A Thousand Acres (1997)

Please don't spend money on this.

Great Film overall

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

This just in, folks: Women (all, no matter how depraved) are good; men (all, no matter how virtuous) are bad.Meat- eaters bad, vegetarians good.The ONLY reason I didn't rate it one star is the somewhat decent performances by Pfeiffer and Lange.Talk about Hollywood trashing the heartland - as it is so fond of doing.The producers and directors should collectively be hanged. What more does IMDb require to write a review?

Jessica Lange and Michelle Pheiffer were the reasons I watched the movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Carradine, Robards and Hingle were also there, and none of them disappointed me.I was, however, disappointed that this is another one in the endless line of movies coping with incestuous abuse of children. This important and tragic theme became boring, because American movie makers can't imagine any other tragedy and dark secret a family might have. A thing that was a taboo for centuries became a top one subject in last two decades, abused as the children they show. Children abused for sexual, theme abused for commercial reasons. What's the worst, instead of waking us up and telling us, hey, these things happen, open your eyes, help children, help people - they make us yawn, say oh not again, I've seen it yesterday and the day, and week before, and we change the TV channel.In fact, if you don't give up, you'll be awarded by much better elaboration of this subject than average, due to great actors in great roles, and not to the director. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if this hate against male gender represents the attitude of writer or director, but even the radical feminists usually don't go that far. There is not a single male character who doesn't turn to be a rubbish in few minutes after appearing on screen. Women may not be perfect, but men are pure crap. If there was a spider in the movie, it would be a predator in ambush catching a (female) fly if it was a male spider, or a victim of a (male) bird if it was a female spider.Only a person who keeps so much hate in herself can create a character like Ginny. Her hate poisoned everyone's life, spreading sorrow and death. There is no excuse for her: Rose's childhood was no better than Ginny's yet she didn't devote her life to hurting others. You can't expect forgiving for what has been done to her, even Christian's forgiveness has limits. If she wanted to save other children or prosecute her father, no one would make an objection. Also, one would understand if she kept her destiny hidden and that caused her psychological problems, but she shared her secret with Pete (and that also brought misery to both of them). Finally, when her father was so senile that it was too late for revenge, even on her dying day she wanted to burden people who avoided being hurt and molested. Rose, however, understands that would do no good, and that hate destroys person who hates even more than the one who is hated.Michelle Pheiffer made a great performance: we don't approve what's Ginny doing, but we understand her. She simultaneously provokes sorrow and anger in us. Jessica Lange is good as always, and the fact that Rose's motifs often aren't clear enough is not her fault. Why is Carradine in the background and finally thrown away by Rose (and director) stays a mystery for me. Probably because he is male.Like former comments, I wrote some praises and some serious objections. The truth is in the middle: it is an average movie you probably won't regret if you watch it, but also shouldn't be sorry if you miss it.

**** Possible Spoiler **** If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after "King Lear" of course.That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story. You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.3/10

Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie "King of Texas".