User reviews

This film, by the Danish director Thomas Vinterberg, is the first cinematic adaptation of Thomas Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd" since John Schlesinger's famous version in 1967. The story is too well- known for me to set out the plot at any length, but it revolves around the adventures of Bathsheba Everdene, a young female landowner in Victorian Dorset, and the three men who love her. These are Gabriel Oak, a humble shepherd, William Boldwood, a neighbouring farmer, and Frank Troy, a sergeant in a cavalry regiment.

Vinterberg has set himself a difficult task. Schlesinger's film was a landmark of British cinema, marking the beginning of what I have come to think of the "heritage cinema" style of film-making. In my eyes at least, and I suspect in the eyes of many others, it has become the definitive version; I cannot re-read the novel- it is a favourite of mine and I have read it several times- without picturing Bathsheba as Julie Christie, Gabriel as Alan Bates, Troy as Terence Stamp or Boldwood as Peter Finch.

Like Schlesinger, Vinterberg sticks fairly closely to Hardy's story, although of necessity some minor episodes have had to be omitted. There were one or two touches I didn't really care for, such as the scene where Troy grabs Bathsheba by the crotch. In the novel Hardy describes Troy's seduction of the young woman with great delicacy. This is not just a question of Victorian prudery, but also of psychological realism. A girl as independent and determined as Bathsheba would have resented such a crude approach; had Troy attempted it he would doubtless have got his face slapped for his pains. I also felt that this version rather inflated the social status of both Bathsheba and Boldwood. In the novel both are prosperous farmers, but nothing more. Here they live in the sort of style which would suggest she is the Lady of the Manor and he a wealthy aristocrat.

Hardy's novel is, among other things, a celebration of the English countryside, and this aspect is brought out well here. Like Schlesinger's, the film is visually attractive with some striking photography of the rural landscapes, often seen bathed in a soft, golden glow. On the acting side I was most impressed by Matthias Schoenaerts as Gabriel. His interpretation is rather different from Bates's, making his character perhaps more genteel and less rough-hewn, but still a man of great sensitivity and integrity. The Belgian-born Schoenaerts speaks flawless English with no hint of a foreign inflection, although it is noticeable that, unlike Bates, he does not attempt a West Country accent. Possibly wisely- English regional accents can be notoriously difficult for foreign-born actors.

On the other hand, I was less impressed by Tom Sturridge who makes an unmemorable Troy, lacking the roguishness and devil-may-care charm which Stamp brought to the role. Michael Sheen is better as Boldwood, but never quite matches Finch's desperate, nervous intensity. The difference, perhaps, is that Sheen's Boldwood is obsessed by Bathsheba whereas Finch's is almost literally possessed by her. Carey Mulligan has plenty of experience in films of this type, having inherited the crown formerly worn by Helena Bonham-Carter and Keira Knightley, that of Reigning Queen of Period Drama. She has been praised for her performance here, but personally I preferred Christie's rather more imperious and headstrong interpretation. Vinterberg's film is a generally solid, well- made piece of period drama, but for me it will not replace Schlesinger's as the definitive version. 7/10

Greetings again from the darkness. If you have read Thomas Hardy's 1874 novel or seen director John Schlesinger's 1967 (and far more energetic) screen adaption starring Julie Christie, or even if you are a High School Literature student with the novel on your summer reading list, you will probably be interested in this more modern-day thinking approach from director Thomas Vinterberg (The Hunt). It's more modern not in look, but rather in the feminist perspective of Bathsheba Everdene (one of my favorite literary character names).

Carey Mulligan plays Ms. Everdene, and she is exceedingly independent and ambitious for the time period, while simultaneously being attractive in a more timeless manner. This rare combination results in three quite different suitors. She first meets sheep farmer Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts, Rust and Bone), who is smitten with her spunk, and he proposes by offering her way out of poverty. She declines and the next time they cross paths, the tables have turned as she has inherited a farm and he has lost everything due to an untrained sheep dog. Next up is a proposal from a socially awkward, but highly successful neighborhood farmer. Michael Sheen plays William Boldwood, who is clueless in his courting skills, but understands that combining their farms would be a make-sense partnership. The third gent is Sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Sturridge), a master of seduction by sword. She is sucked in by Troy's element of danger, unaware of his recent wedding gone awry to local gal Fanny Robbin (Juno Temple).

As with most literary classics … and in fact, most books … the screen adaptation loses the detail and character development that make the book version so enjoyable. Still, we understand the essence of the main characters, and the actors each bring their own flavor to these roles. The story has always been first and foremost a study in persistence, and now director Vinterberg and Mulligan explore the modern day challenges faced by women in selecting a mate: slow and steady, financially set, or exciting and on edge. In simpler language, should she follow her head, wallet or heart?

