Charles plot was pretty good in some parts. The Indian fighting wasn't all that great, but his love interest and sons kidnapping had some excitement. The actor playing him did a much worse job than the fellow from the first two movies. Bent was not nearly as interesting as before.
Yes, he had a good story but the movie just didn't make it interesting enough. Brett was thrown in sort of haphazardly, probably just to give the actress the feeling that she was missed.
They could have dumped her entirely and sped up the story. The romance between George and Madeline was alright but never seemed that epic or important. I never cared that much one way or the other about Cooper. Shame because his character was interesting in the book and Robert Wagner is a good actor. Stanly and Isabels contribution was minimal to the movie even though they were supposed to be very important to the plot.
Overall: Weak. They probably should have continued to ignore the details in the books and just made a good movie. Then fans would have two high-quality versions of the story: The book version and the TV version.
I bought the box set and watched the first two books over the last couple of days. Today, I loaded the first disc of Heaven and Hell and gave up shortly thereafter.
In a word, awful. In four words, "Movie of the week". The first two books reeked of quality. They were more along the lines of a motion picture, than something made-for-TV. This outing, however, appears to have been done solely for a buck, riding the coattails of books 1 and 2. The first "uh oh Then, there was no Patrick Swayze And when they showed his character in shadow at the beginning, no face, well, that kind of said it all about Orry.
Elkanah Bent played as a cartoon villain by Philip Casnoff turns up again as a 19th century Snidely Whiplash John Jakes' narration at the opening of the show tells us Bent died in an expolosion, then explains shortly thereafter that through a "quirk of fate, he survived".
As I'd just watched the episode where the explosion occurred, it was amazing to see Bent still walking around with his pretty face. Not even his eyebrows were burnt off! While he had some serious scarring on part of one shoulder, that wasn't bad for having been in the centre of a catastrophic explosion and huge fireball reminiscent of a mini-Hiroshima. I'm assuming Bent's "resurrection" was only a plot device to deal with Orry and the absence of Patrick Swayze.
If this is supposed to follow on immediately after Book 2, then George must've done some serious pigging out in a few weeks, as his face appeared to be quite bloated. Terri Garber Ashton did a great job with her character throughout. However, she looked "different" in this installement. I think this was made around the time when the pressure was beginning to be put on actresses to be stick-thin, and it showed in her face.
The Characters of Charles Main and Billy Hazard were played by different actors this makes 3 Billys - was it that bad a part to play - or did Parker Stevenson wisely want no part of this stinker?
The new Charles looks to be the same age as when he first came to Mont Royal. He didn't have the rakish charm of the original, nor did he wear the "life experience". Again, I believe most strongly that this thing was thrown together for the money, and was not about continuity, or putting out a quality product.
Watch, if you're really bored with life in general. But you're better off to read the books. The first two series, although largely changed from John Jakes books, were very enjoyable. This series however, was a "painful" watch. So many plot holes. For Orry to suddenly have an older brother which he does have in the book but to only now be brought in was baffling!
And for Bent to have survived an explosion unscathed? And the quality of the acting was nothing like the first two series. The series greatly missed Lewis Smith as Charles. The actor that played the role was awful. Definitely not a worthy sequel to the first two seasons! Is there anyone,who could tell me why they created a third part of North and South? The previous two parts are masterpieces! This part is for the recycle bin.
Bent kills almost everyone! And G. Hazard takes Orry's wife! It's awful. So,the story of North and South takes an end which noone of its fun wanted. I rated it 2.
The End In ABC TV debuted a tv mini series that garnered everyone's attention from all races creeds and colors. North and South made Patrick Swayze an overnight success as a leading male star. This mini series is the first in three mini series based on John Jakes's civil war novels. Book III Heaven and Hell ran only 3 nights and was not that big a deal as the first two books in the series.
It was as if though ABC TV wanted to wrap up all loose ends that went undone with the first two series. It is always the same sorry excuse each and every time. There are currently no plans at this time to release this series on to DVD. A real disappointment MrsScott 10 January This sequel does not match Parts 1 and 2 in any way. Although a good performance is put forth by Terri Garber, the characters do not stay true to the original parts. A lot of viewers dislike it because they feel it isn't up to the first two books.
