My first thought watching this is that it was nowhere near as good as books one and two, but it wasn't the worst thing i have watched. The first episode was quite interesting, and the ending to that episode was really good. The only thing i didn't like was that it looked kind of... cheap. I hated the way the scenes were edited, and especially the painting effect used on the opening to each scene, because it was tedious and not so good. Overall though i thought it was okay, and may watch it again in the future. But if you want something exactly like the first 2 books, you might want to steer clear in order to avoid some disappointed, but if u are generally interested, take a look.
64 Reviews
Didn't Live Up
bkoganbing10 January 2016
Eight years after Book II of North And South was released, a third volume of the Main and Hazard family saga was released. A whole lot of the cast returned and a whole lot of roles were also played by different actors. Among other things Patrick Swayze's character is murdered right at the beginning by Philip Casnoff whom we thought had been blown up in his warehouse filled with guns and explosives, blown up along with his plans to overthrow Jefferson Davis and establish a military dictatorship for the Confederacy. I'll say this for Casnoff's Elkannah Bent character the man dreamed big.
No way he should have survived, but they brought him back just like in the old movie serials you see someone who should have died, but back he comes for the next chapter. The second thing about Book III is that the whole saga is based on the enduring Damon and Pythias friendship between Orry Main and George Hazzard from South Carolina and Pennsylvania respectively. Although the friendship went through a lot of stress it endured as the country endured.
But now Yin has been eliminated from being in tandem with a Yang making Book III somewhat off balance. Bent kills Swayze and then kills Hazzard's wife allowing James Read and Lesley Anne Down to comfort each other.
But Casnoff is not finished with his villainy. He kidnaps the young son of Kyle Chandler who plays Main cousin Charles Main and takes him into the wild west and awaits Charles Main to attempt a rescue. That was always Casnoff's weakness in the first two books, he thought he was the smartest guy around and no one was shrewder. Helps when you also think your destined to be an American Napoleon Bonaparte.
In fact my favorite scene in the film is when Read tells Chandler that back at West Point he and Swayze actually saved Casnoff from drowning in an icy river. Goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.
Meanwhile back at the old Main plantation of Mont Royal Lesley Anne Down tries to bring the estate back to life with some mining as well as planting. But she's faced by a new character, an old brother we didn't know about Cooper Main played by Robert Wagner. He's fallen in with a lot of the poor white trash that have formed a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. He wants to get the property away from Down who is shunned by proper southern society because to use the language of the day she's an Octaroon, meaning she is one eighth black.
As for that noted southern belle and nymphomaniac Ashton Main, she's fallen so low that she's know working as a whore out west. But Terri Garber marries well to a husband who says he'll aid in her quest to get Mont Royal back. But things don't quite work out there either.
Book III isn't bad, but it's not up to the grand pageant standards of Books one and two.
No way he should have survived, but they brought him back just like in the old movie serials you see someone who should have died, but back he comes for the next chapter. The second thing about Book III is that the whole saga is based on the enduring Damon and Pythias friendship between Orry Main and George Hazzard from South Carolina and Pennsylvania respectively. Although the friendship went through a lot of stress it endured as the country endured.
But now Yin has been eliminated from being in tandem with a Yang making Book III somewhat off balance. Bent kills Swayze and then kills Hazzard's wife allowing James Read and Lesley Anne Down to comfort each other.
But Casnoff is not finished with his villainy. He kidnaps the young son of Kyle Chandler who plays Main cousin Charles Main and takes him into the wild west and awaits Charles Main to attempt a rescue. That was always Casnoff's weakness in the first two books, he thought he was the smartest guy around and no one was shrewder. Helps when you also think your destined to be an American Napoleon Bonaparte.
In fact my favorite scene in the film is when Read tells Chandler that back at West Point he and Swayze actually saved Casnoff from drowning in an icy river. Goes to show no good deed goes unpunished.
Meanwhile back at the old Main plantation of Mont Royal Lesley Anne Down tries to bring the estate back to life with some mining as well as planting. But she's faced by a new character, an old brother we didn't know about Cooper Main played by Robert Wagner. He's fallen in with a lot of the poor white trash that have formed a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. He wants to get the property away from Down who is shunned by proper southern society because to use the language of the day she's an Octaroon, meaning she is one eighth black.
As for that noted southern belle and nymphomaniac Ashton Main, she's fallen so low that she's know working as a whore out west. But Terri Garber marries well to a husband who says he'll aid in her quest to get Mont Royal back. But things don't quite work out there either.
Book III isn't bad, but it's not up to the grand pageant standards of Books one and two.
Well, they tried! And somewhat succeeded.
vincentlynch-moonoi26 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to be nearly as critical as many of our other reviewers. No, this last installment of the series is not as good as the first two. Of course, there were problems -- primarily actors who didn't choose to return...which is their right. For example, we have an all new Charles Main -- a major character --, who actually seems far younger than he did in Book 2. It got confusing enough that I had to come to IMDb to compare character names in the different versions.
Having said that, I would still say this is better than "average television".
With Patrick Swayze (the lead actor on the Southern side) gone, James Read (the lead actor on the Northern side) has to carry the plot alone, which he does very nicely. Although always a major character, Lesley Anne-Down is even more pivotal here, and plays her part well. Terri Garber continues her imitation of Scarlett O'Hara (Scarlett without any redeeming qualities)...a major "downer" for the whole series. Robert Wagner is totally unimpressive here, and seemed very uncomfortable wearing a beard...was it fake? Peter O'Toole plays an often drunk actor...and I wondered if he actually was drunk here...totally wasted. Deborah Rush was the third and worst wife of Stanley Hazard in the series...so bad I longed for the return of Mary Crosby (egads!). But despite some of the poor acting here, there were other lesser roles that were carried out very well, so overall acting does not detract from this part of the series.
Special mention should be made of Philip Casnoff. The true villain of the series, his exceedingly handsome -- though repulsive -- character from the first two "books" has gone mad now and he is scruffy menace to all the women and children of the Main and Hazard families. Casnoff makes the most of this part of the trilogy, and you can't help but admire just how successfully he makes his character so very vile! In terms of production values, although slightly less quality here, I would have to say that the photography and art work here are better than the other parts of the trilogy.
