User Reviews (31)

Add a Review

  • Another very good example of an understated British flick being elevated by a strong cast into something worth notice. In a refreshing take on the WWII drama, the focus is on the ones who stayed behind in the war-torn south of England, like the farmers to feed the impoverished nation; the women to keep the factories running and, as in "The Land Girls", to work the land in place of the absent men.

    Stephen Mackintosh, my favourite underrated Brit actor, gives the film's best performance as Joe, the farmer's son who wishes he was anywhere but home, but he's well supported by Catherine McCormack, Rachel Weisz and Anna Friel as the unfeasibly but mercifully smouldering girls of the Women's Land Army. Tom Georgeson brings gruff character as Mr Lawrence, the farmer, and check out an early Paul Bettany appearance.

    Thousands of women found a new freedom in work during the War, but they were expected to return to their domestic, invisible lives once the men returned. "The Land Girls" is not cinema verité; and doesn't pretend to tackle the grimness my mother talks of in England in the 40s and 50s. But who cares? – when I want grim I'll watch a documentary; I'll settle back happily any day to watch fine actors in a quiet, 'little' film with gorgeous Dorset scenery (it really is that beautiful, visit if you can) and a tender story.

    It will be too slow, too uneventful, for some. Perhaps they'd have preferred a blowsy Hollywood version, where Antonio Banderas plays the farmer's son and Renee Zellwegger the upper crust beauty (hooray for the ghost of a UK film industry). But I found it gentle and charming just as it was; and when the ingredients are so fine to begin with, that's good enough for me. If you like this sort of thing I recommend Powell & Pressburger's magical "Canterbury Tale".
  • Whenver I think of women on the home-front during WWII, I picture them in factories taking the place of the men who went to fight. I never really thought that someone had to keep the farms going to feed the people.

    Over 30,000 women left the cities in England to form the Land Army and milk the cows and plow the fields while the boys were gone off to fight the Germans.

    Having said that, this was basically a Lifetime movie with a couple of laughs. The funniest part was when Ag (Rachel Weisz) decided to lose her virginity.

    It was good for a story about the effects of the war on peoples lives, especially their love lives, but there just wasn't a lot there.

    Besides Weisz, there was Catherine McCormack (28 Weeks Later) and Anna Friel, who had a bigger WWII role in The War Bride. Of course, we also have to mention Lucy Akhurst, who was a zombie in Shaun of the Dead.

    Recommended for Lifetime fans.
  • Beautifully photographed in the English countryside, this odd film about three English women assigned to work on a farm during World War II provides the promise of heat but never delivers. None of the characters (perhaps the director should have focused on fewer characters to provide proper depth) nor the relationships between the characters are remotely believable. This film exhibits a dangerous trend in films today where the mentality of the 90's is transposed onto the 40's. Directors and screenwriters would be well advised to do more homework on the period in which their films take place. Further, good acting and excellent production values cannot overcome a mediocre script or lackluster direction.
  • Stella (Catherine McCormack), Prue (Anna Friel) and Ag (Rachel Weisz) play three "land girls", volunteers to carry on the agricultural work of the men. On the farm they find love, conflict, friendship and cows. The film is more of a relationship drama of those left behind than an account of the second world war.

    That said it is an interesting piece - not only is it different to have a WW2 film from a British point-of-view but also from a woman's point of view. It is interesting to see how those left behind acted with their lives and their war efforts - how close to the truth this account is, anyone's guess, it's a bit unrealistic because so many girl's experiences are crammed into the story of these three. The story is good regardless with the tangled relationships creating the glut of the plot, however the many tangled love stories do get a bit much at times but the themes of love, loss and British spirit during wartime tend to make up for it.

    The performance from the lead trio are mixed, Weisz is a bit stereotyped as an upper-class woman ("rotter", "jolly good" etc) but gets better as her character develops. Friel is good as Prue who starts as the roughest of the group but is touched by the events in her life. McCormack (Stella) is meant to be the core of the story with her interactions with the farmers, especially the son Joe (Steven Mackintosh), but she plays it a little over earnest for my liking. Mackintosh has the most complex role and carries it off very well with the best performance in the film.

