The Return of the Native

Being both a fan of Catherine Zeta-Jones and of Thomas Hardy's tempest-tossed heroines, I had an uncontrollable urge to rent this film when I discovered it languishing on a dust covered shelf in my local video store. Happily, I was not disappointed. "Return of the Native" is the story of Eusticia Vance, a rather ambitious girl who comes back to her village in the south of England after years abroad to (rather innocently) wreak havoc on the local men. Although not one of Hardy's best stories, it gives Zeta-Jones a chance to show that she can act (and surprisingly well) if given a good role.

This role is very reminiscent of the high-spirited, ultimately doomed women Ava Gardner used to play. Copies of this video should be passed out to every casting agent in Hollywood. It could prevent atrocities like "The Haunting" in the future. So if you like gorgeously filmed, well-acted period pieces, or if you are simply a Catherine Zeta-Jones completist, I recommend "Return of the Native".

This romance drama was marvelous. Considering it was on tv I thought it was wonderfully done. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays the gorgeous Eustacia Vye, who is in search of romance. She plays the part very well and looks gorgeous as usual. Highly recommend.

Superb!!!

It seems that all western literature have the same theme. All tragedies are due to the stupidity of men and all comedies are due to the cleverness of women.

As this movie is based on a Thomas Hardy story, it is naturally a tragedy. True to form, the stupidity of men, was the primary cause of the tragedy. Of course, a woman must be blamed especially if the woman is not content to be an obedient and docile wife to a selfish and blind husband.

Clym, as a spoiled only son, only ever thought of himself. What he wants was all he cared. It never mattered what his mother wanted or what his wife wanted. He must have his way. When his wish was challenged, he blamed his mother. When his dream was shattered, he blamed his wife. Yet, he was considered the good son, the good man, the good husband, and the hero. That's the real tragedy.

Eustasia, as a girl with a dream beyond the small backwards village in a harsh landscape, only dreamed of a better life in the shinny world. But the ignorant villagers shunned her as a witch. No matter what she does, she was the evil one. Her stupid selfish husband never understood because he only thought of himself and what he wants. In the end, she could only escape from her jail was to die. That's the real tragedy.

That was the bleak rural life of Thomas Hardy's England. I gave the movie 7 stars because it was well staged, well acted, and focused.

I picked this up on whim from my local library. Being a fan of English settings and of period romance, I considered it a good candidate for some afternoon diversion. Unfortunately, it was one of those movies where you simultaneously want it to end, but feel impelled to watch it to finish (perhaps imagining that it will take a turn for the better, which this movie never does). So, yes, I was disappointed, but not as disappointed as I was when checking here and discovering that everyone who's reviewed this adaptation of a novel I admittedly have never read (and most likely never will, now) found it so wonderful!

I see lots of comments about Zeta-Jones, but fail to understand what's so noteworthy in her performance here. I found it flat and lacking in dimension (I guess those are the same things). Eustacia is selfish, fickle and flighty and because of that, primarily just distant and distracted. I appreciate that this is her nature, but instead of finding her intriguing or even mysterious, I found myself annoyed and disinterested. This lack of depth mad her, in my mind, clearly unworthy of either of her two love interests, even considering that one becomes an adulterer. I found nothing tragic in her character, no subtlety that would beg for understanding. In fact, she wasn't even very good at being the evil temptress/witch.

Worst of all, her character never really develops, serving instead simply to provide the antagonist to the plot. Sure, Catherine's a doll, but that alone isn't enough to sustain interest in her role here. She has developed into a marvelous actress since this movie was made(as more recent performances attest to), so I have to assume that her relative inexperience as an actress at this point, combined with poor production values in the making of the movie, cast her in this bad light.

Overall, the story tries so hard to moralize, but employs some pretty lame appeals for sympathy. In particular, Clym's loss of sight seemed silly; I didn't feel at all for this guy with all of his obsessive book-reading (and doesn't one of the characters even warn him that he'll "go blind from all your reading"). He can't even put the damn book down when he's in bed with his beautiful new bride. Furthermore, Ray Stevenson's acting adds nothing to the role, which I found only to be yet again another flat performance.

Now I admit Clive Owen's Damon had some fire to him and his easily stands out as the best performance, but it couldn't save the film. I won't go on and on, but I will remark that this BBC production is not on par with others they've taken on, such as the absolutely glorious 1995 BBC/A&E version of Pride and Prejudice, but then not having read Hardy, I have no way of knowing if he was as clever an artist as Jane Austen was. I have to admit there are horrible adaptations of her work out there, as well, so for now, I'll give Hardy the benefit of the doubt (how nice of me, you're thinking) and write this off to an uninspired telling of his tale.

This movie is very well done! The acting is exceptional! It is a wonderful adaptation of the novel. I was enthralled from the beginning. The gorgeous landscapes, & beautiful period costumes help to make this movie a must see! I highly recommend it!