Make no mistake, this is not as compelling a part of the trilogy as parts 1 and 2, but it is better than average television fare. One caveat -- if you're expecting all happy endings, you'll be disappointed. The post-Civil War era was a hard time to live, and that is depicted here. A number of significant characters are murdered, and there are hints of brutality even toward a child, although it's subtle. I highly recommend it, and in fact, the trilogy overall has spurred me to buy the novels.
Having said that, I would still say this is better than "average television".
With Patrick Swayze (the lead actor on the Southern side) gone, James Read (the lead actor on the Northern side) has to carry the plot alone, which he does very nicely. Although always a major character, Lesley Anne-Down is even more pivotal here, and plays her part well. Terri Garber continues her imitation of Scarlett O'Hara (Scarlett without any redeeming qualities)...a major "downer" for the whole series. Robert Wagner is totally unimpressive here, and seemed very uncomfortable wearing a beard...was it fake? Peter O'Toole plays an often drunk actor...and I wondered if he actually was drunk here...totally wasted. Deborah Rush was the third and worst wife of Stanley Hazard in the series...so bad I longed for the return of Mary Crosby (egads!). But despite some of the poor acting here, there were other lesser roles that were carried out very well, so overall acting does not detract from this part of the series.
Special mention should be made of Philip Casnoff. The true villain of the series, his exceedingly handsome -- though repulsive -- character from the first two "books" has gone mad now and he is scruffy menace to all the women and children of the Main and Hazard families. Casnoff makes the most of this part of the trilogy, and you can't help but admire just how successfully he makes his character so very vile! In terms of production values, although slightly less quality here, I would have to say that the photography and art work here are better than the other parts of the trilogy.
Make no mistake, this is not as compelling a part of the trilogy as parts 1 and 2, but it is better than average television fare. One caveat -- if you're expecting all happy endings, you'll be disappointed. The post-Civil War era was a hard time to live, and that is depicted here. A number of significant characters are murdered, and there are hints of brutality even toward a child, although it's subtle. I highly recommend it, and in fact, the trilogy overall has spurred me to buy the novels.
Should not have been made
c-a-e-depaus9 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
What can I say that has not been said before? If the producers wanted to make this sequel so badly, they should have done it immediately after book 2. Then, they could have hired the same actors.
Even if they wanted to go back to the story line of the books, they could have built in some sort of transition in which Orry could have received the ending a character of his magnitude deserved. Having him stabbed by Elkanah Bent was bad enough; the way they went about filming it was even worse. Orry Main, one of the heroes of the series, should not have been killed of in this manner. It was cheap, easy and poorly done.
Too many critical changes were made. We now meet the Billy Hazard "the Third", which takes some serious getting used to. Even worse is the new Charles, who looks like he is too young to have even been at West Point, let alone serve in the war. At the end of Book 2, we saw Charles as a tired man, with wrinkles around his eyes and a world of grief in them. How did they ever think hiring someone that young could ever do justice to the character?
Terri Garber did a good job, she was clearly in her element playing the devious Ashton. her storyline however, was all over the place. Did she grow a conscience? She seemed to, but it was never made clear and in the end she always turned out to be the Ashton we knew, which became boring eventually.
Time lines were screwed up. Orry junior was the eternal infant, never aging even though his cousin Gus did. Acting was poor, filming and editing even worse. I would not even light a fire with the script and inconsistencies were too many to count. And I won't even touch the subject of Elkanah Bent.... I really could rant on forever but let's just say this sequel was not up to par. And that is putting it very, very mildly. I would discourage anyone to watch it. Just enjoy the first two books and forget there ever was a third one. It is not worth your time. It should not have been made; at least not like this.
Even if they wanted to go back to the story line of the books, they could have built in some sort of transition in which Orry could have received the ending a character of his magnitude deserved. Having him stabbed by Elkanah Bent was bad enough; the way they went about filming it was even worse. Orry Main, one of the heroes of the series, should not have been killed of in this manner. It was cheap, easy and poorly done.
Too many critical changes were made. We now meet the Billy Hazard "the Third", which takes some serious getting used to. Even worse is the new Charles, who looks like he is too young to have even been at West Point, let alone serve in the war. At the end of Book 2, we saw Charles as a tired man, with wrinkles around his eyes and a world of grief in them. How did they ever think hiring someone that young could ever do justice to the character?
Terri Garber did a good job, she was clearly in her element playing the devious Ashton. her storyline however, was all over the place. Did she grow a conscience? She seemed to, but it was never made clear and in the end she always turned out to be the Ashton we knew, which became boring eventually.
Time lines were screwed up. Orry junior was the eternal infant, never aging even though his cousin Gus did. Acting was poor, filming and editing even worse. I would not even light a fire with the script and inconsistencies were too many to count. And I won't even touch the subject of Elkanah Bent.... I really could rant on forever but let's just say this sequel was not up to par. And that is putting it very, very mildly. I would discourage anyone to watch it. Just enjoy the first two books and forget there ever was a third one. It is not worth your time. It should not have been made; at least not like this.
Take it with a grain of salt ( many many spoilers!!!!!!!!!)
winslow_kimberly24 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
For everyone who is in outrage about Book III, please keep in mind that this is a movie that is made more for the fans of the book. If you have only seen the first two movies and not read the books, you will be angered and confused. If you have read the books, you may still be angered and confused, but there is no pleasing everyone. The first two movies took a lot of liberty with the books so it seems unfair that now the third one is being criminalized as if that hadn't happened before. Yes, the filming of the third movie is inferior to the first two. Yes, many of the cast members did not come back. But some fans of the books wanted to see the third one made and I think they at least tried.
Yes, Cooper Main is a minor character in the fist two books. He is in fact, Orry's older brother. He lives overseas and does not get on well with his father, and so is not mentioned often. He actually is a moderate and anti-slave thinker until his son is killed and then he goes quite insane. He is intended to own and run Mont Royal as the oldest son and in the books, Orry is actually at West Point because he WANTS to be a career soldier.