In a sense, they're right. And the reason is that the history of the prewar period, of the war itself and of the postwar period --known as "Reconstruction," a fairly gross misnomer--are very different things. The prewar and war had gallantry to go along with the conflict and the misery.
Reconstruction, by contrast, has a dreadful history that nobody likes. The period is unpopular with the general public, and it's shunned by historians.
It was a frankly awful time in which many sordid scores were settled; in which the country had to find its way through an ethical and political morass, with few happy endings. I haven't read Jakes's novel "Heaven and Hell," but I do feel that the film is true to the period it portrays. With all the difficulties, a lot of nobility comes out through the characters who exemplify ordinary decency; and those who are depraved--a large portion--are sharply and well defined.
Other production values are good, with handsome cinematography and an excellent score. The major problem in the production is that casting issues are widespread, while a major character, Cooper, shows up rather implausibly as a "deus ex machina. But don't worry. As long as you're not expecting to see a drama just like that of the buildup to the war and then the war itself--as long as you can get used to the idea that something new and not always easy is coming--you'll find a lot of satisfaction.
For fans of the North and South series, this should never have been produced. Never, never, never never!! If you have seen the first two Books and enjoyed them as most do, don't even consider viewing the third, it will spoil the greatness of the previous work. The first two books were great. It did have the hokey "80s" look of clean clothes and bouncy hair. But it was a great over-view of friends, love, happenstances and the Civil War.
I really liked some of the details that history overlooks such as John Brown, Col. Mosby and Libby Prison. Johnny Cash as John Brown and Wayne Newtown as the sadistic confederate prison warden were both genius. These singers fall into acting very well. I love Wayne Newtown. It was really interesting to see him play - essentially - a war criminal. But Book 3 should never have been made. Most of the original cast was gone, either killed or just opted out professionally.
I could only watch the first DVD. I'm skipping the next two. I hated that Orie died at the very beginning. I guess Hollywood could not get Patrick Swayze back. Constance died at the end, horribly??!! Another actor portraying Charles Main. We loved the original and his curly hair. And doesn't this new Charles Main have a son to take care of.
He blew off the kid just to play cowboys and indians. The only good thing is the slow awakening of Ashton Main to become a decent human. But I'm not waiting my time with the last two DVDs. Disappointing Ole' Max 9 August Just like so many people before me I also am disappointed by the third part of North and South. In part the problem is that too many changes from the original story in books 1 and 2 had been made in the mini series. Therefore a lot of things didn't quite work out.
So he wouldn't have been there anyway. But the biggest problem was the omission of Cooper Main in the first 2 mini series. For those who didn't know the book his sudden appearance must have been quite puzzling. Also, in the mini series part II Virgilia Hazard is executed, but not in the second novel. She shows up in the third novel! As to the murders mentioned in other comments, there are quite a few in the novel.
And what I also don't like about part III is that so many actors were replaced. Was that necessary? First, I read the books. No one expects the movie to be like the book, but really In the book, Orry wanted to be a soldier, George not - totally switched in the movie. Elkanah Bent is an obese buffoon in the book, but Philip Casnoff? Did someone owe him a favor? And, there's no Cooper Main. Okay, but the scenery was good, and the acting was watchable - after all, it is John Jakes, so one can't expect serious history.
Then Ashton teams up with Bent. Why, oh why, did George end up in Libby Prison? I will never understand why Hollywood twists the plots from the book. Then, after several years, along comes "Heaven and Hell".
The original Charles Main is gone, Orry is killed by Bent! Oh no - here's Cooper Main! He just appears in the middle of the plot - plop. Please - when a movie is made from books, don't assume no one has read them, or doesn't care. The plot from the books could have easily been followed, so why change things?
OK but not in the same league as the first two movies jmfjbf 10 February Book 3, which was aired approximately 9 years after the brilliant book 2 North and South Movie was not up to par with the other two movies.
