Sommersby (1993) User Reviews

Underrated Civil War drama with Richard Gere and Jodie Foster

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 13 December 2016]

Released in 1993 and directed by Jon Amiel, "Sommersby" stars Richard Gere as a Confederate soldier returning to his rundown estate in Tennessee and his wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), after a long six years absence. Curiously, Laurel discovers that the war has changed Jack for the better. Bill Pullman plays his rival for Laurel's affections while James Earl Jones appears as a judge in the final act.

This is such a well-done Civil War drama, taking place just after the war in 1866-1867. The story is contrived, but executed believably with convincing performances. Contrived or not, something like this COULD happen, if you reflect on it. I can't say more because it's best that you go into the movie without knowing the revelations of the final act. The first half is low-key, but it's just a foundation for the realistic thrills of the mid-point and the suspenseful drama of the closing act.

The film runs 114 minutes and was shot in Virginia with the opening winter scene filmed at Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort, West Virginia.

GRADE: B+

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ***SPOILER ALERT***

A clueless reviewer criticized the film on the grounds that "this story fell a bit flat for me when Jack, for some reason, doesn't tell the same (true) story (that clarifies the identity confusion) to the court, that he does to his wife in the final jail scene."

This is incredible because the movie plainly reveals several reasons why Jack didn't want to tell the truth that he wasn't really Jack Sommersby: (1.) The freed blacks and others who bought & farmed parts of his land would lose it; (2.) his wife & daughter would be condemned as an adulteress and a bastard child respectively; (3.) he "buried" Horace Townsend forever when he buried the real Jack Sommersby; he wasn't willing to "resurrect" that wicked loser, even at the cost of his life.

And (4.) If jack was proved to be Horace, and was released, another court would have arrested him on the grounds that he was a liar, an impostor and a thief. That court would NOT have released him on the grounds that he had found love and done charitable things while impersonating a dead man. He would have gone to prison and possibly even died for his actual crimes.

So dying for a cause he believed in, for people who respected him, made more sense than dying without any honor or legacy whatsoever.

Is He Or Isn't He

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 19 February 2002]

For the most part I found this movie to be nothing more than a routine movie about a man who may not be who he claims to be. But then, somehow, the last twenty minutes or so struck a chord with me and made the whole thing worthwhile.

Richard Gere plays Jack Sommersby (or does he?), a Confederate veteran of the Civil War who returns home after several years in a Federal prison camp. He is accepted by the townsfolk and by his wife, but he is a changed man (war could do that) and suspicions begin to rise. Ultimately, the question of his true identity becomes a life and death issue when he faces trial for murder. Is it or is it not a case of mistaken identity?

Richard Gere handled this role superbly. I was very impressed with him. I was less impressed with Jodie Foster, who seemed terribly miscast to me. Be warned: this is not a fast-paced movie, and it sometimes bogs down, but it manages to hold its own. Not a classic by any means, but worth a look-see.

6/10

Jodie Foster superb as always, the rest so-so!

[bfg-5 · 6/10 · 8 May 2002]

Oh what a gorgeous woman.. (repeat until tongue seizes!).

This movie is OK, but, the screen lights up at Miss Fosters performance and presence.

Previously I didn't think twice about Miss Fosters appeal other than as a top drawer actress. But now I think differently.

Now all I need is for Miss Foster to take another feminine role, in a film with a good story and I'll die happy.

An intelligent, beautiful and moving epic

[Geofbob · 28 December 2001]

I'm sorry for this long digression, but Sommersby reminds me of Berthold Brecht's play The Good Woman of Szechuan, based on a biblical parable. In the original parable, two women each claim that a baby is hers. King Solomon says he'll settle the matter by cutting the baby in half; one woman stops him, saying that the other can have the baby. Solomon gives the baby to the woman who has offered to relinquish it, on the basis that she loves the baby more than the other, so she must be the real mother. But in Brecht's version it is the false mother who relinquishes, and is therefore given, the baby. Brecht draws the Marxist moral from the story that things belong to those who love and use them best, regardless of legal ownership.