Bent does in fact exist in the third book. He does kill Constance and kidnaps Charles' son and they do hunt him down.
Orry dies in Book II. Period. He was never around for the third installment. I would have been irritated if they created a story line around him that didn't exist at all. They already took enough liberty by moderately crippling him instead of making him lose his arm which is what really happened in the book.
Billy and Brett have moved to California and are living there. And if you really want to know, Ashton finally gets her comeuppance when Fen leaves her penniless.
etc etc etc.
You can complain all day about every little thing. No movie is ever going to do the book its justice. And if you are such a fan of the movies, read the book. Always much better. Movie of Book III is inferior to the first two, but it is not a total waste of time if you want to see what happens to the characters.
Yes, Cooper Main is a minor character in the fist two books. He is in fact, Orry's older brother. He lives overseas and does not get on well with his father, and so is not mentioned often. He actually is a moderate and anti-slave thinker until his son is killed and then he goes quite insane. He is intended to own and run Mont Royal as the oldest son and in the books, Orry is actually at West Point because he WANTS to be a career soldier.
Bent does in fact exist in the third book. He does kill Constance and kidnaps Charles' son and they do hunt him down.
Orry dies in Book II. Period. He was never around for the third installment. I would have been irritated if they created a story line around him that didn't exist at all. They already took enough liberty by moderately crippling him instead of making him lose his arm which is what really happened in the book.
Billy and Brett have moved to California and are living there. And if you really want to know, Ashton finally gets her comeuppance when Fen leaves her penniless.
etc etc etc.
You can complain all day about every little thing. No movie is ever going to do the book its justice. And if you are such a fan of the movies, read the book. Always much better. Movie of Book III is inferior to the first two, but it is not a total waste of time if you want to see what happens to the characters.
Truly astounding
danojones11131 December 2006
What a brave move. This third series of North and South lies at the vanguard of television drama. Billiantly conceived, beautifully filmed, and the acting is absolutely top notch. And the dialog! Well what can I say? Fluent, beautiful and packed with memorable quotes. Every change made from the two previous installments is a stroke of genius, from the triumphant appearance of Cooper Main to the romance between Madeline and George Main. And what a fantastic creation Elkanah Bent is. Evil personified, but with so many layers and depth.
This is a landmark achievement. Truly inspirational.
I watch it weekly.
Oh, and how could I forget? My favorite part is where Orry is killed. How brave of Patrick Swayze to not show his face!
This is a landmark achievement. Truly inspirational.
I watch it weekly.
Oh, and how could I forget? My favorite part is where Orry is killed. How brave of Patrick Swayze to not show his face!
Some parts are terrible - mainly for fans who need closure
phd_travel21 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There are some terrible cringe inducing, logic defying parts of this third installment. The fault is the story so it's hard to blame the brave cast who soldiered on through this. It covers a lot of ground from the reconstruction to the Klan to expansion in the West and the Indian wars. Through all this we have serial killer Elakanah Bent's wacky journey.
The good points: 1. Beautiful photography in the countryside.
2. Lots of social and economic issues tackled - maybe too much.
The worst parts: 1. Orry's death 2. George and Madeline - gross.
3. Cooper Main - in a reluctant looking performance by Robert Wagner.
4. Orry's Baby why doesn't Orry Jr grow? Anyway for fans who want to see how the saga concludes - watch it but be warned it's pretty cringe inducing in parts.
The good points: 1. Beautiful photography in the countryside.
2. Lots of social and economic issues tackled - maybe too much.
The worst parts: 1. Orry's death 2. George and Madeline - gross.
3. Cooper Main - in a reluctant looking performance by Robert Wagner.
4. Orry's Baby why doesn't Orry Jr grow? Anyway for fans who want to see how the saga concludes - watch it but be warned it's pretty cringe inducing in parts.
underrated and excellent
davidkaori20 June 2011
The more I learn about the history of this period, the better I like Book 3 of North & South. A lot of viewers dislike it because they feel it isn't up to the first two books. In a sense, they're right. And the reason is that the history of the prewar period, of the war itself and of the postwar period --known as "Reconstruction," a fairly gross misnomer--are very different things. The prewar and war had gallantry to go along with the conflict and the misery. Reconstruction, by contrast, has a dreadful history that nobody likes. The period is unpopular with the general public, and it's shunned by historians. It was a frankly awful time in which many sordid scores were settled; in which the country had to find its way through an ethical and political morass, with few happy endings. I haven't read Jakes's novel "Heaven and Hell," but I do feel that the film is true to the period it portrays. With all the difficulties, a lot of nobility comes out through the characters who exemplify ordinary decency; and those who are depraved--a large portion--are sharply and well defined. Other production values are good, with handsome cinematography and an excellent score. The major problem in the production is that casting issues are widespread, while a major character, Cooper, shows up rather implausibly as a "deus ex machina." For all that, I give the film a rating slightly lower than the highest possible. But don't worry. As long as you're not expecting to see a drama just like that of the buildup to the war and then the war itself--as long as you can get used to the idea that something new and not always easy is coming--you'll find a lot of satisfaction.
Insults Viewers' Intelligence
beldasnoop-17 November 2008
This third volume of the acclaimed North and South saga is a major disappointment, so much so that I was unable to sit through the whole thing. It tries to go back to the plot of the original book, but confusingly so, because characters from the books who were not in the first 2 movies suddenly appear with no good explanation, and most of the returning characters act so out-of-character as to be unrecognizable, from either the books or the first two movies. It seems that the producers just assumed viewers would welcome this edition with open arms regardless of how twisted and convoluted the plot is, and how disjointed this all seems. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who enjoyed the first two series.
Some very unpleasant things happen which make very little dramatic sense. To a certain degree, that is the same as the book, but the book handled things much more appropriately for the time period and the characters' sensibilities, where the filmed version doesn't seem to care about that. It seems as if the producers really wanted another steamy soap opera, and they didn't seem to care if the story ended up making no logical sense in how it got there. The love stories all seem very rushed and sometimes downright illogical. This film repeatedly portrays the major players acting against their characters as portrayed in the first two parts, and several major characters are either re-cast or missing from this edition. Also, most of the returning actors don't seem to have their hearts in it anymore. It's like they're sleepwalking through this lackluster, sad production.
