Heartland
|
List Price: Our Price: $19.51 You Save: $10.44 (35%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Heartland
Movie Review: Almost perfect
Summary: 4 Stars
This one is hard for me to review. I first saw it in the theaters some thirty years ago and loved it. Found it about ten years ago on VHS in an antique shop and happily snapped it up. Now I have the DVD copy: the gold standard.
This is a very good movie, as others before me have said. I have no problem with the quirky chemistry between the two main characters, it only adds to its period authenticity and charm. My dilemma is with the scenes of animal violence. I understand this was a fact of life for folks on ranches at the turn of the last century. But couldn't it have been suggested rather than captured? There are only two or three such scenes, but they make me uncomfortable and close my eyes. I suspect some other viewers will feel the same way.
That aside - and it's a somewhat large "that" - "Heartland" is a fascinating story with wonderful performances. Ferrell and Torn have had successful careers since, but their performances here suggested greater future commercial success.
Movie Review: DVD - HEARTLAND
Summary: 4 Stars
IT MAKES YOU APPRECIATE THE LIFE WE LIVE TODAY IN COMPARISON WITH THE LIFE IN 1910. MY WIFE HAD READ THE BOOK OF LETTERS THIS LADY WROTE TO A FORMER EMPLOYER IN DENVER AND WANTED TO SEE THE MOVIE. IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE AND REFLECTED THE TIME FRAME OF THAT PERIOD.Movie Review: Realism for Scenery and Farming, not true to the book
Summary: 3 Stars
I bought both the book and movie for some research I am doing on women homesteaders in Wyoming. I read the book first, Elinore was the bubbliest woman, who loved telling the stories of all the fascinating people she met in the Burnt Fork area. She gives superb descriptions of foods, animals, scenery, but leaves herself out of the picture most of the time (and I'm sure she didn't put in all the woe of her life, so I do know that this may have been glossed over). And Clyde who plays such a minor role in her letters helps her in any way he can to help her prove up on her land though she doesn't want help, she wants to prove to herself and to others she encourages to come to Wyoming as single women that it could be done. (And she does do it - alone)
Then I watched the movie, knowing that some said it is more on the harsh realities than her perky attitude. But even so, I'm not sure why they bothered to base the movie on the book, besides names and location, almost nothing from Elinor and Clyde's life are portrayed correctly. The three things beside names that were close is their first baby boy died, (but not of fever as in the movie)and she did buy the homesteading property adjacent to Clyde's (but not in that manner or for the reasons she did in the movie) and she did come to work for Clyde, (but he advertised for her while in Denver and took her back himself unlike the film.) Oh wait, she did get married in her apron and old shoes, so they got that right. I think that mainly killed it for me. Within seconds of seeing the actress playing Elinor, I turned to my husband and said, "That's not Elinore;" and it wasn't. Wasn't the actress's fault, but why bother making a movie based on something if it's nothing like? Just make up your own story!
I did appreciate the movie for what I wanted it for: I wanted to see the Wyoming territory and have a good idea of what the ranchers did back then. But technically the film was shot in Montana, so I didn't really get that, but it seemed very close to what Elinore describes.
But for watching it as a movie, I don't know what the reviewers giving it so many stars and praise and watch it over so many times for if not simply the scenery. The acting seemed stilted (yes, I know what stoic means, but that doesn't mean people back then were all stoic; from the letters, I would say that Elinore and Clyde were quite happy, for she loved to tease him, he did seem that he may have been a bit stoic, but she was so having fun with his personality, I'm sure she enjoyed him in part if not the whole - in a happy manner, she loved making fun of his accent and getting the best of him - they played basically.) The movie plot was minuscule, for I'm guessing the attempt was for "realism," yet it wasn't "real" in the sense that this didn't ring true to the book it was based on, an eyewitness account through letters of a real woman. So how does it make it more real if you decide to tell it your own way? Now granted, her letters don't have a plot, but her characters were real and her personality was real (which is not the personality on screen). I know that the scriptwriters consulted Elinore's actual daughter for this movie, so I wonder what she thought of it and if she thought it were more "real" in being that perhaps, Elinore's writing to her old boss was more an exercise in fun than an exercise in realism. Makes me wonder.
The ending made both of us say, "That's it?" This is very much just a "day in the life" kind of film. I'm sure the life/events portrayed in this film were easily real, but once again, I'm hung up on the fact that it strayed so far from the events/themes/feelings of the book.
I'd recommend the book, definitely, but this movie only if you want a good look at Wyoming (actually Montana) ranchers in early 1900s which I am glad that they used real animals (and killing of those animals) to give me that glimpse into that life, and if you won't care that it's not much like the tenor of the book or care that you will not meet any of its secondary characters.
Letters of a Woman Homesteader by Elinore Pruitt Stewart is the book, in case you are wondering, I am grateful for the reviewer that made mention that this movie was based on it, for that's how I found that wonderful resource.
Movie Review: Interesting Story
Summary: 3 Stars
When we first saw this movie years ago, I would have given it 1 star. But, as I have grown older, I appreciate the deeper messages more. Not a great movie but pretty pretty decent.Movie Review: says the cow.
Summary: 2 Stars
I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era ... would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated!
This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esque view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.
While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.
Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.
Grade: ** out of *****