Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Anton Chernyavsky *Spolers inside*I thought the film was well produced but god that was a terrible story. I mean soap-opera with a bad ending terrible. 80% of the film is it's characters obsessing about their misfortunes. Maybe that was standard in 19th century, but I found it very frustrating to watch. And I don't mind dramas, not at all. Including with unfortunate endings. I just like to see some sense in it, not just pointless suffering over and over again. There is too much of it in the real life. I just don't understand people who need books or films to see that. Open your eyes people! Go do some volunteering instead.The story just drags the characters behind it, they do nothing to change anything. So anti-climatic. And when somebody does something (the murder) it feels like the stupidest thing ever. Tess tells Angel she never wants to see him again, and then kills the other guy, and suddenly they are all good now? Oh come on.Other things I didn't like. The dialogues are really bad. There is basically nothing witty said in the entire series. The characters are not likable, lack depth, and there is very little development, just things happening to them. I didn't read the book but it looks like the author didn't really understand people well. Compared to the Jane Austin adaptations this was a disaster.

maerrie1 I only recently watched this when it was on TV, but have been familiar with the book for years. I was entertained enough to watch all four episodes so that's a good start.This production has many good points, the leading among them Gemma Arterton. She is fresh, intelligent and passionate and brings just the right touch of melancholy and spiritedness to Tess. She has the right type of natural beauty so that visually she complements the emotional qualities of her portrayal quite perfectly.In fact, most of the leading characters were well played. I especially enjoyed Hans Mathieson's Alec, the villain with heart but a twisted core. The photographic qualities of the film are fabulous, a real luxury; but not at the expense of the story. The trials and upheavals of Tess' life are faithfully and movingly shown. I think the story works very well, about 95% of the time, as a particular tale about particular people. This is what I enjoyed about it, but Hardy's novel does more than just tell a particular tale.For the most part, the archetypal aspects of the leads (Tess, Angel & Alec) are insufficiently hinted at. For example, I don't think it's made clear enough that Angel loves Tess because she represents an ideal of feminine purity to him - in the book he calls her things like daughter of nature and Demeter, and this is unsatisfyingly absent here. Alec's more general role as the stronger force that distorts others' lives for the sake of personal convenience or transient pleasure could also have been more thoroughly explored (but his particular villainy and perverted love are artfully and powerfully portrayed). Angel, too, is more than just a man- he stands for the middle class with uncompromising values, no compassion and unjust double standards, which lead him to see Tess' misfortune as a greater crime than his voluntary "moral holiday" in London. Tess herself is perhaps better depicted as a representation of womanhood in her time - acute and sensitive, intelligent and hard-working, yet at the mercy of forces greater than her, and made to pay for 'sins' that she is not responsible for.Despite the above, I don't think this is a huge omission; a novel and a mini-series are two different mediums, and if the makers thought they couldn't fit all of this into their production it was as well to leave it out altogether. So overall, still worth watching.However I also have a gripe about the last episode, where I think the writer/s really dropped the ball. After a lengthy absence in which he sends no word, Angel suddenly reappears and has done a complete about-face with respect to his feelings about Tess. What changes his mind? What happened while he was gone? This seriously undermines the credibility of everything that happens from the moment of his return, because no reason is given for his radical change of heart. I feel that the story, character development and momentum hold up very well until Angel's return- and then drop off. This is a real shame - but while disappointing it doesn't ruin the rest of the production. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.

David Murray Me and my girlfriend love period dramas and watch a lot and this started quite well and it looked promising. My complaint isn't with the way it was done it's with the author of the story. It was well produced I thought and I had no problem with the actors. Our problem was just that the story was so depressing. My girlfriend was actually really shaken and upset after watching it. For myself I just found it very frustrating throughout. I was constantly finding myself frustrated at the characters for not just saying this or not just doing that, and then frustrated at the author for being so depressing with everything. I'm a believer that the best stories end well. Great Expectations is a prime example. Yes plenty of things going wrong and plenty drama, but you're left with a feel-good feeling at the end. It's a shame when a TV series just leaves you upset.

elisaMR Aside from this, I've only seen the 1998 version starring Justine Waddell; I have, however, read Hardy's novel three times, it being my favorite. I have to say that I was disappointed with this production. I felt that the beginning was too rushed from the dance, to the death of the family horse, and while Gemma Arterton is a beautiful Tess, I just couldn't connect with her. I also didn't like the way that they developed the relationship between Alec and Tess. My interpretation has always been that while Tess remained civil with him in the beginning, she wanted little to do with him and shunned him because of his arrogance. In this adaption they make it seem as if they've developed an actual friendship and she's falling in love with him. I don't necessarily think that the acting was bad, but there was just something about this cast, particularly the two protagonists, that made me feel less for them than I normally would. The love between Angel and Tess didn't seem as real; something was missing. Angel appeared to be a young man who's pride drove him away from his true love once her secret was revealed, but in the novel he is so much more intelligent and complex than what this representation suggested. I guess overall I just feel that the characters weren't developed enough. Normally when I read the novel, or watch the 1998 version, I feel so much for these characters and become emotionally invested. Sadly this series did not produce the same effect. It is still, however, a beautiful and tragic story, and I did enjoy seeing Angel's parents and his relationship with his family, which was basically nonexistent in the '98 series. While some scenes and certain dialogue were a stretch in my opinion, the overall story stayed true to Hardy's heartbreaking novel.