Watch The Woodlanders For Free

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Crappy film

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Saw this at our wonderful new local cinema just a mile or so from where most of the film was shot. We were even lucky enough to have a Q and A with the cinematographer who worked on the film after. He lives locally, by the name of Ashley Rowe. I absolutely loved the film, and what a terrific chap! He rounded off a fab night with extremely interesting information about the shooting of the film and his role in it. Thank you so much to him for attending, despite having to leave for the shooting of a new film it London tomorrow at some ridiculously ungodly hour! A special thank you to the Regal volunteer Barry Robbins, who helps run our fab new cinema. You are doing an amazing job Barry! A terrific evening for me, which as a keen Thomas Hardy fan it is hard to top. If Mr Rowe should happen to read this - do watch Schalcken the Painter. It was actually 1979 (not 1982) , but the link re the point re treatment of light, I think, is a valid one. Plus - please try and make Under the Greenwood Tree!

The Woodlanders is a complex but beautiful book, apparently Thomas Hardy's personal favourite of his work and you can see why(with me though it's Tess of the D'Urbevilles and Far from the Madding Crowd). Any adaptation of any book by any author deserves to be judged in some way on their own. Compared to the book this 1997 film adaptation of The Woodlanders does fall short, but it still has a lot of great things about it. The most underwhelming aspect was the ending, which was far too frantic- the adaptation also takes too much time to set up, so there were a couple of pacing issues here and there- and sudden, anti-climatic too. It would have been more powerful if Marty South's declaration of undying love was kept intact and if there was a sense of Hardy's depiction of how devastating and too-late-to-change coincidences can be. The film does feel too short, which might be a reason for why the ending was as it was and the lack of depth(too much of skimming-the-surface-but-not-enough-meat quality to it) and why characters like Mrs Charmond and Marty South seemed too briefly introduced and underused. The production values however are exquisite, especially the rustic and colourful scenery and cinematography that is sensitive and shimmering that strikes the right balance between not being too cinematic or too TV bound. The interiors are appropriately atmospheric(in a gloomy sort of way). The costumes and period detail are evocative, with little over-bleakness or too-cleanliness about them. And the lighting visually appeals- making long shots/scenes even more interesting than they already are- and matches the moods of each scene. George Fenton's music score has a lot of beautiful sweep and passion, underlying the tragedy of the story convincingly but not obviously, unsurprising seeing as Fenton's music has always had that effect, while the script is literate and true in spirit to Hardy's prose. The story may lack the depth of the book and the beginning and end have pacing lulls, however it is still told beautifully and compellingly with faultless mood contrasts, and deserves further credit for matching the slow but spacious pacing of the book, handling the romance subtly, the rural if at times gloomy atmosphere it evokes and for how well it makes an effort to convey how the characters would interact, speak and behave. Phil Agland does a solid job directing, really not bad for a feature film debut. Rufus Sewell is a smouldering and affecting Giles, the character we feel the most for. Emily Woof's Gracie is luminous and strong-willed as well as equally touching, it's a different character for her and she acquits herself very well. Cal Macaninch is suitably sly and snobbish, while Polly Walker makes a sinister impact, Jodhi May is a sympathetic Marty South(more so than in the book) and Tony Haygarth makes for a very ideal father-figure, of the firm yet warm and well-intended kind. All in all, falls short but it is well made and earnestly done. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I'm a huge fan of period films including those from Thomas Hardy's works, e.g., Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Far From the Madding Crowd, The Mayor of Casterbridge, Under the Greenwood Tree, etc. I've enjoyed them all…and, yes, I've read a few, too!I just recently rented the DVD, The Woodlanders, mainly for Rufus Sewell (exquisitely beautiful, as in Dangerous Beauty and A Knight's Tale, etc.) Though I've not finished the film in its entirety, I am, thus far, somewhat disappointed by the pace. It seems rather tired and incomplete, with all too brief and random character inserts; e.g., Polly Walker as Mrs. Charmond and Jodhi May as Marty South.I'm not enthralled by the acting, either. Emily Woof as Grace gives a thoroughly uninspiring performance. Perhaps the direction is at fault, although it's apparently won some awards in that category.Perhaps the fact that I just finished watching the totally captivating Dangerous Beauty; albeit, not a T.H. writing, casts an unfair comparison on this rather bleak and subdued setting.I may get back to you with an improved impression later. _____ Sorry. No improvement. This movie could kill a passion for Rufus, too.Again, the acting was so dull, so tedious, so lackluster and boring throughout, I feared I might expire before Giles did.There's absolutely no chance that I would intentionally subject myself to the task of reading the book. No missing details from the written word could ever entice me.What happened to fixate you so in misery, Mr. Hardy, that you should mire your writings in page after page of insufferable longing, sadness, and despair. Was it some sick pleasure you enjoyed to encumber your characters with ream after ream of unbearable and torturous quandary; and why do we come back for more!(Saving Rufus, I might have liked the film better with a different cast or a different director: either one, for certain, might have saved it for me. Tsk. What a shame.)

Thomas Hardy wrote such classics as Tess of the D'Urbervilles and The Mayor of Casterbridge, yet he always maintained that his best work was the often overlooked The Woodlanders. This film version is first-rate. I saw it a week after I saw the mega-budget Titanic, and I actually found this film more moving and more engaging that the costly James Cameron epic.The story is faithful to the book, but omits some of the peripheral details. It's about a young woman who returns to a close knit woodland community after several years away. In that time, she has become an educated lady, and she finds it quite difficult to relate to the people she once grew up with, having experienced wider and more varied cultures. Her childhood sweetheart is a simple woodcutter, and she feels that she is now too "good" for him, so she forsakes her fondness for him and marries a wealthy and educated doctor, with tragic consequences.The film was filmed in the New Forest (a gorgeous area of England) and it is a visual treat from first frame to last. The scenery is simply ravishing. Furthermore, the performances are very thoughtful and persuasive, complementing the sharp and carefully worked out script. This is definitely one of the best adaptations of a Thomas Hardy novel, and it can stand alongside Polanski's Tess and Schlesinger's Far From the Madding Crowd with its head held high.