Too many fans seem to be blown away

Amateur movie with Big budget

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Blistering performances.

Being in the mood for a period romance, I was a bit cautious when I realized this was an adaptation of a Thomas Hardy story. They tend to end unhappily, especially when there are divided love interests. Fortunately, Under the Greenwood Tree is light, even humorous, in parts. Truly I had no idea who Fancy would marry, the wealthy farmer, the austere parson, or the poor (yet brash and handsome) harrier. In the tradition of Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, there is the mix of position, miscommunication, and the delightfulness of authenticity of period. A treat to watch. The acting, script, and setting all played well together. If you adore period romances, then this should go on your list to watch.

This production is based upon the wonderful Thomas Hardy novel. Don't expect the novel, but expect to receive its inspiration in multitudes via Ashley Pharaoh's adaptation.The acting is superb and the chemistry between Hawes and Murray is as good as it gets, selling their evolving relationship completely. As beautifully photographed, designed, and directed as "Under" is, I found the editing to be impressive in particular. It's quite a feat to pull off this entire story (or any Hardy work) in about 90 minutes without a hitch while maintaining the propulsion of the plot. In general, editing is an extremely underrated occupation, and without the work of Mr. Steven Singleton, this particular production would have been the sorrier.We just saw this on "Masterpiece Theater" for the second time, and it has the makings of a classic. 10/10.

It is a long time since I read the book, and this movie version was good enough to inspire me to read it again. The acting was very convincing - for all the key roles. My two reservations are technical, First, I found it distracting that the setting was so very different from Hardy's Wessex - I understood Mellstock to have been a large village, the street-scape of the location used made it look like a town - and/or a French or Italian town at that. From this site (IMDB), I see that the filming location was Jersey, so that explains the continental connection, I guess. I appreciate that probably no Dorset village would pass for Mellstock, but I would argue that somewhere in the Cotswolds would have been sufficiently close to be accurate. Second, on the version I saw (PBS in the USA) the music soundtrack was so loud that it was intrusive. However, too loud music soundtracks is typical for PBS documentaries too - so perhaps this issue is not the responsibility of the original producer in the UK.I would probably vote higher than 4, were it not for my desire to counter the apparent ramping up of this movie's score by those associated with its production.

I normally approach Hardy adaptations with extreme caution as they have the ability to tarnish the brightest of moods. I read some of the previews and persuaded myself to give it a go. To my joy and astonishment this was a fantastic Christmas treat which the reviewer above clearly failed to understand. Whoever wrote it has clearly no real authority on Hardy whatsoever. The pages of the novel came to light perfectly on the small screen. Hawes was a perfect Ms Day, playing delightfully and genially into the audience's hand. However, for me the performance that stole the show was Pemberton playing a fantastically funny Shiner. He portrayed it with both depth and humour and lit up the screen every time he graced it. The scenery was stunning, the plot had depth and kept me and my family gripped throughout. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone with a warm heart, as it certainly warmed mine.