The film 'Under the Greenwood Tree', one of the more recent ones at least, does a good job in representing its theme. That its old and needs to evolve to modern life. Is the film good? Short answer, 'There is no short answer'. Long answer is as follows.
This is a film that is quite different from the rest of the pack. It tries to be experimental with its shots. Well, as experimental as a made-for-TV-movie can be. Although there is one, 'opposite' shot. Or, in other words, a shot that is the opposite of what it should be. When Fancy Day tells Mr. Shiner that she can't marry him, the shot zooms out slowly. A shot that zooms in makes the audience feel for the character(s). This shot zooms out, making the audience care less and less for the character(s), and eventually even get bored of the character's plight and depression. And this scene is made even more awkward with the acting. Particularly, Mr. Shiner's. The actor who played him is a very funny comedian, who did the British TV show 'League of Gentlemen', but is he a good dramatic actor? No. Although his acting is not the worst in the film. That goes to the Zac Efron lookalike who plays Dick Dewy. He not only looks like Zac Efron, but has the same acting ability as well. He may be good to look at, but a game-changing actor he is not. That's not to say all the acting is bad. The acting of both Fancy Day and Mr. Maybold was quite good on their part, and they really saved the film from being an actor's hell.
The script was fairly good in the film. It was hardly a Tarantino script, but it made due. It stayed quite faithful to the book, although many of the more supernatural events were taken out, which is a good thing. However, there were a few a few too many clichés in the film, that could've been taken out. And the chopping down of the original rural idyll into a family friendly Victorian melodrama which is all too predictable, did not do the book any justice. It could get boring after a while. Anyone who has read the book knows the characters aren't cardboard cut-outs, and wouldn't have known who Fancy was going to choose. Anybody watching the film would know from a mile away.
This is a film that is quite different from the rest of the pack. It tries to be experimental with its shots. Well, as experimental as a made-for-TV-movie can be. Although there is one, 'opposite' shot. Or, in other words, a shot that is the opposite of what it should be. When Fancy Day tells Mr. Shiner that she can't marry him, the shot zooms out slowly. A shot that zooms in makes the audience feel for the character(s). This shot zooms out, making the audience care less and less for the character(s), and eventually even get bored of the character's plight and depression. And this scene is made even more awkward with the acting. Particularly, Mr. Shiner's. The actor who played him is a very funny comedian, who did the British TV show 'League of Gentlemen', but is he a good dramatic actor? No. Although his acting is not the worst in the film. That goes to the Zac Efron lookalike who plays Dick Dewy. He not only looks like Zac Efron, but has the same acting ability as well. He may be good to look at, but a game-changing actor he is not. That's not to say all the acting is bad. The acting of both Fancy Day and Mr. Maybold was quite good on their part, and they really saved the film from being an actor's hell.
The script was fairly good in the film. It was hardly a Tarantino script, but it made due. It stayed quite faithful to the book, although many of the more supernatural events were taken out, which is a good thing. However, there were a few a few too many clichés in the film, that could've been taken out. And the chopping down of the original rural idyll into a family friendly Victorian melodrama which is all too predictable, did not do the book any justice. It could get boring after a while. Anyone who has read the book knows the characters aren't cardboard cut-outs, and wouldn't have known who Fancy was going to choose. Anybody watching the film would know from a mile away.