Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

A whimsical spoiled girl who doesn't know what she wants from life. She wins a lottery and three stupid men are after her. All three deserve their destiny. Utteraly stupid story. I feel sorry for VInterberg, a great author, who is not an anuthor for this film but just someone who needs money to feed family. Total crap.

What an absolute waste of potential. The cinematography ... enchanting. The acting ... captivating. The writing ... incoherent and illogical. So much so that I couldn't help but wonder how this got through preliminary editing stages.Unlike most complaints of illogicality, this has nothing to do with suspense of disbelief. It has more to do with the overwhelming question riding in my mind throughout this film. "Why"?Bathseda goes from a strong and enforced independence to abject stupidity in moment. Really. After having rejected 2 men, within 10 minutes of the nearly 2 hours of this film, she falls for and marries a man she met in the middle of the night while walking back home, and who just so happens to be a selfish drunk. Why?Perhaps you could just explain away her stupidity with love, but the film takes no time with it. Any emotion is thrust upon the viewer without even the simplest of justification. At best, weak explanations are added in afterwards to quell these questions (she married him was jealous and required a distraction; if you say so). Then within minutes the next man falls in love with her (all the men in this movie just fall in love and propose, there's no time for any justification behind this love that would actually make this movie interesting) and then shoots the husband who by the way was thought to have drowned. Who needs any sort of background behind any emotion when they can just throw love at the screen. Who needs any motivation? We have time constraints people.Moreover, the primary character, Bathseda, is so utterly unlikable that at best you can feel abject apathy. She fires a man who she is indebted to after he dared point out her capriciousness (after, notably, she asked for his opinion). This is until she needs him the next day when her livestock fails. Perhaps some found this stubbornness and pride endearing. I didn't. By the end of the film, my only investment was hoping she did not get her happy ending after so callously and irresponsibly using the people around her.The film only gets 3/10 stars because of the cinematography, which I can't stress enough, is so utterly amazing. Additionally, the acting was rather well done, with Carey Mulligan being a notable standout. It's a shame such cinematographic and acting skill was wasted on an atrocious plot.

Watching this movie, I remember "What the wind took", the problem is that that same makes this worse. It is a feminist film, which at the same time goes against itself. For my taste casting is very bad. Neither is she the woman by all men would move heaven and earth, nor are they the men by which they would do it.It is too long and at no time has you tied. It's a love story, the rest is the least and you do not get to touch the sentimental side. You're not expecting me to choose any.The photograph also brings nothing. No help is a photograph without more.The address, since it does not get to hook you up, nor to catch you is not good. He does not know how to take the movie. He does not even have the camera. Neither did the casting wellI try to be a love movie. I am trying

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