    The film's conclusion is a mix of neat, tidy endings and some more emotional moments that more realistically depict the damage that the conflict caused on the people left behind.

    Overall the film is not amazing but is an interesting account of WW2 from a different point of view, some of the events are a little stereotyped and lack a realistic feel but generally the film carries the emotions that many will have experienced at the time.
  • ian_harris7 January 2003
    Charming, nostalgic period piece, but this is basically a pretty meat and potatoes film which just about holds the attention. The three actresses in question, Catherine McCormack, Rachel Weisz and Anna Friel are all three superb stage and film actresses, rather wasted on this lightweight stuff.

    The plot is predictable, the Dorset scenery is stunning. Worth seeing if you get off on 1940s period and/or English countryside of old. On to the next film.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's not really enough to TELL us it's 1941, put the women in turbans and show the odd uniform if there's no FEEL of the period; frankly Foyle's War (a series on English TV) had more feel for the times and that was far from spot-on in period detail. As it stands Lands Girls could easily be an extra long episode of Heartbeat, or Peak Practice (two other series on English TV, the former set in the 1960s). Probably on paper and/or at the pitching stage this passed muster; a little-explored facet of the second world war with fat parts for women, sign here, Mr. Producer and order a second roller: on screen, however, it's a different story. The acting is fine - as it should be with people like Tome Georgeson in the cast - as it's reasonably well photographed but it's impossible that these people are actually living in 1941 and you can practically see the mobile phones come out in between takes. For the easily pleased.
  • manemu13 July 2000
    The plot is very realistic, the activities fun to watch, the ending hard to guess. Typical British film with hard to follow accents, bawdy behavior, average camera work. Overall a nice way to kill an hour or two.
  • madshell17 October 2000
    This somewhat tepid and quiet film follows three women from three different places, both socially and geographically, to a Dorset farm to work while the men who tend it go to fight in WWII. They gain each other's trust and experience the joy and pains of love.

    McCormack (Braveheart) and Weisz (The Mummy) do well, but they both are wasted on a film only slightly better than dull.
  • mrvirgo23 October 2008
    If you are entertained by a movie that is historically INCORRECT and is just this side of soft porn then by all means spend your time watching the film. You will learn nothing about World War 2 England, and certainly nothing about the moral standards to which English women adhered during that time of war. Whoever is responsible for this rot was out to apply the lax moral standards of today to a long ago but far more chaste period. I utterly detest movies that simply ignore the past for the sake of getting an R rating and in so doing hoping to get a larger audience. I lasted all of 15 minutes before I guess where this plot was going. You'd be far better off watching the Weather Channel. At least you'll get some useful information. Or play with your pet if you have one.
  • jrmann-3873416 December 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    Totally unfaithful to the book. Film did not explain how Joe & Stella fell in love. Useless. Characters/personalities of Joe and Mr Lawrence completely changed to what was in the book. Prue never marries Barry, putting that in the film betrays her character. And where were Ratty and Edith?? Hopeless! Would have been a better film if they had been more faithful to the book. Could have seen some emotional depth to the characters.

    Totally unfaithful to the book. Film did not explain how Joe & Stella fell in love. Useless. Characters/personalities of Joe and Mr Lawrence completely changed to what was in the book. Prue never marries Barry, putting that in the film betrays her character. And where were Ratty and Edith?? Hopeless! Would have been a better film if they had been more faithful to the book. Could have seen some emotional depth to the characters.
  • Land Girls is about a British program during World War II that trained women from all over the country to work on farms while the men were at war. Stella, Ag and Prue are three young women from different areas and different classes who go to work on an old farm in south-coastal England. But this isn't a "fish out of water" kind of film - the women adjust reasonably quickly and become part of the family. There is a the crotchety farmer, helpful farmer's wife and good looking son who plans to join the RAF. The war feels generally a bit remote - the young women can see bombing from a hilltop, but aren't in the middle of the fighting.

    The movie focuses on Stella, who's engaged to a young man at a nearby naval station. Prue is the somewhat adventurous hair stylist-turned-cow milker, and Ag is a university student off to help her country. Strongly recommended for folks who enjoy realistic settings and anything about World War II home life.
  • This is a beautiful film which received, rather unfairly, little critical acclaim when it was first released. Since then though, it has been praised highly by producers Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg who have since worked alongside the Director, David Leland, since it was released.