Jon Amiel's beautiful and touching film, adapted from a French movie, makes much the same point - that the pretended Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) deserves to be regarded as the true husband of Laurel (Jody Foster) because he loves her more than the legal one; deserves to be regarded as the owner of the Sommersby land because he works it better; and deserves Sommersby's name - whatever that brings - because he honours it more.

At a realistic level there are a few difficulties in translating the original Martin Guerre story from the Middle Ages to the post Civil War era, and parts of the courtroom sequence could have been more incisive; but these flaws are of little account, compared with the overall sweep of the film, both plot-wise, but especially visually. It achieves epic proportions at some points, and there are wide vistas of people working in the fields reminiscent of Terrence Mallick's Days of Heaven, which also starred Gere.

It seems to be the done thing on these postings to sneer at Gere's acting; I've no idea why. Time after time, in a wide range of parts and films - from Yanks and An Officer and a Gentleman to Internal Affairs and Pretty Woman - he delivers professional and sensitive performances. Here again, his performance is impeccable; as is that of Jodie Foster, whose part calls for her to be restrained, especially when Sommersby first appears. (Incidentally, I couldn't care less whether there was any so-called chemistry between Gere and Foster; some film-goers should get it into their heads that couples on the screen are acting at making love, not engaging in the real activity.)

same scene two times

[elredmond · 7/10 · 24 April 2006]

a lot of my family and many friends were extras in this movie(it was shot in the court house in my home town). my uncle, father, and a few teachers and acquaintances are clearly shown in the court scene, and the guy who says "hear ye, hear ye" is definitely one of my neighbors. (it's funny, he got credit for that). but at the end of the movie you can see my grandmother, twice. When Jodie foster is running through the crowd screaming "jack, jack", you see my grandmothers face take up nearly all the screen. it flashes to a view of Richard about to be hung, and then shoots back to Jodie running into, and around, my grandmother a second time. isn't' it obvious that they used the same shot twice? you think they'd try not to do that same one in a 5 second slot.

Falls short towards the end

[ODDBear · 7/10 · 21 October 2004]

Gere returns home from the civil war. Trouble is everybody believed him to be dead and his wife notices some things about him that just don't seem right. Some anatomical inaccurisies pop up and he just seems to be a completely different person. Could this man be an impostor?

This is one of those good romantic films that falls short just towards the end. For most of it's running time the film plays out very well. Gere and Foster have excellent chemistry, the story is intriguing and well written. The overly sentimental conclusion and bad ending really hurt the film.

It's really a shame, this one had the potential of being outstanding.

7 out of 10

this romance not for me

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 17 January 2017]

The American Civil War has ended. A man claiming to be Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) returns to his southern plantation. The town is overjoyed. His wife Laurel (Jodie Foster) outwardly accepts him despite being happily widowed from her abusive husband. Disabled veteran neighbor Orin Meacham (Bill Pullman) is her romantic admirer. The returned Jack seems to have changed into a better man and Laurel falls in love with him. They rebuild their family with their son Rob by growing tobacco with the locals including the newly freed slaves. Events and his secret identity threaten to destroy them.

The elephant in the room keeps me from falling in love with this romance. Richard Gere has a bit too much of his modern boyish charms. He seems out of place. I need him to have a more intense war-haunted demeanor. It may also help if Meacham is played by a darker and more threatening villain. It would have been great to have Laurel knowing Jack is an impostor from the beginning, accuse Jack in private right off the bat, and falling in love in spite of it. While I can understand why this romance works for some people, it doesn't work for me.

A Bitter Sweet Romance

[ebender-1 · 10/10 · 17 June 2004]

This is another one of my favorite Richard Gere movies, this guy is one gifted actor.

This movie is mainly about character study and the love between the two leads Jack Sommersby(Richard Gere)and his wife Laurel(Jodie Foster).

Jack Sommersby comes back from the Civil War seeming to be a changed man(for the better). All the neighbors and especially Laurel want the change to be real, so they just believe it whether it's true or not. Lets face it most people have probably at one time or another done the same thing, I know I have.

Later Jack is arrested for murder and the real question is asked. Is he or is he not Jack Sommersby?

