Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Aryana Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

JoeytheBrit I remembered being transfixed as a callow youth by this study of the lost generation energetically going about the business of slow self-destruction, so when I noticed a rare showing on some obscure satellite channel I decided to see whether my memory of it was really so at odds with most of the reviewers on this site. Well, as far as Hemingway adaptations go it's a complete clunker, no doubt about it, injecting soap opera elements into his classic first novel with such disregard for the source material that you feel like wincing at times.But as an entertainment in its own right it's fair to say it stands its ground thanks to some extremely atmospheric location shooting. Like a party guest trying to appear more interesting than they know they really are, it boasts a faux sophistication that almost has you fooled at times, only to blow the disguise by inserting some incredibly dull piece of dialogue or a dumb plot twist. Hemingway's book is more about a condition of life than a narrative, so in one respect it's virtually unfilmable – but if you're going to have a go you should at least stay faithful to the author's vision.Having said that, watching this TV movie all those years ago did prompt me to seek out and read the book, so it has some value as far as I'm concerned.

ducdebrabant The filmmakers built up the part of Brett's Russian admirer for Leonard Nimoy, and added a murder -- not trusting the Hemingway plot to hold the audience. I actually liked Hart Bochner's world weary hero, and Jane Seymour isn't bad. Robert Carradine is absolutely marvelous -- one of our most underrated actors. The movie gets the period pretty well, and the real locations help a great deal. But Leonard Nimoy ........ oh. my. God. He is truly terrible. He disdains to trouble himself with any sort of Russian accent, and his mustache twirling turn is phony baloney every step of the way. I have never looked at him the same way since. This is basically a project designed to say, loudly, that Hemingway's novel cannot be dramatized. That's pretty much its message, forget the Lost Generation stuff, even though the script does treat of the horribleness of WW1 and its aftermath. Considering how awful this travesty is, I don't think its makers are in any position to criticize the original material. I await another Sun Also Rises adaptation that stays true to the original, as this does not, gets the period (as this does and the 20th Century Fox film does not) and gives us a Jake and a Robert Cohn this effective, and a Brett a little more so. Seymour, as I say, isn't bad (she gets Brett's privileged Englishwoman dimension down pat), but she's not ideal. Gardner had the hormonal quality Brett needs, but couldn't do the upper class Englishwoman thing one bit.

schappe1 Some good and some bad compared to the 1957 effort. The story is better told. The movie is basically the latter half of it. (Yes, we do learn what happened to Jake). There's more time in a miniseries to tell a story like this. Jane Seymour, a very talented actress is fine as Lady Brett. Hart Bochner lacks charisma as the lead. It's hard to tell why everybody thinks he's such a dynamic guy. Robert Carradine is a much more impressive Cohen than Mel Ferrer. We learn much more about the character here. The actors are all much younger, (or at least younger-looking) than their 1957 counterparts. It gives the impression of kids playing "grown-up". It's hard to compare Bochner to Tyrone Power, Zeljko Ivanek to Eddie Albert, Ian Charleston to Errol Flynn, etc. because the 1957 cast consisted of older, more accomplished performers. And yet, since this takes place in the 1920's, the characters would have been more the age of the performers in the mini-series. The 1957 cast was almost old enough to have fought in World War I themselves.

Mirax As TV movies go, this version of "The Sun Also Rises" isn't the worst. However, the liberties taken with Hemingway's work were both unnecessary and destructive. Oh, did I mention the acting is terrible? Jane Seymour, as Brett, tries her very hardest, and it shows, but it's not enough: she's just not talented enough to slog through dialogue this bad and retain a modicum of grace (and let's not talk much about the "period" costumes, OK? Not every woman of the 20's dressed like an Arabian vampire with black turbans, alright?). Hart Bochner, on the other hand, is in every way jarringly unconvincing. He's too young, too matinee-idol-ish, to portray depressed, self-destructive, castrated veteran Jake Barnes. I admit to having missed the beginning, as I saw it on TV - did they cut out the fact that he was wounded that way? Omissions like that, changes to such a well-known work of great literature as "Sun," would seem to be heretical, but once you've heard Hemingway's subtle and sparing dialogue dismissed for more obvious tripe, and the few great, memorable lines from the book - "isn't it pretty to think so?" "Send a woman off with one man . . . and sign the wire 'with love.'" - hopelessly destroyed by Bochner's wooden speech and expressions, nothing will ever seem shocking again. Entire lifelines are altered to further banish subtlety, most shockingly Bill's (didn't love his sitcom acting style either), but also to a small extent Cohn's, Romero's, and even Jake's.Not a complete waste of time, but if you love the book, then each mistake, omission, alteration, and Bochner-ed line will make you cringe. Just read the novel, and forget this.