This installment has none of the energy and vitality of the first two installments, and the production values are sloppy at best. It's like watching one long, protracted funeral. It's downright depressing. I would advise fans of the first two series to avoid this one at all costs. The DVD set is well worth purchasing for the first two installments and the extras, but I would recommend that viewers just skip Book 3. It's too much of a letdown.
Some very unpleasant things happen which make very little dramatic sense. To a certain degree, that is the same as the book, but the book handled things much more appropriately for the time period and the characters' sensibilities, where the filmed version doesn't seem to care about that. It seems as if the producers really wanted another steamy soap opera, and they didn't seem to care if the story ended up making no logical sense in how it got there. The love stories all seem very rushed and sometimes downright illogical. This film repeatedly portrays the major players acting against their characters as portrayed in the first two parts, and several major characters are either re-cast or missing from this edition. Also, most of the returning actors don't seem to have their hearts in it anymore. It's like they're sleepwalking through this lackluster, sad production.
This installment has none of the energy and vitality of the first two installments, and the production values are sloppy at best. It's like watching one long, protracted funeral. It's downright depressing. I would advise fans of the first two series to avoid this one at all costs. The DVD set is well worth purchasing for the first two installments and the extras, but I would recommend that viewers just skip Book 3. It's too much of a letdown.
Not as good as the first two, but not as bad as everyone states
ashtonmain8 April 2002
Although this movie follows the book more closely, with a few exceptions (Bent miraculously surviving everything, Cooper Main appearing out of nowhere), it is not as bad as everyone states.
The production values and editing of certain scenes could have been up to par with the first two books. Not to mention that Patrick Swayze declined to reprise his role of Orry Main, which is probably why the producers decided he will be killed in this one. Also, I think that the storyline involving Ashton scheming to take Mont Royal for herself could have been expanded.
As for the other characters, I liked the original Charles Main (played by Lewis Smith), although Kyle Chandler delivered a satisfactory performance. And, to agree with everyone else, the appearance of Cooper Main makes no sense, especially since there is no mention of Cooper in the first two movies.
If the movie were twelve hours long like the previous ones, then more explanation for certain things would have made the movie a better piece.
6/10
The production values and editing of certain scenes could have been up to par with the first two books. Not to mention that Patrick Swayze declined to reprise his role of Orry Main, which is probably why the producers decided he will be killed in this one. Also, I think that the storyline involving Ashton scheming to take Mont Royal for herself could have been expanded.
As for the other characters, I liked the original Charles Main (played by Lewis Smith), although Kyle Chandler delivered a satisfactory performance. And, to agree with everyone else, the appearance of Cooper Main makes no sense, especially since there is no mention of Cooper in the first two movies.
If the movie were twelve hours long like the previous ones, then more explanation for certain things would have made the movie a better piece.
6/10
Majoy Disappointment
les696931 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the first and second series of this excellent story, I hated the third. It was a mess from start to ... well I never stuck with it to the end. Just everything about it is awful. The acting isn't on a par with the first two and the director seems to think he is directing a stage play most of the time. As has been said by others, the story is confusing and often implausible. The killing of Georges wife was a big mistake and as for Bent surviving two attempts on his life, well that was just laughable. George marrying Orie's wife and not long after his wife had died? What happened to the honourable George of the first two series?
This was one series that should never have been made and if you really enjoyed the first two I would recommend you avoid this one like the plague.
This was one series that should never have been made and if you really enjoyed the first two I would recommend you avoid this one like the plague.
love these movies!
lucastillery201413 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Never read the books and never going to..not a fan of reading I can its just not fun..but I love these movies!! I just hate that Orry dies...The cast is great and another thing I don't like in any show or movie is where they change actors for certain characters..I love that Robert Englund guest stars on it!! I'm sure that the books are good but like I said not a reader and even if I did read the books it wouldn't upset me one bit about the differences between the movies and books..seriously I don't get how people get upset they are just books its not like it will mess up your life if the movie is different than the book.
Don't bother.
axellaj17 May 2010
I bought the box set and watched the first two books over the last couple of days. Today, I loaded the first disc of Heaven and Hell and gave up shortly thereafter.
In a word, awful. In four words, "Movie of the week".
The first two books reeked of quality. They were more along the lines of a motion picture, than something made-for-TV. This outing, however, appears to have been done solely for a buck, riding the coattails of books 1 and 2.
The first "uh oh..." moment came when Philip Casnoff's name was listed in the credits - a man who was blown to bits in Book 2. Then, there was no Patrick Swayze... And when they showed his character in shadow at the beginning, no face, well, that kind of said it all about Orry.
Elkanah Bent (played as a cartoon villain by Philip Casnoff) turns up again as a 19th century Snidely Whiplash (John Jakes' narration at the opening of the show tells us Bent died in an expolosion, then explains shortly thereafter that through a "quirk of fate, he survived"). Huh? As I'd just watched the episode where the explosion occurred, it was amazing to see Bent still walking around with his pretty face. Not even his eyebrows were burnt off! While he had some serious scarring on part of one shoulder, that wasn't bad for having been in the centre of a catastrophic explosion and huge fireball reminiscent of a mini-Hiroshima.
I'm assuming Bent's "resurrection" was only a plot device to deal with Orry and the absence of Patrick Swayze.
If this is supposed to follow on immediately after Book 2, then George must've done some serious pigging out in a few weeks, as his face appeared to be quite bloated.
Terri Garber (Ashton) did a great job with her character throughout. However, she looked "different" in this installement. I think this was made around the time when the pressure was beginning to be put on actresses to be stick-thin, and it showed in her face.
The Characters of Charles Main and Billy Hazard were played by different actors (this makes 3 Billys - was it that bad a part to play - or did Parker Stevenson wisely want no part of this stinker?).
The new Charles looks to be the same age as when he first came to Mont Royal. He didn't have the rakish charm of the original, nor did he wear the "life experience".