    As well as being an intimate portrait of three very different young women, it also captures spectacularly the beautiful scenery of the English countryside.

    The plot is not too difficult to follow: Three young women (Stella, Ag and Pru, played by Catherine McCormack, Rachel Weisz and Anna Friel) from the towns are sent to the countryside to work on the farms (as part of the Women's Land Army), wherein all three at one point become involved with the young and handsome Joe (played by Steven Mackintosh). The storyline is not too difficult to follow, and the film easily rewards the viewer.

    This film may be hard to come by in some areas, but do not worry if you have difficulty getting hold of it, as it is likely to remain relevant and enjoyable for many years to come -- a hidden gem and undoubted classic of English film-making.
  • I first saw this movie on cable with my significant other, and though I usually dread this type of film, I found myself drawn to the simple yet enjoyable plot. The love story between Stella and Joe was well done; slow, almost arduous, yet it seemed never to lag, and I felt very attached this movie and its cast. It's just one of those movies that really isn't much to look at or think about, but leaves you with an extremely -- well -- pleasant feeling. Casting was brilliant, and some of the cinematography took great advantage of the beautiful English countryside.
  • I must compare LAND GIRLS (1998)with the newly-released (2001) ENIGMA both of which I saw this evening. The more recent film is utterly cliche-ridden (Tom Stoppard, the screenwriter, even throws in a bit borrowed from John Buchan's 39 STEPS!) while David Leland's movie continues to surprise the viewer to the last frame. The horror,the restraint, the mood of Britain at war come through careful period reconstruction. Reality is heightened so that the dazzlingly photographed British countryside continually reminds us of the dark shadow of War which hangs over these young lives. The acting is uniformly good and many of the cast come from the British stage to deliver real truth-of-performance. Unlike ENIGMA'S characters you believe the Land Girls and the people around them.
  • I found the movie to be a well-acted warm, personal story of three women and the English farming family that they work for as members of the Ladies' Land Army during World War II. However, at times it makes chronological leaps without much warning and it may take a few minutes to figure out exactly what has happened and what the new season is or how much time has elapsed.

    It was a very interesting insight into a period of England and the life-circumstances of the country in early World War II. At times though, I had a difficult time distinguishing the subtle English accents and found myself backing up to attempt to re-hear what had been said. Sometimes I still couldn't make sense of the accent, and I'm not referring to the usual colloquial British terms that are at times foreign to Americans, although the movie is full of those as well, which adds a very quaint touch.

    All in all, it was a sort of feel-good movie that possibly could have had a little more punch in the ending. I was left with the feeling that it was a nice experience emotionally and educationally, but which falls a bit short of some movies of the genre, more so probably because of the production.
  • Niro4 December 1999
    Here's an engaging marriage of the tremendous "Cold Comfort Farm" and that awful Italian "hired hand beds three sisters on a farm" film [whose name escapes me, which is a good thing].

    This is an always~interesting character study of three radically different young British women who, during the early stages of WWII, join England's "Women's Land Army" ~ a war effort which had women working fields in order to cultivate more crops for food for the troops.

    The trio lands in a rural farm, essentially because the farm's frequently~irrascible patriarch's randy son is about to join the RAF.

    Said "joining" is continually postponed by the son for various reasons ~ all of which involve women, and several of which rotate around the "Land girls."

    Sure, some of the material is derivative (what isn't, at this point in cinematic history?)

    But the performances are perfect: the only scenery~chewing you'll see here is by the scenery itself ~ lush landscapes of meadows, earthy shots of the work at hand, terrific [and appropriate at all times] cinematography.

    Cool reference to "Streetcar" leaps off the screen at a pivotal point in the film.

    Nice wrap~up as well. I stumbled across this on cable and was amazed that this didn't come through the Detroit suburban area...

