This soapy but highly watchable television "sequel" to Gone with the Wind, the most popular Hollywood movie ever made, has nothing to do with memories of a vanished antebellum South. But it does end up in Ireland, where th... more »e determined Scarlett O'Hara Butler (played with frosty passion by Joanne Whalley-Kilmer) turns hard times into an opportunity by buying the ancestral home of her family. Before that happens, however, Scarlett fights to win back the estranged Rhett Butler (manfully portrayed by Timothy Dalton), often seen in the company of other women, struggles for control over the homestead Tara, and gets caught in yet another compromising position with poor Ashley Wilkes (Stephen Collins). The troubles never stop (Scarlett's Ireland adventures land her in a heap of trouble from which only Rhett can save her), but this TV miniseries wisely keeps the focus on these captivating characters, their entangled histories, and the collective destiny that refuses to part them. The show also looks good: the location scenes in Ireland are particularly handsome, and there is something unaccountably satisfying about seeing Scarlett and Rhett walking through peaceful green hills. Enjoy. --Tom Keogh« less
K. Paynter | Marietta, GA United States | 04/13/2000
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I don't even know where to begin about the butchering of Alexandra Ripley's amazing sequel to GWTW. After reading the book, I was thoroughly horrified by the deviations from the book that the directors took. Why bother to say the movie was based on the book when in reality it wasn't? Apparently the directors did not read GWTW either; as IF Scarlett would ever forgive Suellen or come to like her! This is a movie that would have been better left un-made rather than expose the rest of us to such a shoddy representation of a masterpiece. No one could possibly ever follow up the acting of Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable because they have burned permanent pictures of what "Scarlett and Rhett" should look and act like into our minds. Scarlett in the new movie didn't even have green eyes, for God's sake; in both books, her eyes were discussed at length and their significance was noteworthy. I have never been more disappointed in a movie based on a book (except for "A Civil Action," but that's another story). It's movies like this that ruin people's opinions of a book, leading them to never read that book at all. I think the majority of people who actually liked this hideous version of Ripley's sequel have never read GWTW or Scarlett, and have only seen the movies. Both GWTW and Scarlett are meant to be READ anyway; the depth of the characters can never be conveyed onto a big screen with such a short amount of time! The history behind their families - Scarlett's mother and father and their intricate lives that explain how Scarlett came to be who she was, Scarlett's cousins and the Irish uprising, etc. - are lost in the translation to the big screen. At least, however, in GWTW the directors stayed basically true to the story and left viewers with an accurate portrayal of the book.If I were Alexandra Ripley, I would change my name and live incognito the rest of my life, rather than face the shame of what those directors and actors did to my fantastic story and meticulous research. Trust me - if you are a true GWTW fan, just read "Scarlett." Don't even bother with this movie or you will fume just like I am doing! If you are the type of person who enjoys soap-operatic displays that are totally unrealistic, and you have never read either book, then you might enjoy this movie because you won't have the initial bias. But please rest assured that this movie is nothing like the book and is indeed a very poor imitation/reflection upon it."
I love it
(4 out of 5 stars)
"i am a "Windie" (extreeme gone with the wind fan), so i'm sorry to say that i loved this movie, almost as much as the ORIGINAL. the first scarlett was great, but in the sequel, scarlett O'Hara is much more mature, and definitely less whiney, but she still showed the same "passion for living." Timothy Dalton in the sequel is handsome, dashing, charming, everything clark gable brought to the part, but i dont know how much Rhett really would have gone for that goodey too shoes, oh i forgot her name. the pure fact that they hired both british stars to play southern american parts is absurd... and another thing, the book was extraordinary, how ALexandra Ripley could have thought of that stuff is beyond me... so why did they have to alter perfection and put in some crazy court scene and murder trial? Oh, i know why, simply to get the viewers attention. That never happened in the book and was totally unnecessary. But beside from all that the movie was a smash hit, and not a crash and burn like other "Windies" will tell you. And another thing... who was the costume cordinator, those dresses were stunning! There's a reason to watch it in itself!"
Keep it real, please!
K. Paynter | 04/02/2003
(2 out of 5 stars)
"I enjoyed the book Scarlett and have read it a few times. I was really excited coming across the DVD version of this movie (having missed it on TV years ago). But now, after watching it, I wished I had saved my money.The acting was fine, and I wasn't bothered like some with the casting. Someone made a point about green contacts, and I completely agree. Joanne Whalley is lovely, and if her large eyes were only green instead of dark brown, I think she would have been much more believable as Scarlett. And I know that eye color doesn't determine how much an actress is able to embrace a role, but Scarlet's green eyes are such a large and memorable facet of her character. Timothy Dalton as Rhett was a good choice--for fans of the movie, Clark Gable is Rhett, so Dalton had some impossible shoes to fill. Not too bad considering the task at hand.Now for the plot: the movie starts out fine. I was impressed with how it was staying pretty close to the storyline in the book. Usually screenwriters ruin perfectly fine plots in order to make a story more "commericial"--which is exactly what happened here by the 2nd half of the movie. Scarlett never grows like she does in the novel--She always remains prissy and fancy, unlike the adorable barefoot and pregnant Scarlett of the sequel--Lord Fenton becomes a disgusting main character--the Irish and the Fenian cause are pushed to the background to make way for murder and mayhem--and most importantly, Cat is barely heard from--Scarlett's little daughter, who becomes one of the most important (and interesting) characters in the book, is barely seen or mentioned. I was most disappointed by the movie's failure to show Scarlett's deep and changing relationship with her daughter.Read the book. Watch the movie just for laughs (which you will get--there is a trial scene at the end that I couldn't stop snickering at). But don't expect too much with this movie. It's rather disappointing."
A good representation
Sarah Finley | Beaverton, OR USA | 07/11/2001
(5 out of 5 stars)
"I saw this movie before I read the novel. It was intriguing and everytime I watched Gone With The Wind I had felt sort of cheated. I was thrilled to hear that there was more to the story. Because I felt the movie was so good, it inspired me to read the book. And though the movie wasn't entirely like the book, it held true to the essence of the story. The book was pretty long, and so was the movie, you can't expect everything from the book to be included in the movie!"
Sure to please.
godislove "Patti" | 11/13/2005
(5 out of 5 stars)
"If your looking for a Gone with the Wind sequel this movie is not for you. On it's own merits I give it 5 stars. If you are a period movie buff lover you will love this movie as I do. All star cast, acting, beautiful sets and costumes. I just loved all the twists and turns of this movie that kept it exciting especially when Scarlett goes back to Ireland and finds her roots so to speak. I was definetely NOT bored. A love story that is sure to please."