82 reviews
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.
- Sharon Damkaer
- Nov 12, 1999
- Permalink
- gerry-russell-139
- Oct 10, 2003
- Permalink
This 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
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
- wes-connors
- Mar 9, 2009
- Permalink
The 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.
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.
- the lioness
- Jan 18, 2002
- Permalink
- wright7700
- Sep 24, 2005
- Permalink
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"...
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"...
- Psychotic41
- Jul 2, 2002
- Permalink
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.
- sophia2206
- Apr 3, 2011
- Permalink
I'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!
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!
I 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.
- kellielulu
- Aug 19, 2022
- Permalink
Overall, 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. :)
- jess_c_2004
- Jun 24, 2006
- Permalink
As 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 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.
- insanechild1981
- Apr 25, 2002
- Permalink
I 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.
- scarlettandstretch
- Sep 16, 2000
- Permalink
I 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.
- dvanlienden
- Aug 3, 2003
- Permalink
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.
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.
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.
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.
- grailmaiden95816
- Sep 30, 2006
- Permalink
My 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-moonoi
- Mar 4, 2019
- Permalink
- michellangelof
- Dec 12, 2007
- Permalink