Based on Thomas Hardy's classic novel (which I much shamefully admit I have never read), Far From the Madding Crowd tells the tale of Bathsheba Everdene's rags-to-riches rise to become a farm-owner in rural Dorset in the 1870's, the title coming from the fact that Dorset is a long way from the hustle and bustle of London "200 miles away" as the opening title incorrectly declares - the longest direct driving route I could find was 155 miles!

Bathsheba is a magnet to men with her feisty and independent behaviour, and the film documents the "love square" between her and three men in her life: Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts), the hunk of a farm manager; William Boldwood (Michael Sheen), the wealthy neighbouring landowner; and Sergeant Troy (Tom Sturridge), a dashing Han-Solo style rogue, flash-as-you-like in his scarlet army uniform.

In reviewing this film I need to declare a couple of loves.

Firstly, Dorset. Of all the English counties, this has to be one of the most glorious. Green rolling hills, dramatic coastline such as that at Golden Cap (featured in the film), quaint villages and – most importantly in this context – gorgeously photogenic. Hopefully, this might tempt more visitors to stop there rather than 'driving on through' to Devon and Cornwall for their holidays.

Secondly, and with apologies to the wife, Carey Mulligan. To be clear, this is not a sordid sexually-motivated affair (although there was THAT shower-scene in "Shame") but a deep love of her acting talents and screen presence. This is a love affair long in the making, beginning ten years ago with her startling presence in Bleak House at the age of 20 (looking much, much younger); her stunning minx-like Dr Who performance as Sally Sparrow in "Blink"; and on through her breakout movie performance in "An Education" in 2009.

Where Mulligan excels is in roles where she can play a strong, confident and independent woman, so the role of Bathsheba is perfect for her. She is utterly believable as the 1870's landowner holding her own against the men-folk, and even pulling off the somewhat out-of-character plot twist half-way through the film.

The supporting cast is also excellent. The ever-reliable Sheen ("The Queen"; "Frost/Nixon") delivers a heart-breaking performance as the love-lorn Boldwood; Schoenaerts (recently in "Suite Française") is manly enough with a scythe to no doubt set female hearts a flutter; and Sturridge is deliciously unpleasant in his powerful role.

Above all, this is just a crackingly good story, through David ("One Day") Nicholls's tight screenplay. If you decide to avoid this film because it is "old stuff", think again. The roller-coaster ride of the plot gives UK and US 'soaps' a good run for their money in the drama stakes, and the denouement is both surprising and satisfying.

Direction is by the relatively unknown (to me at least) Thomas Vinterberg ("The Hunt"), but big kudos needs to go to Vinterburg's collaborator Charlotte Bruus Christensen for the stunning cinematography: some of the scenes (notably the harvesting scene towards the end of the movie) are bucolically gorgeous.

Also worth noting is the soundtrack by the brilliant but sparingly used Craig Armstrong ("Love Actually", "The Great Gatsby") which is luscious and suits the film to a tee. The woodland rendezvous scene makes your hair stand on end and this is largely down to the music combined with Claire Simpson's excellent editing.

I struggle to find aspects to criticise. I was gripped, and suitably shocked at the right moments, which is just what you want for a good night out at the movies. Having already praised the cinematography, one gripe I would have is with the lens flare at the end of the film (natural this time, rather than of the JJ Abrams variety) which was annoyingly distracting to me in the closing scene: but I recognise this is a personal complaint that I might be alone in.

Just a word of warning as well for animal lovers: that despite it being a UK 12A certificate, there are some pretty torrid scenes with sheep and a dog that might upset sensitive viewers - perhaps it should have been given a "Ewe" certificate (that joke will only work for UK readers!).

In summary, this is a treat for a more elderly audience, but should be a must see for audiences of all ages as a rollicking good tale, well told and beautifully shot.

(If you enjoyed this review, please see the multi-media version at bob-the-movie-man.com and enter your email address to receive future reviews. Thanks.)

Bathsheba Everdene (Carey Mulligan) is an independent Victorian woman. Her neighbor sheep-herder Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts) abruptly asks Bathsheba's hand in marriage and she politely declines. His herd falls off a cliff. Her uncle dies leaving his large failing farm to her. She hires Oak as her shepherd/manager. She impetuously plays a Valentine joke on her neighbor William Boldwood (Michael Sheen) and he asks to marry her. She rejects him and embarrasses him. Fanny Robbin (Juno Temple) worked for Bathsheba's uncle but ran away to marry Sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Sturridge). She mistakenly goes to the wrong church leaving Troy heartbroken. Bathsheba falls for the dashing soldier and marries him but soon finds that she has made a mistake.

Carey Mulligan delivers a brilliant performance as the nearly modern woman in a world still ruled by men. She's a complicated heroine and could be derided for her uncertain love life. The three men deliver the needed personality. Michael Sheen is probably the least like his distant socially awkward character. I would have liked the movie to concentrate more on Oak but that wouldn't be the story. This is a lovely addition to the classic.

