Poldark (TV Movie 1996) Poster

(1996 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Is that all there is?
speedo5815 June 2006
We were left waiting for the next sequence. The VHS tape started to crackle and we knew there was no more! What happens next? Surely they aren't going to leave us up in the air like this! The actors who played Poldark and Sir George could have been played by twins. We couldn't tell them apart. The scenery and costumes are lovely, but the "gentlemen" are all like cardboard cutouts. The flaming red hair of Clowence made for some spectacular photography, but she didn't have a range of expression. The most interesting character was Mrs. Poldark, full of fire and intelligence, and you wondered how she and the stuffed shirt Poldark ever got together! Like eating popcorn, it left us empty.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disjointed, flat ending
Marlburian20 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
First, someone has written the wrong "Storyline", relating to the start of the Poldark saga, here on IMDB. This film features events some 18 or so years later, when Ross and Demelza have at least two teenage children, and perhaps ten years after the end of the recent TV series.

One distraction was comparing the characters in the two productions, and the two Rosses and the two Demelzas matched up well. The biggest contrast was in the two portrayals of Cary Warleggan.

As others have suggested, the plot was "bits & pieces" and ended on a very flat note, leaving me wanting to konw about the role of Stephen Claverson. It's almost as if the makers had hopes of a new series but halfway through the first episode realised there would be no more money and crammed everything into it.

One highlight was seeing a young Ioan Gruffudd getting in some sea-time two years before he starred in the Hornblower series.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Skip this, watch the 2015 and especially 1975 versions instead
TheLittleSongbird15 August 2016
What a mess and a waste of a talented cast. Easily the worst 'Poldark' adaptation, and that is saying a huge amount seeing as the 1975 version is a masterpiece and the 2015 series while with minor flaws is otherwise great and often magnificent.

The only redeeming merits of this adaptation are some beautiful scenery and costumes and a highly credible Demelza in Mel Martin, played with plenty of fire and emotion. The cast is a talented one on the whole but are practically wasted, waste of talent is a big bugbear of mine and is just unacceptable. John Bowe has the looks but not the charisma for Poldark, and his chemistry with Martin nowhere near sizzles, instead as bland as soggy sandwiches.

Ioan Gruffudd is very awkward and doesn't look comfortable in any way, while Kelly Reilly's performance is devoid of any expression of any kind. The worst asset is the storytelling, which is rushed, very jumpy and often abrupt, giving a sense of incompleteness, and it makes most events and subplots very difficult to follow. The editing is also all over the place, sometimes choppy, sometimes chaotic and sometimes sloppy, while the direction is ham-fisted and heavy-handed and the script is dreary and startlingly amateurish.

All in all, watch the 1975 and 2015 versions instead. This is easily skip-able and best forgotten. 2/10 Bethany Cox
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor continuation of original BBC Mini Series.
hilandgeo30 August 2001
This very poorly done production jumps from scene to scene and appears like many parts must have been cut out to make it fit into the scheduled time(sound familiar?). Then, it ends abruptly, leaving all the story lines up in the air. It looks like this might have been parts of a mini series that was never completed. Don't expect this to compare with the original Poldark series. A real waste of some very good talent.
28 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Looks like the clippings from the cutting - room floor....
ianlouisiana27 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
...running just over the hour if you cut out the ads(and this is freeview with ads about every ten minutes),this travesty was shown the other afternoon as a "feature "film and made absolutely no sense. There was no background for the characters,no explanation of the Poldark/Warleggan feud,clearly huge lumps had been chopped out making the whole thing pointless. We arrived at a point where the story had obviously been running for some time and left so abruptly it was almost rude- in the middle of Clowance stomping off in high dudgeon with obviously a lot to be done before the end of the story. It was as if I was watching one episode from a tv series at about the halfway point in it's run. It was an insult to both viewers and performers. The Independent Television Authority needs to look hard at what is being used under it's auspices to sell funeral insurance and stairlifts. A lot of it's audience may be old - but it's not stupid.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just awful
benbrae7631 December 2014
I really looked forward to seeing this movie, but what disappointment and a waste of time it turned out to be.

Of all the feature films which follow a great series, this has got to be one of the worst I've ever seen.

It is so disjointed as to be utterly tedious, as is the plot. Miscasting abounds, and both acting and dialogue are dead and lifeless as is the direction. There is very little, indeed none, of the fire of the original characters on display here. In short it is a complete disaster.

Winston Graham is a wonderful writer, ergo I can't imagine or believe that he wrote the screenplay for this drivel.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Mixed Reviews
Kashmahal15 December 2003
The old Poldark afficiandos regard this as a blasphemy. But I've noticed some reviews on Amazon that are a little less anorak and a little more objective, some of which are fairly favourable, one or two very much so. On its own terms it does have flaws. The book on which it is based is more an old man's ruminations than a story and any adaptation was going to run into problems. That said, the cast is great (the much-missed originals might well have floundered with their mannered performances, okay in the seventies but ... well ...), the locations and design are quite stunning and the story sort of lopes along a bit erratically but there are some good scenes. Laxton directs with finesse, in my view, and the script is more elegantly poetic than I think its audience was expecting. It does end rather suddenly but this was probably meant as a pilot to a series. On reflection, the stories are resolved, in a way, but leave something to the viewer to work out. Probably far too ambitious considering its natural constituency and in the end, possibly a compromise between something new and pandering to the old. It couldn't win. But it's actually a good piece of work. Congratulations all round.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Stupid Ending
shellkates18 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I was happy to acquire this movie and looking forward to watching it I adore period pieces and thought the TV series was pretty good, I was a little confused when the story picked up right in the middle of Poldarks life after his kids were already grown, it's pretty much their story, it was ok nothing spectacular but mildly interesting, and then all of a sudden it just ends abruptly in the middle of a scene, and the viewer is left hanging in mid air, with nothing but frustration. I emphatically do no recommend wasting time or money on this poorly written patchwork script/movie, it's got more plot holes than Swiss cheese and the ending is an abysmal failure, it wasn't worth the $1.00 I paid for it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
My Opinion
swithenban30 July 2005
I wish this sequel had been with the original cast, however given the time span involved from when it was originally shown, the actors would probably have been difficult to re-assemble. The acting in the new version was however excellent, my only complaint was that it was left hanging on every story line. How do you go about purchasing the rest of this series, surely it was just not left up in the air like this, in short this being such an all time beloved series, what were the distributors of the DVD's thinking. The actors, scenery, costumes and settings were outstanding, wish they had gone ahead with thoughts of turning this into a spectacular movie. So many books still to cover and with such a wide viewing audience you would think it would be a certain hit at the box office would be fun to try casting the movie. Any thoughts out there on who should be cast in the lead roles?
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed