Unfortunate
Book One and Two are filmed brilliantly, it's unfortunate to see Book Three be so terrible. As a self-proclaimed Civil War geek, I was hoping to see all three books put to film better as a whole.
shareYup, you're right. When I purchased the DVD collection, I didn't realize there was a third part installation. Unfortunately, I ignored the warnings from this board and watched the movie. Jeez! More like a soap opera that gone haywire. I loved James Reed as George Hazard in First and Second part, but he greatly disappointed me in this one. He clearly overacted in some scenes where it wasn't believable. Bent? It was like watching 19th century Lex Luthor, the nemesis of Superman.
It was strange to see Terri Garber as Ashton Main in that movie. She looked much different than the previous movies. Possibly facelift?
I agree with all those who believe that part III was a HUGE disappointment. I adored parts I and II when they were first aired in the 80s and bought them on video shortly afterwards. When I saw part III I couldn't not believe my eyes; in parts I and II, one of the most moving things was the love between Constance and George. But what happens in part III?! Constance gets killed and George just throws himself in Madeline's arms; actually, it started BEFORE Constance's murder when George visited his best friend's widow in the South and told her while staring into her eyes: "I love Constance so much, you know". It was easy to see that something was happening between already then, and when Constance was killed George seemed more obsessed with revenge than anything else. I did not really see him GRIEVING the way I would have expected given how much he loved his wife in parts I and II!
And Madeline and Orry who waited almost 20 years to be together, and what happens when Orry is killed after the whole family survived Civil War? Madeline just decides she will rebuild Mont Royal and start teaching, as if Orry never existed! And she looks so old, just like Ashton. You are supposed to believe that part III continues where part II left off, but it is impossible because many of the actresses - Lesley-Anne Down, Genie Francis and Terri Garber - look at least 10 years older.
After having seen all three parts, it is my conclusion that the things that made the first two parts so special were missing in part III, hence making it such a failure. The special things I am talking about are: the special friendship between Orry and George that lasted for over two decades and survived the Civil War, the special love between Orry and Madeline and the special love between George and Constance. Not to mention the passionate but sometimes impossible love between Brett and Billy!
North & South really was/is about the Civil War, the friendship between two men and their love for two beautiful women. Once you remove one or several of those things, there is nothing left.
I just wish they hadn't bother to make part III! Now that they have and I was stupid enough to watch it, I prefer to forget it. To me, North & South is, have always been and will always be a saga about the Civil War and the love and friendship between the people who endured and survived it. When the war ends, North & South ends.
It was also strange to see a new actor play Charles Main; Charles, who was reunited with his infant son in a very moving scene at the end of part II suddenly looks 10 years younger and bears no resemblence to the Charles who fought in the Confederate army. When everybody else looks 10 years older, Charles looks so much younger and strangely unaffected by everything he has been through - hardship, fighting, violent death of friends, the death of his beloved Augusta...
Unfortunate is the word indeed!!!
I have to say that I disagree with most of you that are greatly disappointed in Book III. Yes, I was heartbroken that Orry was gone, but I believe that's how it happens in the book. I think the movie really portrayed just how hard the war really was on everyone, and how people didn't just heal overnight from the tragedies our country faced during those times. I thought it was odd how George and Madeline just jumped into each other's arms, but it did add a nice twist. Also, I thought they did great just getting so many of the original actors to come back. You can't expect them ALL to come back (Charles) that many years after the last movie was made. And I definitely didn't think Ashton, Madeline or Brett looked that much older. They looked beautiful to me. That's just my take on the movie.
Candice :-)
I agree music 4 grace.. neat handle by the way..
I wrote the new heading (2009) oh come on, part three is more than watchable. something like that.
I watched them back to back over one week.. books 1,2,3.. In 3, it was sad to see Ori killed off so quickly yes for sure, I feel that besides the other part that was borderline heresy,,"bent" surviving that blast" LOL>. The movie had the same tone as the previous many of the situations seemed fairly inline of possibility of where the story could have gone.. 3 months after someone has died, A person may not be healed completely inside, but 99% of all people are not sobbing 3 months later either. At moments and times yes, maybe 20 times a day, but out in public during an afternoon, people trying to get on with their lives, I thought it was portrayed fairly reasonably.. Also these people were portrayed as a cut above the normal population too. Very high moral standards. That takes a lot of discipline. So even the loss of a very very close love would force personalities like that to rise to the occasion of continueing on with fortitude and faith and more strength and composure than 90% of people.. My opinion and take anyway..
all I know.. I want to watch them all again some day.. I do wish bent was in it a bit less through out the whole movie. The character was borderline "dr smith" of lost in space. And the actor. well, he was okay.. A better actor may have helped that role now that i think about it..
anyway.. don't be swayed by the naysayers. watch it...