"I am a woman. It is my intention to astonish you all." Bathsheba (Carey Mulligan)

Thomas Hardy would make a fortune today writing soap opera period pieces like Far from the Madding Crowd for HBO. That's a compliment because this film is done with such restraint (far fewer gratuitous country-beautiful shots and more close ups) that it could have been set in any era and the human condition would be the same.

Besides its fidelity to the spirit of Hardy's typically bright, tough farm girl ("I have an education. Nothing else"), class division, complicated loves, Far offers a heroine, Bathsheba (well-cast, crooked smiling Mulligan) far ahead of her time (See the above quote). Although she doesn't want for suitors, she doesn't want to be subjugated by a husband either ("being some man's property"). Katherine Hepburn could have played this role.

As life and Hardy would have it, chance and human nature have their own agendas, and Bathsheba makes bad decisions based on youthful passion and naiveté—Hardy, frequently a figurative scold, makes sure she pays amply for her mistakes before he sets the balance right between fortune and misfortune. His more famous Tess of the d'Urbervilles is the finest example of the strong-willed, suffering heroine, who, because of weak men, is mercilessly buffeted by the fates and her own weakness.

One of Bathsheba's suitors, the painfully shy William Boldwood (Michael Sheen), personifies the aging Victorian society, bound in property and loneliness; to her he importunes, "I want very much to protect you … for the rest of your life." However, the temporary prize of Bathsheba is given to the crimson-uniformed rake, Sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Sturridge), another character waiting for Hardy's punishment.

The obvious right guy for her is farmer Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts), whose steadfast love for the heroine could only be compared to Job's suffering. To her he always speaks honestly and lovingly: "I'm not going to tell stories just to please you. You can be sure of that."

Far from the Madding Crowd is a crowd pleaser. Hardy would have loved the adaptation.

I make a point of disliking screen adaptations of classic masterpieces of English Literature so I went along to look for faults in the adaptation.

High praise indeed from me; there are very few departures from the masterly text! In fact I LOVED this film.

Visually stunning and artistically photographed, the attention to historical detail was perfect. Costumes, houses, carriages, uniforms, tea cups......Faultless.

Michael Sheen's sensitive and nervous portrayal of Boldwood made the film for me alongside the superb Matthias S. who is the ideal choice for Gabriel Oak.

9/10 from me. 9 ? Well.... a few mistakes over the Fanny Robin scenario. :)

This has always been one of my favourite books & films and I was keen to see what they did with this a second time around. But what I want to say after seeing it was 1/see the first film 2/read the book. One of the most essential points to film was left out altogether in that when Bathsheba sent her 'joke' valentine to Boldwood she wrote the words 'Marry Me' on it. It wasn't the roses-are-red etc that got Boldwood in a twist it was the two words she wrote on the card. We get no sense of the quandary and deliberating over this that went on within Boldwood for some time before he made his move (and his ultimate obsession) in this film as we do in the first.

I think the scene when Fanny got the wrong church was disappointing as well. There was no sense of the mad dash she had across town to find the right church and only to find Frank striding out full of indignation at being stood up and telling her "It's too late!" The beautiful words of Gabriel to Bathsheba "when I look up there ye will be and when you look up there I will be" just don't feature at all.

The "shooting at the end was tame to say the least & Martin Sheen was much less forceful in his insistence of marrying Bathsheba But I did like Carey Mulligan as Bathdheba. What was missing was the energy & drama the original film had and dare I say it some Wessex accents....

It is rags to riches for the beautiful young, Bathsheba Everdene. She's inherited her late Uncle's farm, and has gone from a life of manual labour to one of property and wealth. An impulsive, head strong young woman, she attracts a lot of male attention, before and after her wealth. She has a pick of three suitors (most of whom keep wanting to buy her a piano!!) There's William Boldwood, a handsome, charismatic mature man of wealth. There is the rugged Gabriel Oak, a handsome sheep farmer who's gone from a farm owner to an employee of Bathsheba, and finally there is the charismatic young officer Sergeant Francis Troy. She seems unaware of the effect she has on her potential suitors, causing deep passion in all three. She makes her choice and has to live with having a Master.

The film develops beautifully, the softer easy going beginning is at great contrast to the deeper more serious core. That end kiss, I believed the passion in every second of it, extremely powerful and emotional scene.

It must be not far off twenty years when I read Far from the madding crowd. There have been a few versions, the one I had enjoyed most up to this point being the one with Paloma Baeza in the lead.

I had high expectations for this version, and I was right to, it is a truly beautiful adaptation. It is a beautifully shot film, it literally looks gorgeous. If you appreciate attention to detail, sets, clothes, hair etc then there is plenty to feast your eyes on.

