I read the book and then watched this version and the 1998 version, all within the span of a couple months, so it is all quite fresh in my mind. My immediate response is that I did not like this version of the movie nearly as well as the 1998 version. The filming quality is rather better, because 10 years newer, and there are subtitles on the DVD, which are advantages. Also this version is an hour longer, so there are a few additional scenes that the other one didn't have. But even for all that, I feel that it's an inferior production.I think hands down the cast in the 1998 version was better, EXCEPT for Alec D'Urberville, who seems closer to what I pictured him as in the book. The 2008 Tess's voice and mannerisms actually got on my nerves. Her look, voice, movements, and acting style all reminded me extremely of Jennifer Garner; she could easily pass for her little sister. Now, I think Jennifer Garner is great in a romantic comedy, but I would never cast her in a time-period drama. That style just does not work in a piece like this. I thought at first that maybe they were having the actress act very immature and use a babyish voice on purpose early in the film, so that it could alter as she grew up, but even after everything Tess goes through and all the growing up she does, the actress comes off extremely juvenile. I just had trouble taking her seriously. The 1998 Tess is way more convincing in the role. The 2008 Angel, I had read previously several complaints about his acting being rather flat, and I pretty much have to agree (though I had hoped to find him otherwise). He also has the problem of coming across simply too young. The actor was in fact the same age as Angel is said to be (26), but he looks very young for his age and again it is difficult to take him seriously. Granted that people got married young, but these two actors look too much like highschoolers with a crush on each other, rather than a convincing romance. Even though there was more material, and therefore a few more scenes, there were more inaccuracies (altering the material rather than simply cutting it) in what it had than in the 1998 version. In general I'd say it followed the book quite closely, considering, but not as closely as the other one. There were several times I just cringed with "But that's not how it happened..." A few things they did treat more accurately, like the last few minutes of the movie.I'm a big fan of soundtracks on time period films, so I think this is important to a good movie. This soundtrack was very prettily recorded, and I think on its own might make good music, but I frequently felt like the music did not really match up with the scene very well, which can be more distracting than cheaply budgeted music. The 1998 music is less impressive in quality, in my opinion, but worked better for the most part. The costumes and the scenery are beautiful, however. Also, as a warning, there are 2 rather vivid sex scenes in this film. This and some of the subject matter may make this movie inappropriate for young children.I came away from the 1998 version liking the book/story better than I had; and I came away from the 2008 version liking it less. This version simply did not carry as much power with it, and I never felt myself feeling for the characters as much as I did in the other one. Still, if you're into this genre or like comparing different versions (as I do), I wouldn't say not to watch it. But I don't recommend this being your only exposure to this intriguing and intense story. It's one that I had mixed feelings about as I read it, but has rather grown on me as it has sunk in more. And perhaps this version will grow on me as well, as I get more used to it.

*Spolers inside*I thought the film was well produced but god that was a terrible story. I mean soap-opera with a bad ending terrible. 80% of the film is it's characters obsessing about their misfortunes. Maybe that was standard in 19th century, but I found it very frustrating to watch. And I don't mind dramas, not at all. Including with unfortunate endings. I just like to see some sense in it, not just pointless suffering over and over again. There is too much of it in the real life. I just don't understand people who need books or films to see that. Open your eyes people! Go do some volunteering instead.The story just drags the characters behind it, they do nothing to change anything. So anti-climatic. And when somebody does something (the murder) it feels like the stupidest thing ever. Tess tells Angel she never wants to see him again, and then kills the other guy, and suddenly they are all good now? Oh come on.Other things I didn't like. The dialogues are really bad. There is basically nothing witty said in the entire series. The characters are not likable, lack depth, and there is very little development, just things happening to them. I didn't read the book but it looks like the author didn't really understand people well. Compared to the Jane Austin adaptations this was a disaster.

If you--like me--saw a review for this film/miniseries calling it "terrible" and giving it one star, IGNORE IT. This film was absolutely stunning (there's a reason it was nominated for Best Lighting, Photography & Camera) and filled with much emotion and intensity by excellent actors. Gemma Arterton is superb as the lead role and all major and minor characters play their part with dedication and are a joy to watch. Based on the Thomas Hardy Novel, Tess of the d'Urbervilles follows the life of young, beautiful, innocent Tess and the misfortune she faces. With unforgettable characters such as the young heroine, Alec and Angel, visually appealing landscapes and emotional intensity to soften even the toughest of critics, this film is a must-see and something you are unlikely to ever forget!

The production is excellent, I give it that. But what a waste of resources. The story is so typical of Hardy, with coincidences and accidents of timing piled one on top of the other until the whole thing teeters and falls. By the final 20 minutes or so I was groaning as the coincidences piled up ever faster. It is amazing to me how Hardy characters are able to walk for what seems like days on end, only to arrive in the same place started. How characters out of touch with each other can find one another with ease when it suits the plot, and cannot find each other at all at other times. And how widely dispersed characters can all arrive at the same miserable place, with no explanation at all. For those concerned about spoilers, I urge that you skip over the introduction tacked onto the show by PBS. In a few words the presenter effectively tells you the ending. The morons who write these introductions should be shot. They accomplish one thing only, which is to make us miss Alistair Cooke and Russell Baker even more.