Tess of the D'Urbervilles

I read the book and then watched this version and the 1998 version, all within the span of a couple months, so it is all quite fresh in my mind. My immediate response is that I did not like this version of the movie nearly as well as the 1998 version. The filming quality is rather better, because 10 years newer, and there are subtitles on the DVD, which are advantages. Also this version is an hour longer, so there are a few additional scenes that the other one didn't have. But even for all that, I feel that it's an inferior production.

I think hands down the cast in the 1998 version was better, EXCEPT for Alec D'Urberville, who seems closer to what I pictured him as in the book. The 2008 Tess's voice and mannerisms actually got on my nerves. Her look, voice, movements, and acting style all reminded me extremely of Jennifer Garner; she could easily pass for her little sister. Now, I think Jennifer Garner is great in a romantic comedy, but I would never cast her in a time-period drama. That style just does not work in a piece like this. I thought at first that maybe they were having the actress act very immature and use a babyish voice on purpose early in the film, so that it could alter as she grew up, but even after everything Tess goes through and all the growing up she does, the actress comes off extremely juvenile. I just had trouble taking her seriously. The 1998 Tess is way more convincing in the role. The 2008 Angel, I had read previously several complaints about his acting being rather flat, and I pretty much have to agree (though I had hoped to find him otherwise). He also has the problem of coming across simply too young. The actor was in fact the same age as Angel is said to be (26), but he looks very young for his age and again it is difficult to take him seriously. Granted that people got married young, but these two actors look too much like highschoolers with a crush on each other, rather than a convincing romance.

Even though there was more material, and therefore a few more scenes, there were more inaccuracies (altering the material rather than simply cutting it) in what it had than in the 1998 version. In general I'd say it followed the book quite closely, considering, but not as closely as the other one. There were several times I just cringed with "But that's not how it happened..." A few things they did treat more accurately, like the last few minutes of the movie.

I'm a big fan of soundtracks on time period films, so I think this is important to a good movie. This soundtrack was very prettily recorded, and I think on its own might make good music, but I frequently felt like the music did not really match up with the scene very well, which can be more distracting than cheaply budgeted music. The 1998 music is less impressive in quality, in my opinion, but worked better for the most part. The costumes and the scenery are beautiful, however.

Also, as a warning, there are 2 rather vivid sex scenes in this film. This and some of the subject matter may make this movie inappropriate for young children.

I came away from the 1998 version liking the book/story better than I had; and I came away from the 2008 version liking it less. This version simply did not carry as much power with it, and I never felt myself feeling for the characters as much as I did in the other one. Still, if you're into this genre or like comparing different versions (as I do), I wouldn't say not to watch it. But I don't recommend this being your only exposure to this intriguing and intense story. It's one that I had mixed feelings about as I read it, but has rather grown on me as it has sunk in more. And perhaps this version will grow on me as well, as I get more used to it.

Tess lives again to stir the 19th Century libidos of the males in Wessex, and to suffer mightily from the vanities, meanness and expectations of those same males.

I was sorry when this series ended and we said goodbye once again to the beguiling Tess, this time played by Gemma Arterton.

Comparisons to Roman Polanski's "Tess" are inevitable. For me that 1979 film is a masterpiece. If Nastassja Kinksi had only ever played that one role, she would still have a place in cinema history.

I was so moved by that film that I read the novel. Written for an audience that seemed to have far more time to read, I respect the screenwriters who adapted it for both efforts. This series incorporates more of the novel, but only by a bit. The 1979 film ran 186 mins and this four-part series was only about 22 mins longer.

The series captures Thomas Hardy's adulation of women. Check out this passage from the novel where Angel Clare (Eddie Redmayne) looks at Tess:

"Clare had studied the curves of those lips so many times that he could reproduce them mentally with ease: and now, as they again confronted him, clothed with colour and life, they sent an aura over his flesh, a breeze through his nerves, which well nigh produced a qualm ..."