Again, I believe most strongly that this thing was thrown together for the money, and was not about continuity, or putting out a quality product.
Watch, if you're really bored with life in general. But you're better off to read the books.
In a word, awful. In four words, "Movie of the week".
The first two books reeked of quality. They were more along the lines of a motion picture, than something made-for-TV. This outing, however, appears to have been done solely for a buck, riding the coattails of books 1 and 2.
The first "uh oh..." moment came when Philip Casnoff's name was listed in the credits - a man who was blown to bits in Book 2. Then, there was no Patrick Swayze... And when they showed his character in shadow at the beginning, no face, well, that kind of said it all about Orry.
Elkanah Bent (played as a cartoon villain by Philip Casnoff) turns up again as a 19th century Snidely Whiplash (John Jakes' narration at the opening of the show tells us Bent died in an expolosion, then explains shortly thereafter that through a "quirk of fate, he survived"). Huh? As I'd just watched the episode where the explosion occurred, it was amazing to see Bent still walking around with his pretty face. Not even his eyebrows were burnt off! While he had some serious scarring on part of one shoulder, that wasn't bad for having been in the centre of a catastrophic explosion and huge fireball reminiscent of a mini-Hiroshima.
I'm assuming Bent's "resurrection" was only a plot device to deal with Orry and the absence of Patrick Swayze.
If this is supposed to follow on immediately after Book 2, then George must've done some serious pigging out in a few weeks, as his face appeared to be quite bloated.
Terri Garber (Ashton) did a great job with her character throughout. However, she looked "different" in this installement. I think this was made around the time when the pressure was beginning to be put on actresses to be stick-thin, and it showed in her face.
The Characters of Charles Main and Billy Hazard were played by different actors (this makes 3 Billys - was it that bad a part to play - or did Parker Stevenson wisely want no part of this stinker?).
The new Charles looks to be the same age as when he first came to Mont Royal. He didn't have the rakish charm of the original, nor did he wear the "life experience".
Again, I believe most strongly that this thing was thrown together for the money, and was not about continuity, or putting out a quality product.
Watch, if you're really bored with life in general. But you're better off to read the books.
Absolute Atrocity
wgfinley23 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Words can't describe just how awful this installment is and you will be hard pressed to sit through it for 27 minutes let alone its 274 minutes of total runtime.
First off, it's clear they had zero budget for Book III, Book I and Book II set high marks in production value, this is just plain awful. The cinematography is atrocious, the directing is worse, the composition is terrible and it looks like this was shot on the most low grade stock one could find. I think I have seen adult films with better production value to be honest.
The reduced budget meant that actual interiors had to be used and the sound is absolutely horrid. Lines are muddied and almost completely lost at times because of the reverberations and lack of enough sound coverage. It also takes a toll on lighting and focus, there are just blatant moments where characters delivering lines aren't lit well at all and start out out of focus but suddenly come into focus during the take, totally 3rd rate.
As if this isn't enough you have the plot mangling. Obviously they couldn't afford Patrick Swayze and they let him live in Book II (as I understand he was actually killed in the novel) only to bring him back for a quick and horrid death at the beginning of Book III. His death is absolutely meaningless and since Swayze wasn't available Orry is played by recycling some footage from the prior series installments and then using a stand-in for his actual murder.
Not even the opening narration from John Jakes could save this production. I physically twinged when he read the line "through a strange twist of fate Bent survives", it's nearly as painful as "it was a dark and stormy night".
Buy the box set, throw Book III in the trash and consider yourself well entertained for the week or so it will take you to get through the first two installments and then pretend this one doesn't exist. Trust me, it's better that way.
First off, it's clear they had zero budget for Book III, Book I and Book II set high marks in production value, this is just plain awful. The cinematography is atrocious, the directing is worse, the composition is terrible and it looks like this was shot on the most low grade stock one could find. I think I have seen adult films with better production value to be honest.
The reduced budget meant that actual interiors had to be used and the sound is absolutely horrid. Lines are muddied and almost completely lost at times because of the reverberations and lack of enough sound coverage. It also takes a toll on lighting and focus, there are just blatant moments where characters delivering lines aren't lit well at all and start out out of focus but suddenly come into focus during the take, totally 3rd rate.
As if this isn't enough you have the plot mangling. Obviously they couldn't afford Patrick Swayze and they let him live in Book II (as I understand he was actually killed in the novel) only to bring him back for a quick and horrid death at the beginning of Book III. His death is absolutely meaningless and since Swayze wasn't available Orry is played by recycling some footage from the prior series installments and then using a stand-in for his actual murder.
Not even the opening narration from John Jakes could save this production. I physically twinged when he read the line "through a strange twist of fate Bent survives", it's nearly as painful as "it was a dark and stormy night".
Buy the box set, throw Book III in the trash and consider yourself well entertained for the week or so it will take you to get through the first two installments and then pretend this one doesn't exist. Trust me, it's better that way.
true to the book
KayseyKritter26 August 2004
After watching the first 2 books, this was a bad one. But book 2 totally strayed from the actual story. If Book 2 would not have strayed so far, this story would have made sense in conjunction with the others. I thought this story was well done. It showed a lot of the problems that existed with the Reconstruction era, and the problems associated with a Democratic president from the south, and the Radical Republicans in power in Congress, who were previously all abolitionists before the war. I do think it was weird for George Hazard and Madeline to marry after the death of their spouses. Also they used a different actor for Charles Main. After seeing the same actor for the 2 previous books, they should have tried to get the original guy back. In the whole trilogy, they also used 3 different women for Isabel Hazard, and also 3 different men for Billy Hazard. That's confusing for those who have seen this whole trilogy over and over.
Just not the same
wdw_6813 August 2007
I've only just started watching the first episode of book three after going through a marathon of watching two episodes a night of books one and two. Didn't know there was a third until I got the DVD. Have read the book, but it was a while ago.
