Far from the Madding Crowd

This period romance is far more daytime soap than it is Jane Austen. Although the 1st 1/3 is quite promising, setting up what looks to be the kind of conflict that'll have plenty to say regarding the restrictive class & gender structures of the period w/ Mulligan's pre-suffragette ready to take on Victorian societal mores, the film turns into the kind of Hurry-up-already romance where you watch a couple obviously meant to be together get past contrived road block after contrived road block.

Or "Within Close Proximity to the Friend-Zoning Crowd"

There hasn't been an adaptation of 'Far from the Madding Crowd' to date that preserves the novel's grit as compared to contemporary pastorals and its dedication (despite Hardy's attachment to the countryside) to an unidealised portrayal of rural social life. Vinterberg--the director of much tougher and more uncompromising films--shows a greater willingness to try at first, but the film gradually loses its bite to settle in a well-worn dewy-eyed costume romance groove.

I mean, where to start?? A woman who claims to be independent and says no to a decent proposal quickly marries the biggest idiot of the bunch, says no to another very decent proposal eventhough she is struggeling tremendously finncially,and that man to eventually kill the idiot and goes to jail to have the man whom she should have married in the first place flea the country. Jezus. The movie is made well, but the story sucks. 32/100.

In 19th century England, Bathsheba (Carey Mulligan) is loved by three men and loses two of them, finally finding happiness with the steadfast Gabriel (Matthias Schoenaerts). One of the better examples of Hardy on the screen, and certainly superior to the bloated 1967 version, boasting excellent performances from Mulligan and Schoenaerts and a handsome production, all under Vinterberg's watchful eye. The adaptation, though mildly truncated towards the end, is refreshingly straightforward.

Well performed with a backdrop of beautiful visuals, but the story leaves something to be desired; namely, the story and character development in between important events.

3 guys in love with one woman. She sends one into grave, the other into jail and the 3rd one is kinda her slave :D

I would buy her a lamb, but I know she prefers pizza.

Maddeningly dry, not in the slightest bit romantic, and lacking in both characters and plot, Far from the Madding Crowd is a dull period romance with little going for it beyond the costumes, its acting, and its leading character, who isn't the typical romantic female lead -- until, of course, she becomes exactly that.

beautiful scenery & costumes the repression was palpable at times great acting

Contemporary pastoral romance featuring a female lead with three male suitors. She has an actual job, managing an estate. Carey Mulligan remains delightful and convincingly conflicted. Great costumes, small charming sets. So many cool shepherding facts.

I was shocked to learn that this was based on a Thomas Hardy novel. Michael Sheen gave the best performance. I disliked the Carey Mulligan character.

the protagonists decision-making was way too fast, not allowing the viewer to fully understand "why" she did what she did

Yeah Vinterberg - you did a good job here. I haven't seen the two previous versions, but I really enjoyed it. Maybe because I'm Danish and get the vibe from Vinterberg. Mulligan was stunning and perfect for the character. *Good

An independent woman, while operating good farming practices, makes bad romantic choices and ruins three people's lives in a way. I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this. I suppose we just trust that Thomas Hardy knew what he was doing.

it's watchable, really like the cast, but the story is meh. the choices she makes are frustrating to watch just like the ones from the other famous Miss Everdeen. but the movie is well made so I'll give it 7/10

A fairly simple period film which makes up for its traditional and predictable story with sumptuous photography of its rural setting, and a cast of actors who all look the part and possess chemistry which makes their romances believable. Essentially, eye-candy makes up for the lack of brain-candy. For those romantics who dare to dream about a leather-clad Carey Mulligan emerging on horseback across an unspoilt landscape, backlit by a halo of dawn sun rays, this hits the spot very nicely.

Started off well but then just creaked along to the point where no matter whether the plot zigged or zagged I didn't care. Why would anyone want to marry this woman? She's no fun at all. Doesn't seem to have a personality or wit or charm or anything and only seems capable of making horrible choices.

Vinterberg may rush the final act, but he brings out the wild side in Mulligan, who can hold a close-up like nobody's business. She's a live wire in a movie that knows how to stir up a classic for the here and now.

This is not a bad movie. My rating may not reflect that, but trust me when I say this is not a bad movie. I think this is a movie that is lost in time and place. I felt that this offered me too little in terms of material, things, characters, and situations in which I could invest. Maybe that's due to the age of the source material, I don't know. I can appreciate the historical context, and can appreciate that this movie is well made. Unfortunately, it did not connect with me personally.

An engaging period piece with lovely cinematography and costumes.

Absolutely stunning scenery and costumes, great leading acts from Mulligan and Schoenaerts, I really felt for these two star-crossed lovers. The story, well, it's every tween girls dream, all set in a Victorian setting - yay. The first half was very promising with a refreshing heroine, then it sadly lost its way a bit and the story strayed down slightly illogical paths... Still I quite enjoyed it and I still rooted for a happy ending! I might read the book now, too.

Well touched classic literature for the big screen. The dramatic acting is a little unremarkable to really grasp the full magic of the story, but that doesn't stop this from becoming attractive viewing.

More purple prose of Victorian romance and misunderstandings than a man can stomach. But I guess in the age of unquestioned role models like Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen, and Anastasia Steele nothing's too gaudy.

Well-crafted, if somewhat slow-moving, with good performances all around.

Though the film slowly loses more and more steam as it progresses from the first act, in which I was utterly captivated, it is constantly held aloft by the strong performances of Schoenaerts, Mulligan, and Sheen in paticular.

Torn between a desire for personal independence and the pressures of conforming to a patriarchal society, Mulligan's Bathsheba is probably the most insufferable character she's played so far: a pig-headed nuisance who insists upon establishing her own agenda of meanings without realising she fucks up everyone's lives in the process. You can already second guess what happens in the end...

Does that reflect their inherently noble hearts? Or is more of an inflamed refusal to move on? Is it right and good to keep the spark alive for a woman who uses her independence to snub and ensnare? To serve her own passions? To do exactly what she wants to do, at almost any cost? (pluggedin.com)

Lacks passion.

It's hard for a period piece not to be good if the production values are there, but also it's hard to excel as well. The fly in this ointment is the Sgt. Troy character whose polar opposites are so extreme, and Bathsheba's acceptance of him so out of character, it wakes one up from trying to believe the story at all--and nevermind his cheap-shot reincarnation. [spoiler]It also misses a perfect closing quote. When she repeatedly says to "ask me" (again) but he remains silent, he should have as [Full review]

A little dull and disappointing.

The two audio/visual hypnotic scenes (signing around the table, and the courtship in the woods) are the only two memorable bits, but the rest is completely meh and predictable.