I was totally blown away! I knew nothing about Thomas Hardy or the novel and was very impressed not only by the shocking story and plot twists but the sensitivity of the acting to the characters. All of the characters qualities and faults are portrayed in such a way that it is not so easy for the audience to judge Angel as good and Alec as bad. It is highly relevant to controversial issues in society today (as with many of Hardy's novels) and you should watch it with an open mind. Since watching, I have not only read the novel but most of Hardy's other novels. I would certainly recommend anyone who enjoyed this to read Hardy and other similar writers such as Wilkie Collins.

If I may be so bold, I would say that this particular adaptation of Tess of the d'Urbervilles is just what Hardy had in mind when he wrote his masterpiece. However, it's difficult to put into words just why one production works so well. For me, one crucial ingredient was the music. The music in this production is emotive, a bit lively, innocently hedonistic, playful and lilting, but with a definite, bittersweet note illustrating the transient glory and ups and downs of Tess' too brief, and unfortunately, mostly tragic life. The beautiful Justine Waddell plays the role of Tess with great talent and simple dignity. In particular, I liked the scene in which she says there's no point learning about history only to discover that there have been countless other people like her in the past living through the same kind of drudgery. Oliver Milburn, who played Angel Clare, brings a new kind of skeptical optimism to the role not as apparent in Peter Firth's portrayal back in 1979. Milburn seems more angelic and innocent and innocuous in manner, posture, appearance, and in facial expression. He is open and appealing, very easily seducing the heart of Tess in spite of her reservations. His treatment of her when he has discovered her secret seems all the more callous and tragic for his previous admiration and light-hearted demeanor. But kudos must go to the directors and cinematographers of this production. From the opening scene of the maidens dancing in the field, the visual shots in this film are rich in beauty and light, at least when all is well. Even the drear scenes to come are depicted with absolute visual integrity and adhere faithfully to Hardy's vision and eloquent natural language. In particular, I like the fact that in this film, the last scene at Stonehenge has been more accurately portrayed from the book than in the previous version, 1979's "Tess". (Ie. the atheistic comments have not been censored out when Tess mourns with despair that Angel and she will never meet again.) All in all, this film is worth every moment watching. Not only are the dialogues delightful and the themes intriguing, but many will be captivated simply by the glorious scenery and by the beauty and demeure grace of Tess herself. My rating: 10/10

Shortly after reading this book for the first time, I ordered this movie and loved it. I had had rather mixed feelings towards the book while reading it (kind of a love-hate relationship), and this film actually made me like the entire story much better. I liked it so much that only a couple weeks later I ordered the 2008 version, and just finished watching it last night. Wow, what a difference! Although the 2008 one has the advantage of some higher quality filming and an extra hour of screen time (more is usually better in my mind when it comes to my literature-based time period films), I found the newer to be considerably inferior to this one! This version has a MUCH better cast all around. I don't think you can beat this actress's rendition of Tess; I knew she was good in it, but couldn't fully appreciate HOW good until I saw the other version. 1998 Tess is way more convincing than 2008 Tess. My heart goes out to her, whereas 2008 Tess actually got on my nerves. 1998 Angel is much much better as well. The difference in both roles is astounding. I even thought the smaller parts, like Tess's parents and the other milkmaids, were better done in this one. The only exception I make, is that I did think the 2008 Alec D'Urberville more like how I pictured him when I read the book; 1998 Alec does a fine job, is more subtle in his portrayal, but simply does not match so much what I thought he would look and sound like.

Although there is an hour less in this film than the other, I still felt like this one is more generally accurate. I am much more tolerant of deletions from book to film (of course they can't fit everything in) than I am about alterations. There was more material in the 2008 version, but they took more liberties, which simply annoys me. This version, while it couldn't have every detail, what was there was very accurate for the most part. And it captures the story in its entirety quite well for its time constraints.

If you're a Jane Austen fan (as I am), understand that this is NOT a Jane Austen story, which tend to be like fairy tales with happy endings; there are "bad guys" in her books, but they are not a real hindrance to the real heroines. This is a grittier story, not set in the posh genteel society of the gentry and nobility; lots of low people, lots of hard labor, lots of reality. And there are the "bad guys", and then those characters which tread the line between "good" and "bad". It's definitely more complex, definitely more drama, but very worthwhile if you're up to it and know what you're getting into. If it is your first experience with this story, don't expect your viewing to be a relaxing ride. There is plenty to make you furious, happy, sad...lots of strong emotions.

When I first read this book, it was something of an emotional roller coaster (I'd absolutely adore one character, only to hate them intensely a few chapters later, and so on), but now that I'm more familiar with the story, I can appreciate it better. It sinks under your skin and makes you keep thinking about it. This movie leaves you like that, too. It's an excellent rendition of an excellent book.