Inconsistencies avail in this series. Orry Jr. never seems to age. I noticed this at the end of book two. Orry tells George at the hospital he hasn't seen Madeline in two years. We he reunites with her, the baby looks like he's six months if that. He should be almost two years old!! In book three the time line is fuzzy at best. How soon after the war does the setting take place? Orry Jr. is still not that much older, but Gus, Charles' son, is five years old!! He was born after Orry Jr. who looks like he's maybe a year old.
George mentions kids, as in more than one, but no mention made at the end of book two that he has more than one.
Why would Madeline want to build a house in Mont Royal's front yard, when the slave quarters were not destroyed? I thought she was interested in rebuilding Mont Royal, yet she takes the time to build a school for freed slaves. Doesn't she have Justin's house she could sell or live in, or if that was burned down, the property could be sold to help refinance Mont Royal.
If Charles hated the war so much, why wouldn't he stay behind, raise his son, and help rebuild Mont Royal with Madeline.
Why bother replacing Ezra and Simi with Jane and Issac? Why not bring back the two freed slaves that stayed with them to the end of book 2? And the opening scene with the footage of Patrick Swayze making his way across to the front door. That is obviously Mont Royal, because when Madeline is meeting with Ashton at the friend's house in Charleston, from which the double for Patrick exits, the set up and lighting are way different inside.
Though I am a big fan of the first two, I would only recommend watching the third one out of curiosity. It doesn't have nearly the same quality all around. Thank God it was only three episodes instead of six.
Inconsistencies avail in this series. Orry Jr. never seems to age. I noticed this at the end of book two. Orry tells George at the hospital he hasn't seen Madeline in two years. We he reunites with her, the baby looks like he's six months if that. He should be almost two years old!! In book three the time line is fuzzy at best. How soon after the war does the setting take place? Orry Jr. is still not that much older, but Gus, Charles' son, is five years old!! He was born after Orry Jr. who looks like he's maybe a year old.
George mentions kids, as in more than one, but no mention made at the end of book two that he has more than one.
Why would Madeline want to build a house in Mont Royal's front yard, when the slave quarters were not destroyed? I thought she was interested in rebuilding Mont Royal, yet she takes the time to build a school for freed slaves. Doesn't she have Justin's house she could sell or live in, or if that was burned down, the property could be sold to help refinance Mont Royal.
If Charles hated the war so much, why wouldn't he stay behind, raise his son, and help rebuild Mont Royal with Madeline.
Why bother replacing Ezra and Simi with Jane and Issac? Why not bring back the two freed slaves that stayed with them to the end of book 2? And the opening scene with the footage of Patrick Swayze making his way across to the front door. That is obviously Mont Royal, because when Madeline is meeting with Ashton at the friend's house in Charleston, from which the double for Patrick exits, the set up and lighting are way different inside.
Though I am a big fan of the first two, I would only recommend watching the third one out of curiosity. It doesn't have nearly the same quality all around. Thank God it was only three episodes instead of six.
An Insult to a great legacy
MartynGryphon23 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, whilst this episode does move back to being more akin to the book, it's not what people wanted to see as it plays the havoc with the continuity of the filmed saga and destroys the integrity of the characters that we have invested so much time and admiration in the previous two series.
Only stock footage of Patrick Swayze is used and a body double is used in the scene where the character of Orry Main is murdered by a knife and a runaway smoke machine.
His murderer the evil Elkanah Bent, Who we previously saw blown to smithereens in the penultimate episode of Book II. The opening narration at the beginning by John Jakes doesn't even try to explain Bent's miraculous survival, only that he is alive by some 'quirk of fate'. Which is the biggest character revival cop out since Bobby Ewing came out of the shower, as NO ONE could have been in that explosion and not get turned into crispy duck.
Obviously made on a budget less than my weekly grocery shop and filmed on what looks like a handycam, the film lacks the spectacle, vistas and professionalism that so impressed viewers years before.
We have a new Main brother in the form of Cooper Main, hitherto never mentioned in the television saga played uninspiringly by Robert Wagner who must have been paid in herring judging by this lacklustre performance.
Even the established actors in the cast seems to have forgotten how to act as there a lot of scenes that are actually painful to watch.
RIp Torn is the only one that even turns in half decent performance.
The timeline is all to pot too. This film was supposed to be set a mere months after the events of Season II, which ended in 1865, meanwhile Charles' son Gus who was born somewhere between the time Charles had helped liberate George from Prison in December 1864, but before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865, but is now a 5 year old boy that can walk and talk, yet Orry and Madeline's son is still a baby and was supposedly born before Gus. This makes no sense.
The fact that George and Madeline start to have feelings for each other is 'icky' there are a lot of other absences that are never explained.
This could have been made as a story about a southern families trial and hardship following the South's defeat and not been part of the North and South saga and had a different set of characters entirely and it probably would have fared better, as it is, it is an just an abomination that everyone who loves the North and South saga should give the widest berth possible and be happy that the televised saga of the Main's and the Hazzard's ended at the end of Book II.
This is a classic example of what not to do when adapting a book to television. You either need to stick to the book, or change it completely, not never EVER flit between the two as all momentum can be lost instantaneously.
Only stock footage of Patrick Swayze is used and a body double is used in the scene where the character of Orry Main is murdered by a knife and a runaway smoke machine.
His murderer the evil Elkanah Bent, Who we previously saw blown to smithereens in the penultimate episode of Book II. The opening narration at the beginning by John Jakes doesn't even try to explain Bent's miraculous survival, only that he is alive by some 'quirk of fate'. Which is the biggest character revival cop out since Bobby Ewing came out of the shower, as NO ONE could have been in that explosion and not get turned into crispy duck.
Obviously made on a budget less than my weekly grocery shop and filmed on what looks like a handycam, the film lacks the spectacle, vistas and professionalism that so impressed viewers years before.
We have a new Main brother in the form of Cooper Main, hitherto never mentioned in the television saga played uninspiringly by Robert Wagner who must have been paid in herring judging by this lacklustre performance.
Even the established actors in the cast seems to have forgotten how to act as there a lot of scenes that are actually painful to watch.
RIp Torn is the only one that even turns in half decent performance.
