airborne60 As has been mentioned by other reviewers, "Sommersby" is a copy of the French movie "Le retour de Martin Guerre" from 1982, starring Gerard Depardieu. While other such copies leave a lot of the original feeling and acting quality behind, "Sommersby" stands and holds well on it's own merits. See them both, and for once you may discover that the Hollywodized copy is the better one.While the original French story ends in the clear, the real Martin Guerre arrives in the last second of the trial, the real Jack Sommersby does not return. Instead, the drama plays around if "Jack" will hang for the crime of impersonating the real one or hang for a crime that the real Jack committed. That conflict, and his final choice is vastly more interesting than that of Martin Guerre. Martin Guerre never gives up his fight, he has all to loose. "Jack Sommersby" takes a stand and denounces his past but pays the price for it. The role of the wife, as played masterly by Jodie Foster, is much more important in "Sommersby" than in "...Martin Guerre".The acting is sensitive and expresses the persons inner agony in every blink of the eyes. This is a movie I have seen three times, and I am sure that I will see it several times again.

James Hitchcock In 1548 a young man named Martin Guerre disappeared from the southern French village of Artigat. Eight years later, an impostor named Arnaud du Tilh arrived in Artigat falsely claiming to be Martin. Although he was accepted as such by Guerre's wife Bertrande and his family, rumours began to spread about his identity, and he was eventually exposed when the true Martin Guerre returned to the village. A number of writers and film-makers have taken inspiration from these events, including Daniel Vigne, the director of "Le Retour de Martin Guerre" from 1982. "Sommersby" is sometimes regarded as a remake of Vigne's drama, but it might more accurately be described as being loosely inspired by the real historical events upon which the other was much more closely based. Jon Amiel transfers the action to the American South, immediately after the American Civil War. Jack Sommersby, is a landowner who left his farm to fight in the war. Nothing further has been heard from him, and everyone, including his wife Laurel, presumes that he is dead. Nobody, including Laurel, is particularly worried by this; Jack was an unpleasant individual, an abusive husband and a neglectful father to his young son Robert. Laurel is even planning to marry a neighbour named Orin Meacham. And then one day a man returns, claiming to be Jack. Yet, although he closely resembles Jack Sommersby physically, he is quite different in personality. He is kind and loving to Laurel and Robert and tries to help his poorer neighbours by selling parts of his farm to them. He is also a shrewd businessman, as evidenced by his scheme to revive the local economy by growing tobacco. He explains this change in his character by saying "War changes you; makes you appreciate things". The only people unhappy about Sommersby's return are Orin, whose plans to marry Laurel have been dashed, and racist Confederate veterans who resent the fact that Jack is trying to help former slaves as well as his white neighbours. Orin begins to suspect that the newcomer is in fact an impostor. (Which indeed he is). I am surprised that "Sommersby" has such a low rating on this board (currently only 5.9) and that it has been criticised so fiercely. One of the grounds of criticism has been the cultural snobbery of those, on both sides of the Atlantic, who assume that any Hollywood remake of a European film is bound to be a vastly inferior copy of the original. Yet, although Vigne's film is undoubtedly a good one, I think that Amiel's can stand comparison with it. There are, moreover, important differences between the two films. The real Martin Guerre appears in the film that bears his name, whereas here we never see the real Jack Sommersby. (We learn that he did indeed die in the war). Both impostors are placed on trial for their lives, but for different reasons. Du Tilh is tried for his own crime, that of impersonating Martin. (Adultery and fraud were capital offences in the France of that period). The false Sommersby, a former schoolmaster named Horace Townsend, is not tried for anything he has done himself, although there are plenty of murky episodes in his past, quite apart from the question of criminal impersonation. He is tried for a murder committed by the man whose identity he has stolen. There is no doubt that Sommersby was the killer, so the only way Townsend can save his neck is to admit his deceit and prove his true identity. Yet this is something he is strangely reluctant to do. Richard Gere can at times seem too laid-back, especially in comedies and lighter films. Yet when he is given more demanding roles, he is often capable of rising to the challenge, especially in films like "The Honorary Consul" and "Primal Fear", and "Sommersby" must count as one of his best performances, as Townsend is a very complex character. He is a man with a shady past who commits what is, to all intents and purposes, a criminal deception, yet who does for idealistic reasons, reasons for which he is prepared to lay down his life. To highlight all the varying facets of Townsend's character, while making him appear both believable and sympathetic, was a difficult task, but one in which Gere succeeded very well.Jodie Foster is equally good as Laurel, a woman torn between the need to believe that the man with whom she has fallen in love really is her long-lost husband miraculously changed for the better and the fear that her new-found happiness may in fact be based on a lie. This was one of a number of stellar performances in the late eighties and early nineties- others include "The Accused", "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Nell" which established her as the most exciting young actress of the period. There is also a good contribution from Bill Pullman as Orin, a man torn by jealousy and resentment and yet not wholly bad. Visually, the film is much darker than "Le Retour de Martin Guerre", which seemed to be suffused by a rich, warm light. Apart from the green of the vegetation, it is dominated by dull tones, particularly greys and browns, perhaps appropriate for a film which takes place in a country torn by civil war. It seemed to me that Amiel was taking the theme of the earlier film and using it to explore America's own history, as well as some dark areas of human psychology, the philosophical issues surrounding personal identity and the question of atonement for past sins. Indeed, it perhaps goes more deeply into these issues than did Vigne's film which did not, for example, explore deeply the reasons why du Tilh decided to steal another man's identity. If this is a remake, it is one which deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as its predecessor. 9/10

guint-1 One of my favorite films. Just a note to the viewers who have questioned the role of a "black judge" during this period of history. They certainly existed and handled all manner of cases. A note from an article in the NY Times follows: Special Correspondence THE NEW YORK TIMES.February 8, 1903, SundayPage 34, 859 wordsCHARLESTON, S. C., Feb. 5. -- During the reconstruction period in South Carolina, which followed the close of the civil war, the management of State affairs for a time was left to the tender mercies of the Negro. Officers who served with the Governor were Negroes, there were Negro Judges, and practically every county in the State had its black representatives in the General Assembly. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]

triple8 SPOILERS THROUGHOUT POST: Jodie Foster and Richard Gere have a lot of chemistry besides both being very talented people. I wanted to see this movie because the premise sounded SO interesting and it was. The film was very interesting and Foster and Gere were both terrific. It was a good movie.I DID have a major problem with the ending. And it's not because it wasn't "Hollywood". I just thought it didn't need to end like that. It is really difficult with endings sometimes because if a movie ends to happily it can be labeled "Hollywood", and if A movie ends to sad, it can be called "manipulative." I do this all the time myself. But honestly-in this case-the ending was such an automatic tearjerker and it bothered me because while I could understand the choice Gere's character made, in some respects, I had a hard time believing he'd make it anyway. I kept thinking something would happen to save him at the end and the last scene with Foster was not how I anticipated it ending. I thought something else might happen.I can see where the movie would stretch believability at times but my feeling is Foster and Gere were so good respectively, that they make you believe. Richard Gere is one of the most likable actors I've ever seen and Foster-she's just indescribable. The movie was really moving. Also beautifully filmed.I'd give this movie a solid recommendation especially to any strong Gere or Foster fans or for that matter to tearjerker movie purists. You'll find more then enough to move you here.