BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

morrison-dylan-fan Although I've seen a good number of eps from the classic TV series since childhood,I for some reason have always missed the chance to see the original big screen version of James Herriot's books. Looking at the flicks being shown over X-Mas/New Year,I noticed a screening of the movie in among animated titles,which led to me going down to the farm.The plot-1937:Recently passing his exams, newly qualified veterinarian James Herriot goes oop North for a job at Siegfried Farnon's practice in Yorkshire. Welcomed into the practice,Herriot soon finds himself getting stuck into taking care of all creatures big and small.View on the film:Filmed "Oop Yorkshire" director Claude Whatham & cinematographer Peter Suschitzky breath in the rural air with a misty atmosphere putting the viewer down on the farm. Allowing the viewer to see the hard work that vets do in a (mostly ) matter of fact manner, Whatham wonderfully brushes up the late 30's setting,lit by the cosy lack of modern machines which give the movie a fairy tale way of life. Threaded from two of Herriot's books,the screenplay by Hugh Whitemore flips the pages at a rapid pace. Whilst this stops the film from feeling dry,it also causes for there to be no feeling of a real friendship growing between the vets,due to any tantalisingly small moments being quickly skipped over. Joined by the charming Simon Ward as Herriot, Anthony Hopkins steals every scene he is in as the pipe smoking Farnon,thanks to Hopkins giving Farnon an excellent manner at home with the simple things in life,as the vets help all creatures,great and small.

nowego Being a fan of the series I found a copy of this extremely difficult to find film while I was watching the series and was very happy that I was able to watch it.I would have liked to see is that it was a bit longer and covered a bit more of the life of James Harriot. A very young Anthony Hopkins was superb as Siegfried and Simon Ward and Lisa Harrow as James and Helen made the movie very entertaining. I would have loved to see Simon Ward as James in the series, nothing against Christopher Timothy.The series features Tristan much more than the movie and this would be the only drawback I could find about it. Tristan is one of my favourite characters in the series.

Earthmonkey16 The movie is nice, not world class, but shows you a splendid young Anthony Hopkins as Sigfried Farnon.This movie never reaches the level of the series (which were started after, because of(?) this movie) It was a bit too hasty, no real depth in the characters, most things you have to deduct from conversation. The real Herriot lovers are waiting for the explosions of Sigfried, especially if you ever saw Anthony Hopkins in action, but he is surprisingly sedate almost throughout this movie. I would recommend the books, and the series, but this is an enjoyable movie non the less.

Theo Robertson This film version of James Herriot`s series of novels isn`t much cop compared to the television show of the same . This movie is the prior piece but there`s nothing very memorable about . The plot is more or less composed of " Will young James get married to his girlfriend or not ? " , hardly the most original or compelling premise for a movie , and we`re treated to little in the way of these blackly comical scenes of animals and their owners having mishaps that made the TV show enjoyable . Perhaps the worst problem is that Tristan ( Played by boyish mischief in the show by Peter Davison ) is more or less a peripheral character in this movieThe cast are passable ( Simon West was rather famous when this was produced while Anthony Hopkins was almost totally unknown ) but they seem to lack the flair that Christopher Timothy , Robert Hardy and Peter Davison brought to the long running series