Patrick Swayze only appears at the very beginning. I believe the powers that be should've worked harder with Mr. Swayze to get him to return for Book 3. The absence of Mr.
Swayze's brilliant performance as Orry Main was a huge mistake on part of the producers. However,it was a joy to see James Read reprise his role. Where was Lewis Smith, the original Charles? Smith also diminished Book 3. Please be consistent. The TV romance of George and Madeline was too quick. The writers should have shown a period of years over which the romance took place as I understand the book did.
This could've been evidenced by the aging of the children of George and Madeline. Lesley Anne Down did not look comfortable in her role as Madeline in Book 3. She seemed to be trying too hard. I loved the North and South movies and this one was OK.
However, it doesn't come close to Books 1 and 2. I had the first two parts on tape, so when we were in the process of converting over to DVD I was thrilled when they finally brought it out.
And I didn't know that they made another sequel. I started reading the original book, but I had seen the movie too many times to really enjoy it, so I didn't finish the book. I realize they are bound by the author's wishes or what they wrote, but they ruined the movie. I am so disappointed I don't even acknowledge it's existence.
I only give it a 1 because I can't get even less. First they have Bent. Now how in the world did he survive that blast anyway? There isn't a chance in the world that he should have because that barn was in complete flames and it BLEW UP, he wasn't even scarred. Then he turns around and kills Orrie. He is the main character of the movie and I considered him critical. As if that weren't enough, he goes out, kills Constance, then George and Madeline get married.
What's with that? All it did was ruin the others so now I have to block my mind when I watch them. And they changed Charles, who may not have been my favorite character, but without the other guy playing the part it wrecked it further. I keep the 3rd set, but only because it belongs with it, but I DON'T watch it, and if my husband puts it in even though he didn't like it either I leave the room.
My first thought watching this is that it was nowhere near as good as books one and two, but it wasn't the worst thing i have watched. The first episode was quite interesting, and the ending to that episode was really good. The only thing i didn't like was that it looked kind of I hated the way the scenes were edited, and especially the painting effect used on the opening to each scene, because it was tedious and not so good.
Overall though i thought it was okay, and may watch it again in the future. But if you want something exactly like the first 2 books, you might want to steer clear in order to avoid some disappointed, but if u are generally interested, take a look. I saw the first to series, and i was very impressed. So i was quite shocked when i learned that there was a third in the series.
I was shocked, because i hadn't heard of it, and it had been around for some time, when i finally saw it. The first view of it confirmed my prejudges about the whole thing.
First of all it did not use all of the cast, who was still alive - they could not afford many of the actors. Which explain why we never see Orry Main Patrick Swayze's character from the front.
He is stabbed in the back by Elkanah Bent - who actually blew up with a lot explosives, gunpowder and dynamite. But they brought him back to life as they do in all series with no respect for it self. But this is a genre which should take it self serious.
But at that point i knew they had hired, at best, second hand people to do this project. Simple the beginning you could see that it was a B-series, it was very ugly shot. Very poorly. It broke the shooting-style from the first 2 series, and that is very amateurish. When Charlie found the three rocks his son was playing with on the freaking plains, I just about peed myself.
The only thing I had a real problem with was Terri Garber as Ashton. I wanted to hate her character , not her. The only thing that woman ought to be cast in is the sea. What the hell was she doing in a production with all those fine actors? Seriously, it would have been less distracting if they cast Burgess Meredith in the role with a wig and a bit of rouge. Anyway… some light would be appreciated. Well, in the first two books, Cooper Main actually had quite a role: how he meets his wife, his children, and other trauma that befall.
Cooper had an abolitionist bent, at first. Alas, he becomes a tyrant in Heaven and Hell. And also I got to learn about the war with Mexico. I also liked the second book in the series: Love and War. Cooper, of course, being the remaining male and actually the oldest brother actually has the deed to Mont Royal. It was Charles and his struggle that made that book for me. So sad. Technically, I skimmed through most of it just to see what happened to Charles and his son, but damned if I remember any details.
My problem: Bent and Asthon.
0コメント