    Now it's time for you to stumble upon it. You'll not regret the rental.
  • We've seen this kind of story countless times in BBC imports or Danielle Steel novels. There's nothing new about the plot or the characters: saucy working class girl, sensible"head girl" type, and sensitive British lass with eyes for the equally sensitive farmhand. The plot isn't executed in a novel fashion, either, and we can see the rather abrupt ending coming miles away. Still, the leads are quite attractive, with Anna Friel, Catherine McCormack, and Rachel Weisz as the three main land girls of the title and Stephen Mackintosh as the sensitive Dorset lad. Enough so to make it worth a rent on a weekend when all the new releases are checked out!
  • This superb film tells the story of 'the Land Girls' as they were called during World War II. They were young women, generally single women, who in order to assist the war effort volunteered to go work on farms. So many men had left to serve in the military that food production was suffering. So 'the Land Girls' stepped in. Many of them had never set foot on a farm before, and there were many comical situations as they learned how to milk a cow, drive a tractor, and deal with manure. This story concerns three girls who go to live on a very rough farm indeed. The filming was done in West Somerset, near Dulverton, and it is all 'very very real'. This is no Hollywood fakery, this is the real thing. When there is mud, it is real Somerset mud, and when there is a primitive farmhouse, you can be sure that it had really been lived in recently. The film is thus drenched in authenticity. The three girls are played very well indeed by Catherine McCormack, Rachel Weisz, and Anna Friel. McCormack is the best. This film is so good that it deserved an Oscar nomination, but of course being a modest budget British film it did not 'fit' the expectations of the folks in California. This film has it all: love, romance, joy, tragedy, comedy, charm. And it also shows the ghastly side of old-style country life. Nothing is spared to show us what it was all really like then. Americans trying to understand can think 'pioneers'. The film is expertly directed by David Leland. He first came to widespread attention in Britain with his first film, WISH YOU WERE HERE (1987), but this film is far better than that one. The story is based on a novel by Angela Huth, whose step-grandson Frank is godson to my wife. In 2010 she published a sequel novel entitled ONCE A LAND GIRL. Between 2009 and 2011 there was a British TV series, THE LAND GIRLS, which was not based upon Huth's books but dealt with the same subject and was very poorly received and has some terrible reviews on IMDb. The subject of the Land Girls and their potential as subjects for a film has been around for a long time. I remember many years ago Charles Dance grumbling to me at his then house in Somerset (when his then wife insisted on boxing with me and nearly knocked me out) that he had wanted and tried very hard to set up a film about the Land Girls but failed to find the backing. And that was before this film was made. So it is not always the first to think of things who succeed in pulling them off. But no one can complain of this marvellous result, for frankly I find it difficult to imagine a better film on the subject.
  • Being English might have had something to do with it, but I loved this film. All the acting was outstanding and the multitude of little comic moments had me laughing much more than other 'comedies' that we get from hollywood. Although the central theme of the plot - an unlikely love affair - was a little unbelievable and forced, the gentle pace and quaint bizarre moments, and the refreshing setting made this a view again movie. Weiss character was a little ott at first but she played it beautifully with a surprising comic ability. As for the unintelligible accents, well I suggest that the American market which struggles to understand anything not US formulaic mass media, grows up.
  • It is based on the book but has been improved by the deletion of several chapters and minor characters. The best scenes and dialogue have come from the screen-play writers too.

    In 1941 the British government set up the Women's Land Army to encourage women to work in the factories and farms so as to release men to join the armed services. So Stella (Catherine McCormack), Prue (Anna Friel) and Ag (Rachel Weisz) come to the farm of John and Faith Lawrence in Dorset. All three get involved with Joe, the handsome son of the Lawrences. The sex scenes are ridiculous, but also hilarious and thankfully, much fewer and briefer than those in the book.

    There are several really good scenes showing the relationship between the girls and between them and the farmers. In one, Stella asks for some time off to see her fiancé, "No", growls the farmer, "there's too much work to be done". Stella doesn't say anything, the look says it all... disappointment. Then, when Stella starts the tractor up and begins to plough the special paddock, we see the farmer striding towards her, she looks so worried. "He's going to shout at me... send me home...". But no, he muses about his beloved paddock then "You'd better finish it, you're doing a good job". Another is when Stella sees her badly injured fiancé and then has to decide whether to go back to the farm, we can see her thinking... "He needs me... I have to stay by him".

    Friel is sparkling mostly, but gets the really sad scene when told her new husband has been killed, and Weisz gets a great line when she meets Desmond just as he has to leave... "We've only just met, you couldn't possibly ask me to wait for you". He does, and she does. How sweet.