I've been a huge fan of Carey Mulligan since her dream performance as Sally Sparrow in Doctor Who's legendary episode Blink. She is perfect for the role, very attractive, in a way fitting to the time this was set in. She exudes an inner strength and confidence, very well cast.

Michael Sheen to is very well cast as Boldwood, a man awkward in matters of the heart, he put a sensitivity and a sense of sadness into his performance, Sheen scrubs up rather well too. The performance I enjoyed the most though came from Matthias Schoenaerts, he brought Gabriel Oak to life, he is a totally brilliant actor.

Fantastic film. 9/10

Warning: I watched this on a flight so not necessarily a visual treat... Set against lovely backdrops of the country side and telling a classic story, Far from the Madding Crowd is the best period drama I've seen since Pride and Prejudice. As a tale, FftMC's characters are as true and real as they ever are - whilst the gender story isn't as important as it might once be (although it's not entirely irrelevant no matter how much I'd like to hope it would be) and the politics of the era hopefully something of the past, this story still explores the plight of love and trying to be true to yourself under outside pressures which, I feel, remains as true today as it ever did. The soundtrack does manage a few mis-steps, but is generally lovely and the overall package feels very polished and beautiful. Casting is solid and the script manages to be modern without losing any of the charm of the classic. The story itself, if you don't already know it, is touching and heart warming - human and full of love and mistakes - and just prefect as a result.

More accurately should be titled and presented as "Femme Fatale". Adaptation from literature to film allows for alternative interpretation; a differing emphasis on events and motivations; additions and deletions to make it a more contemporary, all this because film does not convey to an audience the same story as text from which it came. They are two different beasts. With that thought it's apparent that Everdene uses people to her own end. She will step on whomever if they are a hindrance to her self (ishness) means, whether Troy, Oak, Boldwood or any others. We see it repeatedly though out the film with her allegiance changing with the tide of fortune. Not to downplay or excuse the dogged pursuit by males, but more so then that they are just a product of their times.

The final whitewashing of this script's plot is the moral omittance of her not speaking up for Boldwood. Rescued from a threatening situation it is her testimony that could save a life, but as before she walks away. This script has her succeeding, but the film leaves little sense of the destruction she left in her path.

How do you solve a problem like Bathsheba Everdene? It's a question that has plagued literary enthusiasts since 1874, when Thomas Hardy first introduced her to the world in one of his classic novels, Far From The Madding Crowd. Today, 141 years later, that same question haunts Thomas Vinterberg's sumptuous, smart adaptation - one that tries valiantly, but doesn't wholly succeed, in celebrating the strength of a character that was always somewhat illusory to begin with.

In a time ruled and defined exclusively by men, Bathsheba Everdene (Carey Mulligan) stands apart as a free-spirited, independent young lass who refuses to bow to convention. When she inherits the farm belonging to her late uncle, she insists on running it herself - working in the fields and sacking the male workers who disrespect her authority. Small wonder, then, that Bathsheba draws the attention of three suitors, each one representing a different social class and a unique brand of manhood: stoic farmer Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts); stern, serious-minded landowner William Boldwood (Michael Sheen); and sexy, emotionally scarred sergeant Francis Troy (Tom Sturridge).

The main problem with Hardy's novel, which is largely replicated in Vinterberg's faithful adaptation, is its awkward attitude towards its lead female character. To be sure, Hardy gives Bathsheba a modern voice that still rings true today: "It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in a language chiefly made by men to express theirs," she declares. It's a line so delicious that screenwriter David Nicholls nicked it wholesale for the film. And yet, on a deeper reading of the novel, it becomes far harder to tell whether Hardy is celebrating Bathsheba's independence, or punishing her for it.

To their credit, Vinterberg and Nicholls do try a little harder to add a truly feminist bent to their version of Bathsheba's story. More care is taken to forge a genuine emotional connection between Bathsheba and Gabriel, even as her seduction of William Boldwood is made less purposeful. Bathsheba still finds herself approaching Sergeant Troy with lust rather than caution, but she does so in a more clear-eyed manner. In effect, Mulligan's Bathsheba seems bemused at and somewhat resigned to the sillier decisions she makes in her romantic pursuits.

The trouble is that, while these little changes do add up to a stronger character, they also result in thematic and tonal confusion. The truth of the matter is that Hardy was not always concerned with celebrating Bathsheba as a character in her own right - he was frequently more interested in commenting on the ideal romantic suitor, the kind of man to whom Bathsheba should give her heart. There's never any doubt, in Hardy's mind at least, what her choice should be. After a point, then, Vinterberg's film flounders because there is, truthfully, no real tension in the romantic dilemma that stares Bathsheba in the face.

