Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.
Add a Review
-
It's common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.
I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.
Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.
For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett. -
wes-connors10 March 2009This very long sequel to "Gone with the Wind" is an EPIC disappointment. What the storyline is will vary from viewer to viewer - my take is that it started with the funeral of "Melanie Hamilton" (unseen), proceeded with the death of "Mammy" (Esther Rolle), and meandered around until "Scarlett O'Hara" (Joanne Whalley) found her "Roots". She does this by going to Ireland, and stands in some Stonehenge type rubble, which is the original "Tara". If you don't know what "Tara" is, you probably shouldn't be watching this one. As in Margaret Mitchell's original story, "Rhett Butler" (Timothy Dalton) pops in and out of Scarlett's life.
Neither Ms. Whalley nor Mr. Dalton are very impressive, and the script doesn't help them very much; since the "Rhett" character is (and always was) more secondary, Whalley fares worse. In lesser roles, other actors have good moments. Probably, the best performance arrives later in the running time - with Sean Bean's wicked "Lord Richard Fenton". When Mr. Bean takes the screen, he TAKES the screen - he will wake you up. "Fenton" is purely evil, and may not belong in Margaret Mitchell's cast of characters, but at least Bean brings some passion to the proceedings. The original book and film were full of PASSION, and this follow-up has so very little The sets, costumes, and locations are extremely beautiful, though
***** Scarlett (11/13-17/94) John Erman ~ Joanne Whalley, Timothy Dalton, Sean Bean -
the lioness19 January 2002The is the mini-series that was inspired by the novel written by Alexandra Ripley.
The story begins at Melanie's funeral in Atlanta, GA. Rhett has decided to proceed with the divorce that he threaten to get from Scarlett. Poor Scarlett has schemed to get him back but to no avail. Eventually, Scarlett decides to visit her relatives on both sides of her family & we are whisked away to Ireland, the home of her father's ancestors due to a secret she's carrying.
Many plots take place in this mini-series. So many that the viewer may need a score card: 1) Scarlett's attempts to get Rhett back. 2) Rhett's attempts to forget Scarlett. 3) Scarlett's Irish branch of the family and an impending revolution. and 4) Scarlett's attempts to hide her secrets(she's got a ton of them!).
And that's just the the surface! There are two things that make this wild ride problematic: Too many sub plots and characters. When I first saw this on TV, I would get confused at times because there where so many new characters created just for this story. At times it would seem the writers would just draw plots out of thin air. Many of them are never resolved and are just left hanging.
For those of you that have seen "Gone with the Wind", I only recommend you see this film for the very same reason I did, I wanted to know what would happen to Scarlett. I also recommend you see "Gone with the Wind" first, then see this film.
The cast is top-notch, a who's who among TV & film actors alike spanning over three countries and so are the locales. You will travel from Atlanta, GA to Charleston, SC to London, England then to Ireland. The scenes that take place in Ireland will take your breathe away.
I will admit that this sequel does read like a soap opera which is why I only would recommend it to fans of the genre. -
wright770025 September 2005This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.
The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.
The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond. -
alienmojo13 December 2005A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).
I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.
My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.
All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing. -
When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me.
-
I read the novel by Alexandra Ripley and found it cowardly and ham handed. Ripley missed a golden opportunity to show us the South after the War with all its horrors and triumphs. Even had Ripley glossed over the beginnings of Jim Crow with a straight romance, Scarlett would never, never, never, give up Tara. To imagine her doing so is to belittle her love of the land inherited from her father and the bond between father and daughter. Worse, it turns our fierce independent heroine into a lovesick nitwit who would throw away her birthright for a mess of Irish pottage. By making up out of whole cloth some faux Irish near royalty, the movie guts the strength of the O'Hara immigrant experience and betrays both the original novel and the movie.
The movie from such a weak brew could only be weak, cowardly and ham handed. Although Whalley is certainly a delicate looking creature as Leigh was and Dalton is a decent stand-in for Gable, they have nothing to work with but a tortured and convoluted avoidance of the South, its heritage, its tragedies and its strengths. -
SarahCat11 March 2001I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.
It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.
There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.
In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.
