Montana Sky Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
320x176 | 384.08 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
The wealthy stock dealer bequeaths his Montana farm to the three daughters provided they would live there together at least for a year.
| Ashley Williams | Willa |
| Charlotte Ross | Tess |
| Diane Ladd | Bess |
| Laura Mennell | Lily |
| Nathaniel Arcand | Adam |
| Aaron Pearl | Nate |
| Tom Carey | Jim |
| John Corbett | Ben |
| Scott Heindl | Jesse Carne |
| James Baker | Ham |
| Donovan Workun | Pickles |
| Stephen Hair | Ken Campbell |
| James D. Hopkin | Preacher |
| Heather Lea MacCallum | Coroner |
| James Dugan | Vet |
| Mike Robe |
5.70 out of 10 (390 votes)
Visitor Reviews
a little disappointing
posted on 05 Aug 2009I loved the book so was hoping this would be really close but so much of it, especially the ending, was so disappointing. I wished it had been made into a movie as then maybe it would have been more like the book. I realize they had to do some cutting for time but why ruin the ending. It was ok to watch and I did like the actors/actresses.
An okay....
posted on 29 May 2009movie, but I can't recommend it for the whole family. There are too many bedroom scenes.I like the premise of the plot but the acting was too bad to actually like the movie more than a three. I am sure they are good actors but someone dropped the ball on this one. Maybe it is the editing. I don't know but it could have been better. The scenes are very choppy and the characters aren't portrayed very deep. What is the story behind them etc....
It is what it is.
posted on 07 May 2009This movie actually had decent actors. I think that should be addressed first and foremost. Most of the time when a romance novel is turned into a movie who ever decides to put it on screen usually casts attractive people with limited acting ability.
That can no be said about this movie. The actors are pretty and seem to have acting capabilty. *gasp*
I was a bit disappointed that the movie strayed so much from the Nora Roberts novel, but I can pretty much seperate the two and see each has its own creative merits. Lifetime didn't screw this one up.
Don't waste your time
posted on 26 Apr 2009So I just finished reading the book yesterday when I noticed that Lifetime would be airing the movie, I thought oh that's perfect. Unfortunately I was VERY disappointed. The writers of the movie took out a lot of what made the book wonderful, the characters didn't fit what the book wrote about them, I mean Corbett as Ben, his age alone prevents him from being the person wrote about in the book, his acting was fine. They had the sisters all wrong, the women who played Lily should have been Willa or Tess and Willa should have been Lily. The casting truly was a mess! Overall the actors didn't do horribly they just didn't fit the parts they were playing. Another HUGE problem was that the movie moved to quickly and either changed some of the best moments in the book or left them completely out! It's sad to say that I liked Beach Girls a heck of a lot better than Montana Sky as far as a movie goes, at least it stuck to some of what the book wrote. Perhaps 2 hours just wasn't long enough to do justice to a truly wonderful book.
Not Bad, Not Great
posted on 16 Jan 2009Charlotte Ross and John Corbett saved this movie. So did the character Nate the Sheriff. This movie was more enjoyable than Angels Falls (the first Nora Roberts movie by Lifetime) - it's overall a better story, a better executed adaptation and has better casting. I might even watch this again for the fun of it. Especially for Charlotte Ross's saucy part.What was off with this movie was the casting of one of the main characters and the need to adapt a longer, more involved story with so many characters to fit a two hour movie. This should have been a two-part serial, at least, to do it all justice. Still, not a bad job for a TV movie.Lily was just horrid. They actually could have and should have left her character and storyline out completely. It would have enabled a better adaptation of the rest of the story. Her character was bland - the acting without depth - and the storyline rushed and silly so she never had a chance to portray anything else (I might be being too charitable). There was even a plot hole at the beginning - how did the ex happen to end up being a mechanic in Montana just where she ended up? Well, the story would have been just fine without Lily or the half-brother and that entire storyline. The removal of 1 sister from the plot wouldn't have been so criminal in light of the short-shrift keeping it in did to the rest of the movie. If not cut her out entirely, keep her only as an occasional catalyst for the two interesting sisters and cut out the separate storyline.The other sister, Willa, was okay. The little Williams sister was good, she just didn't evoke a lot of sympathy with her one-note portrayal. Some of that could be put down to the adaptation - we only knew about her loss and suffering from other characters talking about it, she never looked like she was having a struggle. Her work with John Corbett made her the most interesting she could be. So did her work with CR. It doesn't hurt that she's cute.JC didn't seem cowboy to me - actually, he seemed more cowboy at Aidan on SITC.The scenery, lighting, sets and costume were all well done, unlike in Angels Falls. This time around the lovely hair and make up didn't detract from the story, the women are all lovely enough to carry it off without being distracting (as in the waitress in AF).This is a 7 out of 10.