It's a shame, because Vinterberg has brought Hardy's world to life with a very good cast indeed. Mulligan plays the fire and spirit of Bathsheba well, although she's trapped as much by the script as her character is by Hardy's words and ideas in the novel. As the sturdy Gabriel Oak (his surname says it all), Schoenaerts turns a rather dull but handy lump of a man into a semi-credible romantic prospect. The ever-reliable Sheen doesn't have quite enough screen-time, but nevertheless packs a great deal of depth and despair into the loss of William Boldwood's heart (and, perhaps, mind) to the charms of Ms. Everdene. There's almost more to be enjoyed in the semi-confessional scene shared by these two very different men as they sheepishly dance around their feelings for the same woman. Sturridge, meanwhile, is the relatively weaker link in the cast; his performance is fuelled more by his sexy moustache and saucy swordmanship than anything else.

At a point in time when female-led films are being discussed, dissected and celebrated more than ever before, Far From The Madding Crowd would - at least on the surface - appear to be part of this growing tradition. The filmmakers have certainly tried to create a version of Bathsheba Everdene that's unequivocally appealing to a modern audience. But it's an effort that, ultimately, doesn't quite work, since the point of Hardy's novel was arguably more about the man Bathsheba should marry, and less about Bathsheba herself.

I've never read the novel on which this is based but decided to give the film a try seeing as it featured the always very watchable Carey Mulligan and a screenplay by David Nicholls (One Day).

It may not please everyone but I think the director has managed to create a strong love story that allows the central character to develop throughout the two hour run. Mulligan captures every aspect of the character well and despite her making lots of bad choices we still stick by her.

Michael Sheen does well in his role and there are plenty of twists that kept me on the edge of my seat.

In this age of franchises and big blockbuster superhero nonsense it is refreshing that this film manages to tell a good story with a wonderful cast and hopefully will be enjoyed by many.

Far from the Madding Crowd, a well respected novel with an adaptation already to its name, hasn't got much new ground to cover. This 2015 film, starring Carey Mulligan, upholds the book's reputation. Bathsheba (Mulligan) is a headstrong farm owner who meets three possible suiters in a short space of time; Gabriel the farmer, William the nobleman and Frank the soldier. All bear distinctive qualities. All wish Bathsheba to marry them the moment they lay eyes on her. FftMC favours one man over the rest. We're smitten before even given the chance to decide. Mulligan's the charismatic, leading lady, making decisions that come at a price. Schoenaerts, Sturridge and Sheen add flavour to this period drama, their personalities and dialogue capturing what action cannot.

There are many reviews singing accolades to the film and I too applaud this otherwise excellent interpretation. Frankly, I was disappointed in one important aspect of the film. I thought Carey Mulligan was miscast. I am afraid Carey's Bathsheba had little impact on me. There was none of the charisma of a Bathsheba. I am not sure if I am biased because of the lovely Julie Christie who played Bathsheba in the 1967 version of the film, which she did virtually perfectly in my view.

In comparison Carey, for me, does not portray the complexity or character of a strong-willed woman like Bathsheba. Generally speaking, to her advantage, Carey looks much younger than her age (29 y/o). But as Bathsheba she comes across as too plain for a character like Bathsheba's. The sense I get from most reviewers and film goers is that Carey faithfully captured the character of Bathsheba. However, for me Carey has none of the gravitas of Bathsheba's character. She also does not portray the romance a woman like Bathsheba possesses, esp. given she has three strong male suitors, each portraying a different kind of strength. Carey Mulligan was perfectly cast in the 2009 film "An Education". In the film Carey portrays a teenager in school even though she was actually (or about) 24 y/o at the time.

To my mind actresses like Evangeline Lilly, Anne Hathaway or Emily Blunt would have portrayed Bathsheba admirably. Lena Headey, even though she is actually 40 y/o would have also done well as Bathsheba. In contrast, Carey Mulligan is too much of a Plain Jane I am afraid. There is none of the strong female pastoral character about Carey. Carey lacks the presence or charisma one attributes to a strong female protagonist. Besides there is nothing country about Carey Mulligan even though her acting per se is nothing short of superlative.

Carey Mulligan's Bathsheba is as much a disappointment to me as Jean- Louis Coulloc'h's portrayal of the male lead in Lady Chatterley (2006), which was an excellent film marred by Jean-Louis Coulloc'h being miscast. The film's narrative is based on Lawrence's first draft of Lady Chatterley's Lover.

"She has done her duty. She has produced the heir, and now, after a respectable gap of 21 months, she has produced a spare. The question now is: will she stop at two?"

These are not the words of a contemporary of Thomas Hardy who set far From The Madding Crowd in 1870's Dorset. No, these are the, slightly paraphrased, words of Valentine Low a correspondent of the London Times commentating on the birth of Prince Charlotte in May 2015.