I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.
The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it! -
ametzlee13 June 2006I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.
-
kellielulu20 August 2022Whatever one thinks of GWTW and my views have changed over the years this sequel completely goes against Margaret Mitchell story and how she wanted it to end . Scarlett and Rhett's story was over. That's what she felt and wouldn't compromise on the ending. She only allowed for that slight chance in Scarlett's narrative for a more Hollywood ending. The book isn't ambiguous even if fans put a different spin on it . But Mitchell refused to allow them to reunite in the film .
The other thing is the idea Scarlett would live anywhere but Tara. Go back to the true origin of the story and what Gerald told Scarlett about Tara and the land that was Scarlett's true love not Rhett Butler. The idea that she would go away at any point and stay away and give up Tara it's then a completely different story it not about Scarlett O'Hara . -
I didn't read the book "Scarlett" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.
The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.
The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.
The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that "Tomorrow is another day"... -
jess_c_200425 June 2006Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrow after all tomorrow is another day. :)
-
rarabean10 February 2002As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.
I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision. -
I read the book 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley and enjoyed it very much and I anticipated to TV movie. The thing was the movie was greatly different from the book. Honestly, if you read the book and saw the movie you would think they were two different stories. I believe the book had greater merit and a more interesting story. The movie wasn't that bad, its just that the book was better.
-
rdrerup21 July 2010In terms of the gone with the wind saga I am a huge fan. I loved the first movie though there were a couple of details left out. The fact that Scarlett O'HARA had a child with both her first and second husbands. In Movie of the sequel it follows the book pretty well leaving out the same details. But one it comes to the Major climatic part of the movie the move did not follow the book at all. In the book Scarlett almost husband Lord fenton is a much more minor character, he also is not as evil as he is in the movie. He also is not killed and there is no murder trial as a result. Though the forth part and last part of movie follows the book very well. So the movie and book of Scarlett end on the same note but the big moments are vastly different. I wish a big screen movie version would be made that followed the book more closely. Over all the movie is good but the first one is better.
-
scarlettandstretch17 September 2000I loved the movie. I loved Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whaley. The movie had many different locations in it. I really liked when Ann Hampton realized she could not make Rhett love her. And when Scarlett and Ann where together and Ann apologizes for taking Rhett and Scarlett just told her not to worry she would get him back. It had a great story it told. You just can not compare it to GWTW. It just has so many great scenes. I love both SCARLETT AND GWTW! Of course do not forget to have a hankie handy.
-
dvanlienden4 August 2003I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible.
-
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.
-
lore6030 December 2004First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly.
Lore60 -
First of all, let me state that I have always liked Joanne Whalley, but having just watched this miniseries for the first time, I felt that she was just not right for the part. I have not seen the original Gone With the Wind for at least 35 or more years, but found myself thinking all the time of Vivien Leigh's superior portrayal of Scarlett. The strangest thing was that I never could stand Vivien Leigh, perhaps because of the normal female reaction to the character she was playing, but she WAS Scarlett!
One of the main problems with Joanne Whalley was her voice. It was too low and at times gratingly harsh for a well bred Georgia belle such as Scarlett, who would have spoken in a higher 'lttle girl' pitch and 'soft as honey' manner, and she had definitely not mastered the accent. She sounded more like a Georgia cracker when she remembered the accent, at other times it resembled a Tennessee Hillbilly or disappeared entirely. Worst of all in my opinion was her constant grinning showing both top and bottom teeth. Ladies of that time only smiled demurely. Showing the teeth was considered vulgar low class and as recently as 50 years ago was not done by anyone wishing to appeared refined. If you watch the original GWTW, Leigh did not show her teeth when she smiled, but she certainly used her dimples to great effect. The other fault was with Ms. Whalley's distracting physical appearance, the very dark brown eyes for example, which of course was not her fault, but no amount of talent will compensate when an actor on the screen is not physically right for the role. Scarlett should have been played by an actress with green or at least light hazel eyes.
Now to the story itself. I have not read the book, but I have heard that it did not descend into the cheap melodrama that the miniseries did in the final part. After throughly enjoying the first parts, I thought I was watching a soap opera based on a Victorian housemaid's penny dreadful/romance. I had to suspend all credulity toward the end as they were just playing by the numbers and you could see what was coming next. -
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.
Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.
The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.
But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.
Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance. -
sharynd27 August 2002My God, this was a fantastic film. Every time we watch it takes us to another place of "WOW". Rhett & Scarlett were played brilliantly by Joanne & Timothy. They did a fantastic job revising the roles of our two favourite heros. Everyone! It is a must see..... Dont deprive yourself of this movie. If u loved Gone With The Wind you will love this mini series. Go Rhett!!! Go Scarllett!!!
-
vincentlynch-moonoi5 March 2019In 1971 I saw "Gone With The Wind" in a movie theater during one of the re-releases of the film. Something happened that day that I've never forgotten. In the scene where we first see Clark Gable and Rhett Butler, as the cameras focuses in on him at the bottom of the staircase at Twelve Oaks, there were gasps and the theater was abuzz with chatter about how suave and handsome Clark Gable was. And that buzz was taking place more than a decade after the actor and died, and more than thirty years after the film was made. That type of audience reaction is what the miniseries "Scarlett" couldn't compete with. Timothy Dalton is a very good actor, but he's no Clark Gable. And while I am not overall a fan of Vivien Leigh, Joanne Whalley-Kilmer was no match for her as Scarlett. Nor was the film score. Nor was the photography. Nor was just about anything. But most of all, I just didn't see the plot as a likely next chapter is the story that was "Gone With The Wind". I guess you could make a case that Scarlett would go to Ireland to learn about her father's heritage, but we had a little thing happening right here in America -- Reconstruction -- that would have made some very interesting plot situations. I kept thinking that the story as presented in this television mini-series would have been a much better story had they NOT made it about Scarlett and Rhett, and just made it about another Southern couple. A story totally independent of "GWTW".
The first three (of four) episodes here seemed to drag. The fourth episode perked up a bit. But I have to admit that each time I paid $2 to buy an episode from Amazon I really questioned whether the purchase was worth it. I guess it was...though marginally.
Joanne Whalley-Kilmer did a reasonably good job as Scarlett O'Hara, but her performance lacked the magnetism of Vivian Leigh's performance as the character. Timothy Dalton fared better as Rhett Butler, but as mentioned previously, he was no Clark Gable (but then again, who would be?). Stephen Collins completely botched the role of Ashley Wilkes; perhaps nowhere did the continuity between the two "films" fare so badly as here. Sean Bean as Lord Fenton...eh. Esther Rolle as Mammy...kill her off quick...that's what they accomplished here. I don't usually care for Colm Meaney, but I thought his portrayal here as Father Colum O'Hara was quite good. John Gielgud as Scarlett's maternal grandfather...this seemed more an effort to get a big name actor in the production. Julie Harris as Rhett's mother...a wasted effort by a fine actress. Jean Smart as Sally Brewton...a plot device and nothing more. Melissa Leo as Suellen O'Hara Benteen...no connection with the character from GWTW. Ann-Margret as Belle Watling...the Watling character in the original film was very interesting...made you want to know more about the character; Ann-Margaret's portrayal seemed pedestrian. Paul Winfield as Big Sam, as with Mammy, seemed like a way to kill a character off (figuratively speaking), and the character was so very different than the Big Sam of the original film that it was startling.
In reality, GWTW was "too big" to have a sequel. I felt that way when I read the book sequel, as well. They tried. They pretty much failed. -
michellangelof13 December 2007If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story... And probably everything else. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story in the South, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.
I keep reading from other reviews that this version is not to be compared to the movie or we should think of it as a different, separate story or not paying any attention to the difference in the characters or/and actors playing the main roles. I wouldn't know. Maybe they are right, but as I said before, if you are a true GWTW fan, you certainly expect something with some coherence with the original one (or should I say, a little respect at least).
I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.
Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" all this by showing us exactly how modern, perfect and mighty Scarlett could be. And, of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back the way she wanted and even after having an important affair with someone else (I am not moralizing but the first two husbands were a different story. I bet nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind).
The story between these points is, in my opinion, just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.
If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.
Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.
I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.