Cowboy Ben
posted on 12 Jan 2009Let's let John know he should cut his hair and play only cowboy parts. This wasn't his best performance, but he does look good on a horse and has a great sexy smile. He seemed kinda uptight, but don't think he has played a cowboy part enough. I thought the women played their parts well, but was disappointed with Nate - not the right person for that part. Adam did great and I thought he was the perfect person for his part. Think the movie would have had a much higher rating if it had been a mini-series, so they could tell the whole story. No, the movie wasn't the same as the great book, but it was OK. Why can't they make some GREAT true to life - westerns anymore??
Nora Roberts' Montana Sky worth the wait!
posted on 22 Nov 2008One of my favorite Nora Roberts novels is finally a movie. Well made, beautiful photography. My only concern is that they rushed the ending because a few scenes in the book were not in the movie. Nora makes a cameo with her husband, watch the last 20 minutes of the movie carefully and you will see them!
Not a great adaptation
posted on 31 Oct 2008In making a lengthy book into a two-hour movie and then adapting it to the constraints of television, the film makers were barely adequate. Granted, it is no easy task, and it shows here. All the violence and gore were removed for the general TV audience, so that the jeopardy and terror are all but missing. The sex scenes (a Nora Roberts trademark) are so diminished as to be non-existant. The result of the omissions is a bland story at best.
The three sisters are played by beautiful actresses, who are not very good at their craft of creating believable characters. Or perhaps the director is to blame. There are no contradictions, no depth in their characters at all. There's the rough and tumble raised on the ranch sister; the Hollywood take a meeting sunglasses sister; and the wife beater victim scared of a mouse sister. The acting and dialogue of the men are even less competent. They pretty much walk through their roles, as if a stetson and cowboy boots were sufficient to create character.
Then there are the story changes. One example: in the book, "Hollywood" Tess becomes involved with the lawyer, Nate, but in the movie version, Tess takes up with the eye-candy sheriff and Nate somehow disappears. I can't imagine why the film makers decided to change partners for Tess. It will be confusing to anyone who has read the novel. To make matters stranger, when the bosomy Tess offers herself openly to the sheriff--he demurs. Egad. As a man, I found that hard to imagine.
The scenery of Montana (shot in Canada?) is certainly attractive, and the sisters are easy on the eye. Unfortunately a movie, in order to be really good, has to have more that that.
Montana Sky book excellent!!, the movie version needed more details about characters in it to match book.
posted on 03 Aug 2008I have read Montana Sky over and over. Unfortunately I wish I could give the TV movie a 10 out of 10. I feel that the characters for Ben and Adam could have been chosen better to suit the description of the book. Ben is made to be a true tough rugged and handsome built rancher. A quote from the book says "...and looks fabulous in Levi's...it's a fine butt, and I have excellent eyesight." Tess made those statements. In the movie Ben leans in Willa refrigerator and his butt isn't fabulous in those jeans at all. I really like John Corbett in his earlier films but this was one I wished that he wasn't in. Now Adam was described as having "...hair that streamed to his shoulders...a face a beautiful as a painting." I understand you can't always match exactly the character but at least close would have been nice. When characters (in reality the author)make descriptions about other characters you get a certain picture and expectation of them. I definitely recommend the book to everyone!!! Nora Roberts truly is an amazing writer and i love every book I have read of hers.
Unreality
posted on 23 Jul 2008The dialogue and action of this film from the outset has
an unreality that's hard to fathom. One example, 3 daughters attending their father's funeral and the blond
daughter is on the cell phone with some guy and she's
arguing loudly with profanity totally oblivious of the
other sisters and the people at the funeral wake..like I
could care less..and the subsequent actions and script follow this general unreality in real life; I would dub
this as one of the worst examples of script, characteriz-
ation and hardly worthy of Norah Robert's novel.