There's an argument to say that unlike Valentine Low, Thomas Hardy was a man ahead of his time, willing to give female characters in his novels, like Tess, unfashionable strength of character (although some accuse him of misogyny).

In this latest film adaptation it's clear that Thomas Vinterberg is looking to the modern end of this particular spectrum and in casting Carey Mulligan as the film's undoubted hero, Bathsheba Everdene (great name), he's looking to celebrate female characters in a way that quite rarely gets a screen outing.

I personally believe Carey Mulligan is work in progress for one of the all time great female cinema actors and unquestionably this is another CV highlight. And it's obvious that Vintenberg and his cinematographer, Charlotte Bruus Christensen, share my view as the camera literally seduces her from start to finish.

But there's also outstanding male 'eye candy' too in the form of Mathias Schoenaerts as the audience's front runner for the formidable Miss Everdene's hand in marriage

Dreamy. That's the word I'd use to best describe this languid evocation of a time when men were men and women were their compliant concubines - but Miss Everdene is anything but.

By languid, some would say slow and one can't argue with that, because if you're looking for action you've come to the wrong place for that. But for this viewer at least it was simply a gentle and rewarding unveiling of a classic tale with a strong cast Jessica Barden has a sweet supporting role as Miss Everedene's companion, Michael Sheen is brilliant as the bereft suitor Mr Boldwood and Tom Sturridge is suitably creepy as Miss Everdene's ill fated first husband and caddish Sergeant Francis Troy.

So if you're looking for accomplished film making in every single department with a great (but slightly unlikely) story, and you're in no hurry, then this is the movie for you.

I read this book for the first time about 2 months ago and loved it! I read a lot of classic literature, and many books I esteem better than enjoy, but this one I enjoyed far above average.

So how accurate was this movie to the book? Well, any classic novel cut down to 2 hours is naturally going to be missing pieces. I'd say that of the main events and important conversations, about 2/3 is present. (I was most astonished and dismayed at the total disappearance of an important scene between Boldwood and Troy outside of Bathsheba's house, and I think that they could have cut some of what they put in to keep this scene.) Of what is in the movie, I'd say that only about 2/3 of it actually happened the way it happened in the book.

Between these two numbers I've given you, I mean that the movie people cut stuff out from the book and added stuff in that wasn't in the book or changed it from the original intent. This is standard fare for Hollywood versions of great literature, and it wasn't a total botch. It was still enjoyable, still captured the essence of the original book and plot, and I hope to add it to my movie collection eventually.

That being said, I recently bought the 1998 PBS version (and saw it about 2 weeks before seeing this one at the theater), and it is by far the more accurate and more thorough of the two (being twice as long). The new one has better filming and a better soundtrack--it is definitely more aesthetically pleasing--but if you're a purist, or want to see some of the holes left in the story without having to read the book, try the PBS one. It's less of eye candy, but other than that, very well done.

One of my other big complaints about this version is that their actress for Bathsheba (though I like her in general) is simply getting too old to pull off this role convincingly. Bathsheba is about 18 years old in the book, and her immaturity is a big explanation for some of the foolish and flighty things she does. What is forgivable in an 18-year old is irritating or simply doesn't make sense in an actress who just turned 30. Carey Mulligan is still beautiful (I think she'd be more beautiful if she weren't so thin), but simply was a mismatch for this part.

I really think that the character of Boldwood was underdeveloped as a whole in this movie. A lot of his scenes were cut, so it's harder to understand him (without previous knowledge of the book or a longer movie), which is a shame because I think this actor was a way better choice than the one used for that role in the 1998 version.

Then the ending--I won't go into detail because I like to keep my reviews spoiler-free--but the big finale of the story completely falls flat because they altered so many little pieces of it (the main events happen, but not in the way or in the setting that they did in the book). Again, I think they should have stolen some extra minutes from somewhere else in the movie and put a little more effort into this. It's not enough of a problem to ruin the movie or make you walk out of it feeling bent out of shape (the very last 5 min or so are pleasing enough to leave you on a good note), but hopefully it will confuse or bother you just enough to make you want to read the book to see how it really panned out.

Overall, I did like the movie. It made for a relaxing evening in Victorian England, which I always love. It was beautiful to the eyes and ears. If you haven't read the book and like the movie, it's a good reason to go and read it! And if you didn't like the movie, it's a good reason to go read it, also, so you can find out why the book is better! :)

Ever since I saw the trailer for this film back in March, I've been desperately waiting to see it - even reading the book and watching the 98 TV adaption as I couldn't wait to find out what happens. I think that makes me a little biased in my opinion, but considering how much I couldn't wait to see it, I definitely wasn't disappointed.

I really enjoyed watching this film and I already want to see it all over again. It was everything the trailer promised it would be - a beautiful and sumptuous adaption of Hardy's story, with characters you grow to care a lot about and root for, a storyline which keeps your attention and surprises you throughout and a definite feeling of satisfaction at the end. It is very well made and acted and is already a classic for me.