    Near the beginning, the very old farmhand (in the actor's one and only film) "The dark one takes my fancy, she reminds me of a girl I met in 1899"!!!

    The final scene, in the orchard at a post-war reunion with Stella and Joe, is so poignant as they reflect on what might have been. "I waited for that train for a week... I'm still waiting", says Joe. Their hands touch for a second, then they walk away.

    I rate it a 10 because I can follow the story easily, I can recognise all the characters without wondering who they are or what they are doing, the acting is faultless from all the cast, and there are the good scenes with excellent dialogue.

    One tiny fault, the girls arrive with suitcases that wouldn't hold a quarter of the clothes they subsequently wear!
  • The main interesting points of the film are the beautiful English countryside and the three actresses -Catherine McCormack, Rachel Weisz and Anna Friel... they're charming and witty, they're well together.

    The film instead is quite boring -the story is not so intriguing, honestly. Many actions are quite predictable, emotions go not very high. The director doesn't propose anything special, the film is formally correct but it misses something...

    It's a pity, because the period chosen for telling the story deserved a more accurate way of telling the facts.
  • Not having read Angela Huth's novel I cannot judge if it is faithful or not, but if it is anything like this film ( with resonances of Chekhov in feeling ) it must be worth reading. Brilliantly acted I am not going to singe anyone out as the whole cast were well chosen. In 2022 the daily horrors and simple delights of WW2 in the UK are surely disappearing into that land of memory we call History, and the main thing of value in this film is the use of the microcosm of a smallish farm and what happens there. The focus is on three land girls ( personally I would have preferred the word women, but that just shows how ' history ' is changeable ) and their work on the farm and how they are drawn into a totally different life. All three have sexual and emotional encounters, and to a more or less extent are involved with the farmer's son. One really does fall in love with him, and there the Chekhovian aspect comes in showing how the most intense feelings can come to nothing but loss because of outer circumstances. Also the details of farm life are beautifully portrayed, even to the fine work of ploughing a field. The visual atmosphere and reality is conveyed by excellent camera work and direction, and except for the one goof of the telephone call every detail is lovingly conveyed. I have seen thousands of films but this one I will return to for its grasp of recalling history and the believability of all of its characters, and in such hard times as ours now in 2022 it is highly recommended.
  • I always love period dramas, especially films that focus on women and their friendships but this movie left me wondering what the point was after two hours. The three girls come to work on the farm with three totally separate personalities. You have Prue the party girl, Ag the uptight college girl, and Stella who is supposed to be the mainstay of the entire movie, the sensible one. In fact, it is Stella who narrates the movie and opens it with how she moved to the farm to help and be closer to her fiancee. So we establish that she's committed and in love with her fiancee, but within the first 30 minutes, she's falling in love with the farmhand Joe, even after saying how unspeakable he is, for no good reason. Worst of all, the reason is never explained on how she fell out of love with her fiancee and fell in love with Joe. And she seems to have no problem with Joe falling in love, or at least in bed, with everyone else around her. The movie did not make sense to me at that point. Still it is a quiet film with gorgeous English scenery and if you just want a movie that focuses on friendship, then this is the movie for you. I watched it once and that's enough.
  • tufsoft-204941 September 2023
    I've watched this film half a dozen times and I never get tired of it. I think it's the best film about love that I have ever seen, romantic but never sentimental. And having lived in Suffolk and Essex for quite a lot of my life I think it's also the best film about England, not in the sense of showing Big Ben and red buses and bobbies in pointy hats, but in the way in which it gets inside the people, the way their occasional stiffness is punctuated by humour and compassion, the way in which they plug on and work through their problems without self-dramatization, the way in which people of apparently incompatible social origins get along together and money is generally just something you need to pay the rent and otherwise no big deal. Whether that England still exists I can't say, it seems to be disappearing fast. I won't make any remark about the story, you can find that out for yourself.
  • Although obviously a work of fiction the film does reinforce some of the myths about work as land girls: all romance and very little hard work. The attitudes of the characters are really out of place in the 1940s England and would be more at home a generation later. Entertaining, but hardly educational as some have suggested.
An error has occured. Please try again.