It was okay
posted on 20 Jul 2008I've read the book and of course the book was so much better. However, putting aside that fact, I found this movie lacked....appeal. It was very hurried, which is expected for a 90 minute flick, but it had no, depth to the film. There have been many adaptations from novels to movies that have been wonderful. If this movie had its own zeal and personality, I don't think I would complain about the way it was done. However, it was very...damsel in distress, no brains, and kind of dull. If the chemistry was better, if the actresses added more personality I think it would have been brilliant. I've been looking forward to these movies since I heard they were coming out. I'm not saying this movie was terrible or anything, I am not saying "well the book was like this," I'm just saying it was dull.
"It's Not Every Day Your Father Dies"
posted on 19 Jun 2008Synopsis: It's a tried but true storyline that seems to be a popular beginning with what we designate as family friendly films. Stubborn, unforgiving old man dies and leaves his immense Montana ranch to his three daughters, all from different Mothers. As per the stipulations of his last will and testament the three women must live together on the ranch for one year in order to gain their inheritance. If anyone of them leave the land and fortune will be given to charity leaving each of them with one hundred dollars each.
Critique: I'm sure the first thing that comes to mind is "chick flick" right? Well it certainly begins that way but a darker storyline slowly begins to develop when horses, dogs and eventually people begin to show up dead all all neatly cut up by an apparently unknown intruder.
'Montana Sky' is a fairly enjoyable film that is complimented by some beautiful rugged Montana scenary and three attractive women trying to work out there differences and bitter memories of their past. What made the film for me was the gorgeous Laura Mennell who played the youngest sister Lily. Wow, where has she been all my life!
My Rating: -3 1/2 Stars-.
It is such a wonderful replication of the bestselling book by Nora Roberts. It is a move to be seen and cherished by lovers and friends.
posted on 23 May 2008It is such a wonderful replication of the bestselling book by Nora Roberts. It is a move to be seen and cherished by lovers and friends. I would recommend this movie for every Nora Roberts' fan out there. Anyone who reads and enjoys her stories should watch the movies and see her characters truly come to life on the big screen. The acting was wonderful and stayed true to the characters first developed by the imagination of Nora Roberts and the script followed the book in the most important details. Montana Sky is not the only book made into a movie and I am so excited for the rest of the Nora Roberts movies to come out on T.V and video.
Stone skipping on water
posted on 09 May 2008I haven't read the book, but other reviewers comments mentioning all that was left out and changed doesn't surprise me. With 4 relationships in the movie (3 male/female and the one amongst the sisters), running the ranch, and the several "bad guy" stories over a year's time, they don't leave much time for much else in a 2 hour (1:36 without commercials) TV movie.This movie's story just skips along like a stone on water, touching the surface every so often to cause a small ripple that quickly disappears to no effect before finally sinking under the surface. Pretty to look at as it skips, but quickly forgotten when it is done.I was disappointed in the story's lack of depth. Then again I thought of how I like romantic comedies from the 30s through the 60s and they aren't known for their depth. Why I am more ready to accept the lack of depth from these older movies? It may be because they are old and I am more ready to suspend belief and accept the story and characters because the movie is "from a simpler time".Another reason I would overlook a shallow story would be if the actors were movie stars. In this movie the actors were good, but no one sizzled and was a star like Gary Grant, Rock Hudson or Doris Day. John Corbett comes closest to a movie star, but I am a guy so the bar for a male actor is higher and Corbett doesn't interest me. He is pretty but bland.The female actors.... um, who were they again? The black haired, the blonde, and the brunette? The frightened, the Hollywood Californian, and the ranch 'chip-on-her-shoulder'. Three sisters who knew each other? Knew OF each other? More of their back story would have been nice instead of them just being stereotypes.Another reason I would have trouble overlooking this shallow story and characters is the movie takes place in Montana. While I don't live in the Bozeman area of Montana, I live among the Montana mountain ranch way of life and people. This movie is the Hollywood version of the Montana image. The scriptwriters may have spent a little time in Montana in order to notice a few obvious things such as many Montanans dislike of Californians and their rich Hollywood ways. Unlike the sheriff in the movie, the typical Montana man, after spouting off to the Hollywood sister on Californians