The film looks and feels and sounds stunning and sumptuous and epic. The long sweeping shots of the scenery is beautiful and perfectly captures the countryside Hardy described so vividly in the novel. The music is beautiful too - dramatic and haunting by turns to fit the narrative and cinematography and has a very Celtic, folklore feel to it, which fits perfectly with the feel of the film. These qualities alone makes it well worth a cinema visit as opposed to a DVD/TV watch.

Overall, the story is quite a simple one, a mixture of a love story, coming of age drama and the heroines fight to find her place in a very male dominated world. The film and the heroine Bathsheba do feel very modern and though it's set in the late 19th century, the story definitely resonates to today's society. This gives the film a lovely timeless feel to it and draws you in. Bathsheba is a very humanised heroine, independent and headstrong, clever and confident, but with weaknesses and vices and she does make a lot of understandable mistakes. Yet for all it's predictability in places, there are a lot of elements within this story that definitely take you by surprise. It's a film more about the journey and the choices and mistakes made along the way than the destination.

For a period drama, the pacing is quite fast, yet it doesn't feel rushed. Having only just read the book, I was very much aware of the changes and a lot has been cut out. Yet the different turns the story takes still make sense and it still takes time to flesh out the characters so you do care about them. This is mainly due to the acting, which I cannot fault and there is no weak link for me. The characters work very well together and the sparks fly and the chemistry sizzles in all the right places. A lot is said by the expressions, tones and actions of the actors so I never felt perplexed by their character arc (although perhaps my understanding was greater, having just read the book). Also, a lot of the details are there, but subtly shown, with a very clever use of lighting, close ups vs long sweeping shots and locations, with most of it being set outdoors in great contrast to other much more confined or intimate surroundings.

Whilst the film does cut out a lot from the book and changes some scenes, it is quite a faithful adaption and stays true to the characters and story. There are very few extra scenes and the changes make sense, and mainly there to expediate the plot. The love story and Bathsheba's character arc definitely takes prominence, but this works well within the media of film. In fact, some of the changes and omissions make it preferable to the book for me, in particular the characterisation of Bathsheba. I found some of her choices and subsequent reactions to them make much more sense here in the film.

The only criticism I can really give it is that it could have been a little longer, with perhaps a few more scenes, particularly between Bathsheba and Troy, to flesh out more of the story. A few little scenes of the workers would have been nice too, but I didn't feel this was lacking, either.

It's definitely a very beautiful and sumptuous film and one I know I'll watch time and time again. The story will surprise you and the characters certainly made me care for them. As a film, it's pretty conventional for a period drama, not really groundbreaking or different, but then I don't think it needs to be, so it's not a criticism for me.

The film does exactly what it says on the tin in a wonderful and sumptuous and breathtaking way and it's one of those films that will stick with me for a long, long time.

The book is a masterpiece, it's perhaps Hardy's most accessible book and one of his best, his way of words and vivid descriptions as well as the beautifully realised characters demonstrate that. Some may question whether he was on Bathsheba's side or not, not so to me.

Of the three versions seen of 'Far From the Madding Crowd', this 2015 film is my least favourite. This is not meant in a bad way, that it's still good with a lot to admire says a lot about how excellent the 1967 film (which holds up even better than when first reviewed five years ago, when much younger and with a less diverse taste in film and when less perceptive and more headstrong in how opinions were expressed) and the 1998 TV adaptation are. Those who love the book will find various aspects underwhelming, but taken as a film judged on its own two feet it's a worthy effort with many great things. Which is what makes it disappointing that it wasn't even better.

'Far From the Madding Crowd' (2015) is not perfect. It does feel too safe and more of a conventional period piece when there is much more to the story than that. The structure, basic details and the essence of most of the characters (excepting Troy) are all there and the romantic elements (more heavily emphasised here) is done incredibly well, but the depth is missing.

You can tell from seeing the previous adaptations regardless of whether you've read the book or not that the characters are not as complex, as said Troy is far more interesting than his treatment here. As is some of the rural colour like the lack of refinement for the locals and how they loved to gossip, near-jettisoned in favour of emphasising the romance more. 'Far From the Madding Crowd' is also a quite bold and at times idiosyncratic story, the previous two adaptations captured the boldness and wit more. The wit comes through in this adaptation certainly, the boldness doesn't.

Just as problematic is the writing and performance for Troy. As said more than once already, Troy is much more interesting in the source material than here and with more complexity. One, as said above, doesn't even need to have read 'Far From the Madding Crowd' to know if having viewed either of the previous two adaptations that Troy is more villainous than usual and is rather one-dimensional. Tom Sturridge didn't do it for me, the way the character is written does work against him but he never looked comfortable in the role and fails to bring out the rakishness, solider-like demeanour and charm (regarding the latter one does need to see what Bathsheba sees in him, that is a failing here). Occasionally the film is a tad rushed, especially in the stripped character development of the underdeveloped characters that are not the four leading ones.

