Home > Drama >

The Woodlanders

The Woodlanders (1998)

February. 06,1998
|
6.2
| Drama Romance

The story is set in late 19th century rural corner of South England. The daughter of timber merchant Melbury, Grace, returns to the town after finishing school. Her father now believes she can find a better husband than her childhood sweetheart, woodsman Giles. She marries handsome young doctor Fitzpiers, but soon finds out he's not the man of her dreams and she still loves Giles.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

Pluskylang
1998/02/06

Great Film overall

More
Spidersecu
1998/02/07

Don't Believe the Hype

More
Intcatinfo
1998/02/08

A Masterpiece!

More
Rosie Searle
1998/02/09

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

More
Amy Adler
1998/02/10

Giles (Rufus Sewell) is the right-hand man to a successful, rural logger. A handsome gent, he and the business owner's daughter, Grace (Emily Woof) grew up together and became very attached. But, the logger always had a chip on his shoulder that he was not refined so he sent his only child to a finishing school for some years. Now, Grace is coming home and Giles is eager to re-establish a relationship with her. But, alas, the beautiful young lady, although quite kind, is hoping to make a better match, having her head filled with bookish nonsense. This stuns Giles but, he keeps on keeping on. Even when he loses his home to a local woman's pettiness, the handsome man stays true to Gracie and his community. As bad luck would have it, there is a new doctor in town and once Gracie meets him, she sets her sights on him and the interest is mutual, resulting in marriage. How can this be, when clearly the doctor is a somewhat pompous and flawed individual and Giles is such a handsome, true-to-you kind of male? This is a complicated tale from the great writer, Thomas Hardy, of 19th century England. Hardy excelled in penning books about ordinary, country folks who sometimes had terrible exchanges with the wealthier, more powerful classes. Tragedy was often the result and the story here is much of the same. Admirably, this film is never melodramatic or forced but tells the complicated story very well. Also, the cast is quite wonderful, all of them, even though Sewell or Polly Walker are the only known actors. Then, too, the setting in the English countryside is very lovely and authentic, showing the beauty and the rustic nature of the existence in another time, another place. Costumes, too, are sensational, the productions values are very fine, and the script and direction are most competent. If you adore the classics, romance, or historical tales, you would do well to search for the Woodlanders. It is a powerful story that would spark a most animated discussion, even as it entertains.

More
MacyMay
1998/02/11

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.)

More
vnpns
1998/02/12

I haven't the slightest idea what a spoiler is and I doubt whether many folks who are not film buffs will know either, so I'll just have to hope that my comments don't enter that category and request that you use a non-jargon word in order that us ordinary punters can understand.I cannot agree with comments made concerning the scenes dragging or the film itself lacking cinematic scope. Some critics have taken this view but I believe this is rather an indication of how susceptible critics can be to saying what they think people will expect them to say (whilst conveying the distinct impression that they are the most bravely objective critics in the world).No, this is a film which refuses to go at the pace expected of it but, rather, courageously moves at the precise pace demanded of it by the overall direction and approach. I am glad I haven't read the book because it might have tempted me to try to make a like-for-like comparison and thereby go on to make erroneous deductions.The two mediums, film and literature, demand different approaches and, to me anyway, this thoughtfully filmed tale is at ease with itself and that is all we can ask of it. It is not trying to be Gone With The Wind or even Pride and Pejudice, nor should it make the attempt.Like Bleak House, it will completely glide past the attention span of the viewer who is anxious for untimely progression or who is not mentally prepared for its purposely ponderous and understated theme. What I would suggest, most humbly, is that anyone with doubts set aside a whole evening with nothing else planned and no interruptions possible. Then forget anything you have previously experienced concerning this tale and view it afresh. Put away any cynical prejudgement and consciously assume that the film's understated acting is fully intended as such. Then I believe your experience and enjoyment of this film will improve no end.The director was no doubt under immense pressure to make this tale more paced and juicy. I, for one, fully commend him for resisting this and producing a magnificently restrained U film, a truly English shared countryside, domestic and subtly romantic experience - at least for anyone allowing it the space to embrace them. VNP.

More
Marcio F Cuzziol
1998/02/13

Typical British drama based on a novel by Thomas Hardy, the author of "Jude the Obscure", "Tess of the d'Urbevilles" and "Far from the Madding Crowd". As usual in Hardy's stories, it is set on British countryside and focuses on the ordinary lives of its local people. As usual in this kind of movie, it is really well-made and extremely well-acted, but also bureaucratically directed.Hardy's characters are quite human, they are always looking for happiness in the wrong places, making bad choices, missing the best opportunities. Here is not different. Marty loves Giles who loves Grace who loves him no more. She is unsure about her feelings since she returned from a period of studies in the town. The small village where she grew up doesn't look much attractive now, neither Giles does. She dreams about going abroad with Mrs. Charmond, the rich landowner widow, while she flirts with the newcomer young doctor - he also came from the town. Soon all of them will be facing the unavoidable fate.The woodworker Giles (Rufus Sewell) reminds me the shepherd Gabriel from "Far from the Madding Crowd": both are honest, hard-working, heartbroken men. Emily Woof is just perfect as Grace; she looks like Cate Blanchett and she can even play like her. Unfortunately Jodhi May has just a small role as Marty the poor girl who sells her beautiful long hair to survive, a very sympathetic character. Tony Haygarth is also excellent as Grace's father, a well-intentioned man who wishes only the best for his daughter, but practically manipulates her life. I usually see Haygarth playing weird roles, like Renfield in "Dracula" (1979) or the Mad Hatter from Alice's Wonderland in "Dreamchild", so it is refreshing to see him playing normal types. Good film, good story, but not recommended for people looking for something light.

More