like he did, wouldn't immediately express interest in her unless it really was for the reason she thought it was for and not the type of relationship he wanted.In other words... the Montana men depicted in the movie are not your typical Montana man. And this ranch and house were certainly NOT your typical Montana ranch!The movie was predictable, but that is not always bad. Sometimes one wants a comfortable movie that conforms to ones beliefs and/or wishes. This movie is that. No rough edges. No major surprises. Reassures one's stereotypes and ends happily.When characters disagreed, the writers were careful not to overdo the disagreements so as not to create a bad impression in the viewers mind that would be difficult for the character to overcome when the 'feuding' characters changed course and became friends (or friendlier *wink* *wink* as this is a romance movie).Part of the problem with the lack of feeling is I am not sure why some of the characters didn't like one another to begin with other than the story called for this to be so. I am still puzzled why the 'ranch, chip-on-her-shoulder' sister didn't like John Corbett's character. Was it because he had flirted with other women in his past and was not a virgin? Consequently when they later liked one another it seemed arbitrary. What changed? I guess time passed and it was now or never for her, though if I were Corbett's character I would have moved on from her a long time ago as nothing she did or said impressed me. This is where a movie star charisma comes in handy - who cares why they now like one another, you just are happy they do.When it came to the bad men in this movie, they were so one-note bad and evil that they were not believable. Watching them in their threatening scenes was like watching the villain at the end of a James Bond movie. The villain spouts off some crazy nonsense as to why he is acting this way and doing what he is doing, then the hero races around shooting until the villain is dead or captured. One puts their mind in neutral until the scene is over as it is so unbelievable. It was the same for this movie. Fortunately this movie was more on the romance side and only had the bad men as subplots to have some sort of dramatic tension in the movie. Just one skip of the stone.Before anyone complains about my assessment of the bad men subplots, that "no, this was more realistic", I disagree. These guys had anger and impulse control issues and were not smart at all. No way do I believe they would act, then wait 6 months and do nothing over a Montana winter before completing their revenge plan. And there are other examples of their over-the-top behavior which I won't bother to mention.I wasn't unhappy with the movie. I was fine with it. When I watched it, it was what I thought it may be, and wanted, a predictable romance TV movie. Kind of like watching a James Bond movie when one is in the mood for a mindless action movie.Maybe the movie would have been better off as a four hour mini-series where it could have had some more depth.
- 1
- 2
The spirit of the story is still there...
posted on 07 Aug 2009"Montana sky", based on a novel of the same title written by Nora Roberts, is an entertaining movie that even those that have not read Robert's book will like.
The story begins with the funeral of Jack Mercy, a multimillionaire rancher that dies suddenly, leaving "Mercy ranch" to his three daughters, Willa (Ashley Williams), Tess (Charlotte Ross) and Lily (Laura Mennell). These three young women have different mothers and don't know each other, but will have to live together for a year as stipulated in Jack's will, if they don't want to lose their inheritance. Jack's interference doesn't end there: as autocratic in death as he was during his lifetime, he has left two overseers for a year, and one of them is Willa's hateful neighbour, Ben (John Corbett).
Willa, the only one of the sisters that lives and works in the ranch, along with her half-brother Adam (Nathaniel Arcand), resents her sisters' presence, and the fact that she now has to deal with Ben daily. But not everything is what it looks like, and sometimes what seems like bad luck can turn out to be for the better. When a dangerous stalker threatens them, Willa, Tess and Lily will need to trust each other, and the men around them, in order to survive.
Sounds interesting? Well, it is :) Truth to be told, I was somewhat afraid to watch this film, because I didn't think such a great novel could become a movie without losing the nuances that make it so good, but Mike Robe (the director) managed to avoid making an oversimplified version of "Montana sky". Even though this movie is quite different from the book, and despite the fact that several story lines have been omitted or modified, the spirit of the story is still there, and I believe you will enjoy it. That is the reason why I can recommended it to you...
Belen Alcat
PS: I wish the "In death" series (Nora Roberts writing as J.D. Robb) had movie versions, too. I guess we'll have to wait a little bit more for that to happen :(
PS 2: If you like this movie, I'm pretty sure that you will love the book on which it is based.