However, 'Far From the Madding Crowd' looks ravishing. Especially in the cinematography that is even more radiant than Carey Mulligan's Bathsheba (the late harvest scene is indeed just one of the highlights), while the scenery and costumes are beautifully detailed and evocative in their meticulousness. While spare, a wise decision, Craig Armstrong's music score is every bit as good as the scores for the previous two adaptations, with every scene that it appears in beautifully scored and sensitively used. The rendezvous in the woodland is a masterful marriage of visuals, editing (also very much stunning in the film) music, acting and amorous atmosphere.

Even when adaptation-wise the film feels too on the safe side, the script still manages to be very literate and the wit and tragedy of the story come over amusingly and poignantly. The story is, despite the lack of depth, still compelling and the heavier emphasis on the romantic element registers so strongly that it makes one swoon. The romantic tension is done very well too. Won't talk about the feminist slant that has been mentioned at the risk of it causing controversy in later reviews, other than that perhaps it wasn't really needed.

Most of the characters come off well still. Bathsheba is particularly well-realised, one gets the sense of her being an ahead of her time unconventional character and because it's a long way from irrelevant today one can still relate. Thomas Vinterberg directs with a lot of spirit and, other than Sturridge, gets great performances from his heart.

Carey Mulligan is one of the standout components of 'Far From the Madding Crowd'. Her wonderful, hugely compelling performance captures Bathsheba's fiery free-spirit, affecting nuances faintly modern nature, beauty and eagerness, even when Bathsheba is prouder than one would expect and not as vain. Matthias Schoenaerts is a sensitive, integral and remarkably dignified Gabriel Oak, with brooding eyes and an expressive understated face. Another standout is Michael Sheen's Boldwood, Sheen devastates and Sheen brings many colours to the character that allows one to feel sorry for him.

In summary, admirable, gorgeously mounted, spirited, romantically swooning and very well acted, but too safe. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Our tale is set in 1870's England, as imagined by the classic author Thomas Hardy's book of the same title. Far from London, in the western countryside, lives a capable shepherd, Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenhart) who has managed to save enough to rent his farm and buy his sheep. One fateful day, Oak spies a beautiful maiden, Bathsheba Everdene (Carey Mulligan) on horseback. This maiden, an orphan, has come to stay with her aunt and labor hard in her nearby farm. Smitten almost at once, Gabriel soon proposes to Bathsheba, promising a good life and a "piano". Alas, she turns him down, despite his great looks and manner. She declares she is not ready to be any man's property. Soon after, their fortunes are reversed. Gabriel loses his flock tragically, because of an over-zealous sheepdog. After selling everything he owns, he must vacate his house and look for work. Meanwhile, Bathsheba inherits a farm from her uncle and decides to run the place herself. It has a large beautiful house and successful fields. Amazingly, Gabriel comes by, helps put out a fire, and is hired as her shepherd. However, he is keenly aware that, because of his poverty, Bathsheba may never look his way again. There's more. B suddenly gets two more suitors. One is a neighboring, rich, confirmed bachelor, Mr. Boldwood (Michael Sheen), whose heart was broken long ago. That is, until Miss Everdene arrives and impetuously sends him a valentine. Not long after, a redcoat soldier, Frank Troy (Tom Sturridge) meets Bathsheba in the woods and becomes strongly attracted to this independent woman and, alas for Gabriel, visa versa. Who will, if any, our headstrong heroine choose? This film could hardly be more exceptional or exquisite. The cast is superb, starting with Mulligan and Schoenharts, and continuing down to the smallest role. Then, the story is a heart touching masterpiece, as Hardy put down on paper, and this film brings to a wider audience. Add on glorious scenery, beautiful costumes, and a superb direction and the film watching world is enthralled. This reviewer knows it will be the best film she will see all year and, as soon as it is released on DVD, will be first in line. So, movie fans will be well advised to go far and near to garner a cinema seat.

I have to start with the pros: very good visual production, costumes, music and acting. Now the cons: the script is really bad. And considering it's based on a book already written, this movie feels like a very swift summary of the novel, a trailer, without any in depth analysis of why things happen, how each character feels about what's happening and no real purpose for anything.... Halfway through the movie I felt disconnected, wishing it to be over, not caring for any character and considering it a waste of time. Probably there was not enough time to include all the action in a 2 hour film, as it usually is, but maybe some unnecessary long scenes could've been shortened for the sake of introducing new ones. Nevertheless, I really want to read the book now, to see whether there's a better development in written than on screen. I've seen better period dramas adapted from novels , this one didn't do it's job, in my opinion.