It seems that all western literature have the same theme. All tragedies are due to the stupidity of men and all comedies are due to the cleverness of women. As this movie is based on a Thomas Hardy story, it is naturally a tragedy. True to form, the stupidity of men, was the primary cause of the tragedy. Of course, a woman must be blamed especially if the woman is not content to be an obedient and docile wife to a selfish and blind husband. Clym, as a spoiled only son, only ever thought of himself. What he wants was all he cared. It never mattered what his mother wanted or what his wife wanted. He must have his way. When his wish was challenged, he blamed his mother. When his dream was shattered, he blamed his wife. Yet, he was considered the good son, the good man, the good husband, and the hero. That's the real tragedy. Eustasia, as a girl with a dream beyond the small backwards village in a harsh landscape, only dreamed of a better life in the shinny world. But the ignorant villagers shunned her as a witch. No matter what she does, she was the evil one. Her stupid selfish husband never understood because he only thought of himself and what he wants. In the end, she could only escape from her jail was to die. That's the real tragedy. That was the bleak rural life of Thomas Hardy's England. I gave the movie 7 stars because it was well staged, well acted, and focused.

Not one of the Thomas Hardy masterpieces(Far From the Madding Crowd, Tess of the D'Urbevilles and The Mayor of Casterbridge), but any work of his is well worth the read and The Return of the Native is no exception. There are better Hardy adaptations, but that is not to knock Return of the Native(1994) completely as it is still quite good. Albeit not without problems. Ray Stevenson is rather colourless and one-note as Clym Yeobright(that his "martyr complex" isn't really all that evident here makes the character himself flat admittedly). The events that happen during the final twenty minutes seemed too glossed over and broadly played, the whole Eustacia's ghost part was hilarious for the wrong reasons. And while the emotional impact and spirit mostly are there for about 2/3 of the film some of it did feel like a lot of skimming the surface and not quite enough depth/meat(the same problem I had with the 1997 film version of The Woodlanders). On the other hand, there is no fault to be had with how the film looks, it is a very beautifully shot adaptation with even lovelier countryside scenery. The costumes are vivid and the contrasts between rich and poor are easy to see and convincing. The music is very lush and romantic-sounding, that it is characterised mainly by strings(of all four orchestral sections, the strings section is most likely the best at depicting love and its consequences) adds to that effect. The script is mostly literate and does have evidence of the ironic and the tragic(though both elements are presented stronger in the book), it's only really with Stevenson where it feels weak. The story and characters have much much to them in the book where there is a lot more detail and time, but they are still involving while the story is touching, doing a great job at maintaining the book's pacing and for conveying how the characters interacted, behaved and lived accurately. Apart from Stevenson, the acting is fine. There may be reservations of whether Catherine Zeta-Jones is too innocent-looking for Eustacia, that still doesn't stop her from giving a nuanced portrayal of a complex character, she also has only looked more beautiful in Darling Buds of May. Clive Owen plays Wildeve with handsome broodiness and fire while Steven Mackintosh is quietly dignified. Joan Plowright and Claire Skinner are very good too and are true to their characters. All in all, not perfect and left wanting as an adaptation but on its own especially in the production values and the cast it's still a good film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is what happens when you try to turn a richly detailed 400 page book into a 100 minute made-for-TV Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. Needless to say, much is lost. The script ignores Hardy's lush narrative and substitutes expedient blather. Characters aren't developed so they come across as shallow and one-dimensional. Wildeve's passion for Eustacia is portrayed (to cite one example) as simple lust. In the book, his feelings are more complex."As for Wildeve, his feelings are easy to guess. Obstacles were a ripening sun to his love, and he was at this moment in a delirium of exquisite misery. To clasp as his for five minutes what was another man's through all the rest of the year was a kind of thing he of all men could appreciate."Because of time constraints, events are compressed, condensed and in some cases simply deleted. The subject of Thomasin's and Clym's inheritance (and an associated lengthy and amusing gambling sequence) is completely ignored. Worse yet, Mrs. Yeobright's attempted reconciliation with her daughter-in-law, her long, torturous and dramatic journey to her son's house and back, and the subsequent repercussions, are given absurdly brief and unconscionably unfaithful treatments. Thus, the arguably most important episode in the novel, the one that precipitates all of the ensuing tragedy, is glossed over in the movie. The (strangely well-lit) climactic storm sequence was also botched.As for the acting, I thought that Catherine Zeta-Jones as Eustacia Wye and Clive Owen as Damon Wildeve were actually pretty good given what they had to work with. Of course I might not have been so charitable with CZJ if she looked more like, say, Roseanne Barr. Steven Mackintosh succeeds in capturing the quiet dignity of the Diggory Venn character. Everyone else was pretty much forgettable except for Ray Stevenson who was awful as Clym Yeobright.Another positive – good scenery, reasonably faithful to Hardy's (extensive) description of Egdon Heath.

Now here is an example of how a movie can be worth to a novel it's based on. And if you didn't read the book first (like I didn't), it can break your heart. Because it's a TV movie it never received the full recognition it deserves. I think that had it been done in Hollywood, with all the whistles and bells, it would have been a hit, and Catherine Zeta Jones would have had her 1st academy award.I've got to admit I am a Catherine Zeta Jones fan, but at the time I saw this movie on TV I never heard her name. She got here a chance to show her acting skills, and she took it with both hands. Eustacia Vye is so hypnotising and full of passion and dreams, and has such bad lack, it breaks your heart.