However he dipped his pen into different ink when it came to the males; it makes you wonder which one he identified with. Nearly all the men are flawed, especially Alec D'Urbeville (Hans Matheson), Tess's nemesis and stalker. He is seen as more complex in this version, and his obsession with Tess given more shading. Alec aside, even the supposedly moral and upstanding men are seen as judgemental class snobs.

The women on the other hand, epitomised by strong, beautiful Tess, seem kinder, more pragmatic, better people.

Hardy's novel is infused with descriptions of folk song and dancing. This series has a score by Rob Lane, reminiscent of Richard Rodney Bennett's "Far from the Madding Crowd"; it has a more contemporary edge, but creates a haunting mood.

Finally, it all comes down to the actor playing Tess. Gemma Arteton is arresting with dark hair framing wide cheekbones and pale skin. We get why men are either besotted or confronted by her. She embodied the spirit of Hardy's heroine, against an impressive recreation of the period.

If you--like me--saw a review for this film/miniseries calling it "terrible" and giving it one star, IGNORE IT. This film was absolutely stunning (there's a reason it was nominated for Best Lighting, Photography & Camera) and filled with much emotion and intensity by excellent actors. Gemma Arterton is superb as the lead role and all major and minor characters play their part with dedication and are a joy to watch.

Based on the Thomas Hardy Novel, Tess of the d'Urbervilles follows the life of young, beautiful, innocent Tess and the misfortune she faces. With unforgettable characters such as the young heroine, Alec and Angel, visually appealing landscapes and emotional intensity to soften even the toughest of critics, this film is a must-see and something you are unlikely to ever forget!

I read the book as part of my A2-Level English course, and then I saw the mini-series as both my English teacher and best friend recommended it highly. I loved the book, it is one of my favourite Thomas Hardy books, and probably the one I was devastated most by, and yes I have read Jude the Obscure. This mini-series is very evocative and just brilliant, like the book it is sad and it is emotionally devastating, as the book provides a pretty accurate depiction of what happened to servant girls who proved themselves unfaithful during the Victorian Era. The acting, period detail and writing are top-notch, and the mini-series sticks quite closely to the source material.

Visually Tess of the D'Urbervilles is very stunning. The photography is fluid, the scenery is wonderful, the costumes are wondrous and the settings are stunning. It was like coming out of a time-machine and finding yourselves in the middle of the actual Victorian Era itself. The music and sound effects really added to the atmosphere; the music especially is beautiful and haunting. The story I admit is not the easiest to get into at first, as I have said already and several others already it is devastating and sad, but it is truly effective and was told so well it did have the same emotional impact that the book had.

The direction is rock solid, and serves the actors and story well, while the writing is intelligent and avoids being clichéd. That just leaves the acting, Gemma Arterton is perfect as Tess, it is a completely different role to any other role she's played, and she conveys a sympathetic, poignant and innocent character to perfection- in the end I was hoping I would feel sorry for Tess as she goes through such a lot, and I did. Eddie Redmayne is not quite as good as Angel Clare, but he is very effective in his role, while Ruth Jones, Christopher Fairbank, Kenneth Cranham, Jodie Whittaker, Donald Sumpter et al. do superb support work, with honourable mention to Hans Matheson who was brilliant as Alec, both sympathetic and malevolent.

Overall, just a brilliant adaptation of a brilliant book. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I've just finished watching it and thoroughly enjoyed it; a.coatime drama that held my attention from start to finish. Huge credit to Gemma Arterton, who played Tess, she was utterly, utterly wonderful. What a brilliant piece of casting!

I could not believe that Ruth Jones, our Nessa, played the part of her mum! She showed some real versatility. Gemma Arterton and Hans Matheson were both terrific; the acting was a major plus point.

I am a big fan of period drama; in my naivety, I was unfamiliar with this story. It began as is so often the case, sweet and mellow, nice and serene, then came the big twist, and the darker side of this drama begins to come through.

Part one was excellent; I thought the quality ran through the whole production. A quick update: I've since read the book and seen an earlier adaptation. I would suggest this adaptation holds up incredibly well; it's quite dark and definitely absorbing.

9/10.