paul2001sw-1 Thomas Vintenburg is known for his harrowing dramas; and Thomas Hardy was known for his harrowing novels. It might not seem so surprising therefore that the Swedish director should direct a film of a Hardy novel; except that 'Far From the Madding Crowd' is more like a rom-com than a typical Hardy book, inviting us to sympathise with a feisty heiress surrounded by good-looking suitors. Like any conventional rom-com, the ending is known from the start, and the only real question is how we are going to get there. It's true, Hardy uses a rather sui generis mechanism to get rid of two of his three rival lovers; but nonetheless, the story is somewhat familiar overall and I found it rather dull.

TheLittleSongbird 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

alombardy Far From the Madding Crowd is one of my favourite novels, so I was looking forward to what looked like a well-cast, nicely shot film. The truth is, however, that if I hadn't read the book first, this adaptation would not have encouraged me to read Hardy's novel. It's not a bad movie by any means, but it does have a few problems which were maybe unavoidable in adapting this late Victorian classic into the contemporary cinematic environment. I had two main problems in this respect; the first is that of timing. The running time is just under two hours, and yet a good third of the book is swallowed up in just the first fifteen minutes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however I felt as though all that extra time could have been better spent in exploring Bathseba's interactions with her second and third suitors (Troy in particular, but we'll get on to that). Rather Oak takes up much more of the screen time than necessary, and, being a naturally stolid and stoic character, does not provide for that compelling a screen presence.The second problem ties much into the first, in that the sped-up first fifteen minutes gives us a foundation whereby Batsheba openly declares herself to be an independent, DIY woman who 'don't need no man', which is not really carried through for large chunks of the rest of the film. In the novel, Bathsheba's independence of spirit is demonstrated through her brusque actions, often blunt speech and stubborn pride, rather than simple declarations of her ambition and character. As such, when in the film, she falls for Troy, (especially in such a short amount of time given the length of the picture) it is quite jarring and doesn't really fit with what they seemed to be going for at the start. For most of the rest of the adaptation, themes, ideas, and even the scenery are presented with the subtlety and restraint characteristic of Hardy, but I feel the independent woman stuff unfortunately didn't work as well - which is a shame.As such, it makes it difficult for me to recommend this film unless you've read the book first, as seeing this adaptation could possibly impair the experience of what is a wonderful novel. Again, I may sound quite harsh on what is a competently made, well-acted, well- scripted, well-scored movie. If you simply want to see these things, by all means it is a perfectly enjoyable diversion for a few hours. However, if you're yet to discover Hardy's Wessex (oddly changed to its real- life parallel Dorset in the film) I'd recommend you dive into one of the English language's finest authors before viewing this particular adaptation.

peyvandmhi-118-215466 What a simplistic plot!!! like a children's story all her mistakes are resolved for her, and get out of her way. She married the wrong guy? Oh no problem, the other guy who she likes least will kill him for her, so she can marry the guy she likes best, who by the way was ignored so far, and stupidly just remained by her side! Oh and since I have to write 10 lines, I will add more of her charms! She behaves selfishly, does what she says she doesn't want to do, and never seems to take responsibility for her actions. Somehow, she is such a sweet and lovely woman that she can do whatever she likes, and people will still love her. And the point of the movie is unfortunately this, that after she makes mistakes, the right choice is always available for her to come back to.