The timeline is all to pot too. This film was supposed to be set a mere months after the events of Season II, which ended in 1865, meanwhile Charles' son Gus who was born somewhere between the time Charles had helped liberate George from Prison in December 1864, but before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865, but is now a 5 year old boy that can walk and talk, yet Orry and Madeline's son is still a baby and was supposedly born before Gus. This makes no sense.
The fact that George and Madeline start to have feelings for each other is 'icky' there are a lot of other absences that are never explained.
This could have been made as a story about a southern families trial and hardship following the South's defeat and not been part of the North and South saga and had a different set of characters entirely and it probably would have fared better, as it is, it is an just an abomination that everyone who loves the North and South saga should give the widest berth possible and be happy that the televised saga of the Main's and the Hazzard's ended at the end of Book II.
This is a classic example of what not to do when adapting a book to television. You either need to stick to the book, or change it completely, not never EVER flit between the two as all momentum can be lost instantaneously.
Heaven and Hell
mscovil-9648318 November 2020
OK but not in the same league as the first two movies
jmfjbf10 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Book 3, which was aired approximately 9 years after the brilliant book 2 North and South Movie was not up to par with the other two movies. Patrick Swayze only appears at the very beginning. I believe the powers that be should've worked harder with Mr. Swayze to get him to return for Book 3. HE WAS ORRY MAIN. The absence of Mr. Swayze's brilliant performance as Orry Main was a huge mistake on part of the producers. However,it was a joy to see James Read reprise his role. Where was Lewis Smith, the original Charles? The absence of Mr. Smith also diminished Book 3. It seems to me that the writers/producers left some big gaps/questions/confusion. Why did people suddenly refer to Charles Main from Book 2 to Charlie Main in Book 3. Please be consistent. The TV romance of George and Madeline was too quick. The writers should have shown a period of years over which the romance took place as I understand the book did. This could've been evidenced by the aging of the children of George and Madeline. Lesley Anne Down did not look comfortable in her role as Madeline in Book 3. She seemed to be trying too hard. I loved the North and South movies and this one was OK. However, it doesn't come close to Books 1 and 2.
Hollywood Strikes Again
chesterprynne18 January 2008
The problem with adaptations of books is the fact that characters on film are often compilations of a number of characters in the books. Orry comes across as a combination of George (physically) and Cooper (socially/politically). If Cooper was a least seen in the earlier mini-series, his presence wouldn't have puzzled everyone. John Jakes's works for some reason always have events out of place when they hit the screen. Hollywood never seems to stop tampering with books that have been read by millions. Obviously, Hollywood thinks it can improve on bestsellers. Remember the Kent Family Chronicles? Characters in the books who never met in the first place are friends. Historical figures have their names changed, etc. Heaven and Hell was a mess, most definitely, but Hollywood should face the fact that people aren't quite as stupid as they think they are. Even if you never read the books, the first two installments were well made. However, the third is a mess. Period.
A Not-So-Hot Mess
melissadel13 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK. I am a HUGE fan of John Jakes' trilogy "North & South", as well as the first two installments of the miniseries ("North & South", and "Love & War"). This chapter -- "Heaven & Hell" must be confusing as all get-out for people who haven't read the books. The book on which this installment is based is actually mirrored pretty well in the movie. However, as a sequel to the first two chapters of the TV miniseries, it makes no sense whatsoever (because Books 1 & 2 strayed about as far from the novels as they could and still say they were "based on" John Jakes' classic trilogy).
I've got to set the record straight on several things, though. First of all, for those of you who are stomping your feet because Patrick Swayze didn't return for Part III, his character, Orry Main, is killed by a Yankee soldier at the end of Book 2 (a Northern soldier has been shot, Orry goes to help him, and the "blue belly" shoots him dead). Another commenter said that Orry was shot in the head by Elkanah Bent, but that is just not the case. So, there was no part for him in the third installment. Second, even in the book, Billy and Brett are hardly mentioned; their progress in California is referenced occasionally in Madeline's diaries, then they show up at the end -- with their FIVE children -- for the big Main/Hazard family reunion. Third, Elkanah Bent (who is WAY more depraved in the books than he is in the movies) really is that, well, BENT on the destruction of the Main and Hazard families. If I have any quarrel with the books, it's his storyline. GET OVER IT! Fourth, the "relationship" between George and Madeline really does just ... happen. It all happens right at the end of the book and is more because they've both lost their beloved spouses and have turned to each other for comfort (too old to "play the field", I guess). Fifth, why on Earth the character of Cooper Main was left out of Books 1 & 2 in the first place, I'll never know because he was a pretty major character (Orry was turned into sort of an amalgam of the two Main sons), but it makes his appearance in Book 3 all the more confusing. In the books, he's a liberal of sorts, who thinks that the practice of slavery is wrong and one that is outdated. He and his father never see eye to eye, so he leaves, moves to Charleston and takes over a shipping company that his father gives to him (just to get him the heck away from Mont Royal). He's the one who's convinced that Northern industry is the key to the future. He becomes interested in shipbuilding and, in fact, ends up serving the Confederacy by building ships with the help of industrialists in Britain. On the return trip, his son drowns and, after that, Cooper pretty much has a nervous breakdown and goes all to pieces and turns into everything that he said he hated about the South. Sixth, Book III ("North & South: Heaven and Hell") focuses primarily on Charles Main and his struggles after The War. Much like Cooper, Charles is pretty much a mental wreck after the end of the war. For those of you looking for more focus on the major players from Books 1 & 2, it's just not there.
All of this said, the production value of this installment is really, really cheesy and not remotely up to the level of the first two miniseries. While I don't think it's quite as bad as some others have stated, there are still plenty of better ways to spend your time. Do yourselves a favor and read the series instead. You'll be glad you did!
