niteowlgal77 I have read Montana Sky over and over. Unfortunately I wish I could give the TV movie a 10 out of 10. I feel that the characters for Ben and Adam could have been chosen better to suit the description of the book. Ben is made to be a true tough rugged and handsome built rancher. A quote from the book says "...and looks fabulous in Levi's...it's a fine butt, and I have excellent eyesight." Tess made those statements. In the movie Ben leans in Willa refrigerator and his butt isn't fabulous in those jeans at all. I really like John Corbett in his earlier films but this was one I wished that he wasn't in. Now Adam was described as having "...hair that streamed to his shoulders...a face a beautiful as a painting." I understand you can't always match exactly the character but at least close would have been nice. When characters (in reality the author)make descriptions about other characters you get a certain picture and expectation of them. I definitely recommend the book to everyone!!! Nora Roberts truly is an amazing writer and i love every book I have read of hers.

funbunny Let's let John know he should cut his hair and play only cowboy parts. This wasn't his best performance, but he does look good on a horse and has a great sexy smile. He seemed kinda uptight, but don't think he has played a cowboy part enough. I thought the women played their parts well, but was disappointed with Nate - not the right person for that part. Adam did great and I thought he was the perfect person for his part. Think the movie would have had a much higher rating if it had been a mini-series, so they could tell the whole story. No, the movie wasn't the same as the great book, but it was OK. Why can't they make some GREAT true to life - westerns anymore??

TallPineTree I haven't read the book, but other reviewers comments mentioning all that was left out and changed doesn't surprise me. With 4 relationships in the movie (3 male/female and the one amongst the sisters), running the ranch, and the several "bad guy" stories over a year's time, they don't leave much time for much else in a 2 hour (1:36 without commercials) TV movie.This movie's story just skips along like a stone on water, touching the surface every so often to cause a small ripple that quickly disappears to no effect before finally sinking under the surface. Pretty to look at as it skips, but quickly forgotten when it is done.I was disappointed in the story's lack of depth. Then again I thought of how I like romantic comedies from the 30s through the 60s and they aren't known for their depth. Why I am more ready to accept the lack of depth from these older movies? It may be because they are old and I am more ready to suspend belief and accept the story and characters because the movie is "from a simpler time".Another reason I would overlook a shallow story would be if the actors were movie stars. In this movie the actors were good, but no one sizzled and was a star like Gary Grant, Rock Hudson or Doris Day. John Corbett comes closest to a movie star, but I am a guy so the bar for a male actor is higher and Corbett doesn't interest me. He is pretty but bland.The female actors.... um, who were they again? The black haired, the blonde, and the brunette? The frightened, the Hollywood Californian, and the ranch 'chip-on-her-shoulder'. Three sisters who knew each other? Knew OF each other? More of their back story would have been nice instead of them just being stereotypes.Another reason I would have trouble overlooking this shallow story and characters is the movie takes place in Montana. While I don't live in the Bozeman area of Montana, I live among the Montana mountain ranch way of life and people. This movie is the Hollywood version of the Montana image. The scriptwriters may have spent a little time in Montana in order to notice a few obvious things such as many Montanans dislike of Californians and their rich Hollywood ways. Unlike the sheriff in the movie, the typical Montana man, after spouting off to the Hollywood sister on Californians like he did, wouldn't immediately express interest in her unless it really was for the reason she thought it was for and not the type of relationship he wanted.In other words... the Montana men depicted in the movie are not your typical Montana man. And this ranch and house were certainly NOT your typical Montana ranch!The movie was predictable, but that is not always bad. Sometimes one wants a comfortable movie that conforms to ones beliefs and/or wishes. This movie is that. No rough edges. No major surprises. Reassures one's stereotypes and ends happily.When characters disagreed, the writers were careful not to overdo the disagreements so as not to create a bad impression in the viewers mind that would be difficult for the character to overcome when the 'feuding' characters changed course and became friends (or friendlier *wink* *wink* as this is a romance movie).Part of the problem with the lack of feeling is I am not sure why some of the characters didn't like one another to begin with other than the story called for this to be so. I am still puzzled why the 'ranch, chip-on-her-shoulder' sister didn't like John Corbett's character. Was it because he had flirted with other women in his past and was not a virgin? Consequently when they later liked one another it seemed arbitrary. What changed? I guess time passed and it was now or never for her, though if I were Corbett's character I would have moved on from her a long time ago as nothing she did or said impressed me. This is where a movie star charisma comes in handy - who cares why they now like one another, you just are happy they do.When it came to the bad men in this movie, they were so one-note bad and evil that they were not believable. Watching them in their threatening scenes was like watching the villain at the end of a James Bond movie. The villain spouts off some crazy nonsense as to why he is acting this way and doing what he is doing, then the hero races around shooting until the villain is dead or captured. One puts their mind in neutral until the scene is over as it is so unbelievable. It was the same for this movie. Fortunately this movie was more on the romance side and only had the bad men as subplots to have some sort of dramatic tension in the movie. Just one skip of the stone.Before anyone complains about my assessment of the bad men subplots, that "no, this was more realistic", I disagree. These guys had anger and impulse control issues and were not smart at all. No way do I believe they would act, then wait 6 months and do nothing over a Montana winter before completing their revenge plan. And there are other examples of their over-the-top behavior which I won't bother to mention.I wasn't unhappy with the movie. I was fine with it. When I watched it, it was what I thought it may be, and wanted, a predictable romance TV movie. Kind of like watching a James Bond movie when one is in the mood for a mindless action movie.Maybe the movie would have been better off as a four hour mini-series where it could have had some more depth.

rsoranno First, I have to say I am a HUGE Nora Roberts fan. I have read every one of her books at least twice, and most more than that. That being said, if you've never read Montana Sky and you like typical Lifetime movies, then this is for you. However, if you love the book then don't waste your time on this film; you'll just end up angry at how far from the book it strays. I know it's almost impossible to make a movie as good as a book, but this movie could have done a MUCH better job of at least staying true to the story. Some of the most important parts that make the book so great were completely left out or changed. I guess it's just too hard to fit a 500 page book into a two hour time span (including commercials). I for one am very disappointed in this movie.