JoeytheBrit
I remembered being transfixed as a callow youth by this study of the lost generation energetically going about the business of slow self-destruction, so when I noticed a rare showing on some obscure satellite channel I decided to see whether my memory of it was really so at odds with most of the reviewers on this site. Well, as far as Hemingway adaptations go it's a complete clunker, no doubt about it, injecting soap opera elements into his classic first novel with such disregard for the source material that you feel like wincing at times.But as an entertainment in its own right it's fair to say it stands its ground thanks to some extremely atmospheric location shooting. Like a party guest trying to appear more interesting than they know they really are, it boasts a faux sophistication that almost has you fooled at times, only to blow the disguise by inserting some incredibly dull piece of dialogue or a dumb plot twist. Hemingway's book is more about a condition of life than a narrative, so in one respect it's virtually unfilmable – but if you're going to have a go you should at least stay faithful to the author's vision.Having said that, watching this TV movie all those years ago did prompt me to seek out and read the book, so it has some value as far as I'm concerned.
halejr
I liked this mini-series. As was previously mentioned, a mini-series is often a better format for a novel than a movie because mini-series aren't restricted to 120 minutes. I thought Jane Seymour was great in this movie. The rest of the cast was merely good. But despite the lack of experience of the young cast, at least their youth made you believe they were only a few years removed from the war. Well, the editors said I have to have 10 lines to get my comment posted. So I also liked Leonard Nemoy in this movie. I like the background music playing in the bars. And the scenery in the movie. Given Hemmingway's sparse prose, this is the sort of detail that doesn't come across in the book, but makes the movie well worth watching.
goodchessmoves
This is one of my favorite movies on the planet. The movie is set in Paris in the 1920's. I enjoyed how the character's visited various clubs where live Jazz was performed by African Americans. Seeing the Jazz musicians reminded me that in the 1920's African Americans were treated much better in Paris than in the United States. I think Hart Bochner is absolutely gorgeous and plays his role as Jake Barnes very well. I love the wardrobe in this movie, the suits Jake wore and the Chanel dresses that Jane Seymour wore. In this movie I saw glamor, sadness, hopelessness, hope, comedy, and tragedy. As I said before it is one of my favorites I watch it at least twice a year. I give it two thumbs way up!
schappe1
Some good and some bad compared to the 1957 effort. The story is better told. The movie is basically the latter half of it. (Yes, we do learn what happened to Jake). There's more time in a miniseries to tell a story like this. Jane Seymour, a very talented actress is fine as Lady Brett. Hart Bochner lacks charisma as the lead. It's hard to tell why everybody thinks he's such a dynamic guy. Robert Carradine is a much more impressive Cohen than Mel Ferrer. We learn much more about the character here. The actors are all much younger, (or at least younger-looking) than their 1957 counterparts. It gives the impression of kids playing "grown-up". It's hard to compare Bochner to Tyrone Power, Zeljko Ivanek to Eddie Albert, Ian Charleston to Errol Flynn, etc. because the 1957 cast consisted of older, more accomplished performers. And yet, since this takes place in the 1920's, the characters would have been more the age of the performers in the mini-series. The 1957 cast was almost old enough to have fought in World War I themselves.