I've got to set the record straight on several things, though. First of all, for those of you who are stomping your feet because Patrick Swayze didn't return for Part III, his character, Orry Main, is killed by a Yankee soldier at the end of Book 2 (a Northern soldier has been shot, Orry goes to help him, and the "blue belly" shoots him dead). Another commenter said that Orry was shot in the head by Elkanah Bent, but that is just not the case. So, there was no part for him in the third installment. Second, even in the book, Billy and Brett are hardly mentioned; their progress in California is referenced occasionally in Madeline's diaries, then they show up at the end -- with their FIVE children -- for the big Main/Hazard family reunion. Third, Elkanah Bent (who is WAY more depraved in the books than he is in the movies) really is that, well, BENT on the destruction of the Main and Hazard families. If I have any quarrel with the books, it's his storyline. GET OVER IT! Fourth, the "relationship" between George and Madeline really does just ... happen. It all happens right at the end of the book and is more because they've both lost their beloved spouses and have turned to each other for comfort (too old to "play the field", I guess). Fifth, why on Earth the character of Cooper Main was left out of Books 1 & 2 in the first place, I'll never know because he was a pretty major character (Orry was turned into sort of an amalgam of the two Main sons), but it makes his appearance in Book 3 all the more confusing. In the books, he's a liberal of sorts, who thinks that the practice of slavery is wrong and one that is outdated. He and his father never see eye to eye, so he leaves, moves to Charleston and takes over a shipping company that his father gives to him (just to get him the heck away from Mont Royal). He's the one who's convinced that Northern industry is the key to the future. He becomes interested in shipbuilding and, in fact, ends up serving the Confederacy by building ships with the help of industrialists in Britain. On the return trip, his son drowns and, after that, Cooper pretty much has a nervous breakdown and goes all to pieces and turns into everything that he said he hated about the South. Sixth, Book III ("North & South: Heaven and Hell") focuses primarily on Charles Main and his struggles after The War. Much like Cooper, Charles is pretty much a mental wreck after the end of the war. For those of you looking for more focus on the major players from Books 1 & 2, it's just not there.
All of this said, the production value of this installment is really, really cheesy and not remotely up to the level of the first two miniseries. While I don't think it's quite as bad as some others have stated, there are still plenty of better ways to spend your time. Do yourselves a favor and read the series instead. You'll be glad you did!
Awful, Awful, Awful
gibsoncraig12 July 2003
For fans of the North and South series, this should never have been produced. Never, never, never never!! (If you have seen the first two Books and enjoyed them as most do, don't even consider viewing the third, it will spoil the greatness of the previous work)
not that disappointed
iluvgbn31 October 1999
I first saw North and South back in 85-86 on the television, and later came across Heaven and Hell in a video store. The North and South I am seeing today just does not seem to be what I watched way back when, and when I watched Heaven and Hell it seem to fit with the other just fine. I enjoyed them both. Now I see there is a book 2 that I never even realized was out and I can not find Heaven and Hell any where. I still find the books North and South, Love and War and Heaven Hell to be the all time greatest, but I enjoy watching the movies with an open mine. No movie is ever as good as there books, but then again movies are based on what the producers think the people want and at that time it was Patrick Swayze. I would love to see this one done all over again from the begining maybe using some of todays actors/actresses and staying closer to the books. Why not they redo movies all the time now.(The Parent Trap, Sebrina,The man in the Iron Mask even Titanic) P.S. Does anyone know where I can get my hands on the copies of Heaven and Hell?
Lest we forget
praefectvs22 August 2007
I am a huge North and South fan and I even play the theme music on my IPOD and my car. I thought that book three was going to be a ' making of ' sort of affair with interviews and the like. I was extremely disappointed to say the least. It turned into a Lifetime channel murder mystery. I mean, holding a grudge, can it get any worse?
A lot of us noticed that Charles Main was replaced but the actor who originally played Charles Main WAS in this movies as well and that made it even more confusing to me!!! The original Charles Main played one of the loud mouth KKK guys that kept coming after Madeline and the emancipated slaves at Mount Royal. He was killed toward the end by a volley after pulling off his sheet and shouting " I will never surrender!" Was I the only one that realized that he was in the show?
I almost wish that I didn't watch this movie. The ending of Book II was classic, this installment ruined my faith in mankind, friendship and loyalty of women.
A lot of us noticed that Charles Main was replaced but the actor who originally played Charles Main WAS in this movies as well and that made it even more confusing to me!!! The original Charles Main played one of the loud mouth KKK guys that kept coming after Madeline and the emancipated slaves at Mount Royal. He was killed toward the end by a volley after pulling off his sheet and shouting " I will never surrender!" Was I the only one that realized that he was in the show?
I almost wish that I didn't watch this movie. The ending of Book II was classic, this installment ruined my faith in mankind, friendship and loyalty of women.
They should have just continued the mini-series.
travinitrav17 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I know a lot of purists complained the first two mini-series were not very true to the original books. But thats fine. They were made for TV, not reading, and they were entertaining. The third mini-series is closer to the book but thats the problem. Its not the book. And its not entertaining. They should have just continued the story they told in the first two movies, even if it wasn't accurate to the book. It was made too many years later and it seems to have suffered. None of the characters is quite as interesting as before, though that could owe to the actors having moved on and done other work for so long they couldn't find their motivation. The story may have been good but was told so poorly it just feels bland. Ashtons plot with the piano dealer wasn't all that interesting and was poorly told anyway. The only good part is where she shoots her way out of the brothel. Charles plot was pretty good in some parts. The Indian fighting wasn't all that great, but his love interest and sons kidnapping had some excitement. The actor playing him did a much worse job than the fellow from the first two movies. Bent was not nearly as interesting as before. Yes, he had a good story but the movie just didn't make it interesting enough. Brett was thrown in sort of haphazardly, probably just to give the actress the feeling that she was missed. They could have dumped her entirely and sped up the story. The romance between George and Madeline was alright but never seemed that epic or important. I never cared that much one way or the other about Cooper. Shame because his character was interesting in the book and Robert Wagner is a good actor. Stanly and Isabels contribution was minimal to the movie even though they were supposed to be very important to the plot.
Overall: Weak. It could have & should have been so much better. They probably should have continued to ignore the details in the books and just made a good movie. Then fans would have two high-quality versions of the story: The book version and the TV version.
Overall: Weak. It could have & should have been so much better. They probably should have continued to ignore the details in the books and just made a good movie. Then fans would have two high-quality versions of the story: The book version and the TV version.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