The love that Jack(Richard)and Laurel(Jodie)have for each other is very important because it comes into play during the trial and at the ending of the movie. The ending of this movie was the only proper way to end it for the characters involved.

Richard Gere is a master when it comes to showing tenderness, sensitivity and compassion on screen. It was good to see these two actors Jodie Foster and Richard Gere playing the lead rolls, they complemented each other.

This is a beautifully written love story and a real tear jerker. I rate this movie a 10.

Gere!

[kenandraf · 7/10 · 15 October 2001]

Fair civil war romance/drama that suffers from asking the audience to believe too much unlikely scenarios.Also,there are some poorly choreographed confrontation/fight scenes which could have easily been done better given the pains taken to have a good attention to detail here with regards to the set.The acting was inconsistent as was the directing and editing.I also noted a negative tension between Gere and Foster during their kissing scenes which I believe was not supposed to be there for their characters.It seems to have more to do with the actors behind the scenes chemistry.The courtroom scenes were also poorly done as they seemed to be rushed.The final scenes of the movie though was very good and touching for an audience who have a mature taste on the meaning of life and love.Although these final scenes were not enough to save the movie from mediocrity.Ony for love story fans,soap drama fans and big fans of the lead actors.......

A tale of two halves

[Luther-32 · 4/10 · 19 April 2020]

The story is based on the film "the Return of Martin Guerre", which itself is based upon a real affaire/trial set in 16th century southern France. To know more, read Zemon-Davis' book (on the real trial), watch the original film, both epic!

That said, I was eager to see how the remake would transpose in post civil war Amercia.

After the demise of the Confederates, Gere, aka Sommersby, comes back to his small southern town, after 6 long years of war. He has to rebuild his couple and the family fortunes (as well as that of the town's).

The first part is based on the Sommerby's finding and (re)discovering each other as well as the reconstruction of the economic activity of the town. And it works well, the couple Foster/Gere is touching, the plots flow nicely. So far, it's a good, entertaining, do good film...

and then... Sommersby's dark past resurfaces.

That's the second part of the film where it goes pear shape... and not even a tasty pear. The filmakers rushed in their attempts to adapt the original story and totally failed to catch up with the most important part, the trial. When the story should have reached a climax, we have instead a very painful succession of improbable twists and a miserable ending.

Sommersby was inspired by a fantastic real story and started fairly well, despite many liberties, it was potentially an epic film. However... in their effort to (partly) follow the original denouement, the crucial unraveling of the story, the filmakers botched the whole thing. Knowing the original plot, I understand why it was so important to try and adapt from it. But they rushed it, and in trying to put A and B together, they used cheap shortcuts and to me, they wrecked it all. Too bad...

More believable than generally given credit for.

[cada123 · 8/10 · 19 March 2002]

In events occuring before the time line in the story, Homer meets and gets to know his double, Jack Sommersby, in a Civil War prison. When Jack dies, Homer decides (for reasons barely hinted at) to impersonate Jack and take up his life where it had left off before the war six years earlier.

Viewers who have trouble accepting this story's basic premise and its subplots must not understand denial, the strongest defense mechanism of all. Laurel believes the returning soldier to be her missing husband because she wants to -- as does her son, and indeed the whole town (with a few menacing exceptions). This new guy is nicer than the other one. He is good to his wife, his kid, and his poor struggling neighbors, inspiring them all to work together to save the community at large from certain starvation if things do not change. In short, they all *need* this Jack Sommersby; therefore, he must *be* Jack Sommersby.

When folks are in denial -- does anybody not believe in mass hysteria? -- discrepancies are often overlooked, and reality is suspended. If that is hard to swallow, then consider that some folks were well aware of Homer's impersonation (if not his true identity), but chose to ignore it because it was in their best interests to do so.

The courtroom situation is another area where viewers have remarked on non-reality. But this may be chalked up to historical artifact. With today's high levels of movie/TV courtroom drama, and even genuine courtroom TV, this century's viewing audiences are far more sophisticated than the actual participants of court proceedings of the mid-19th Century, even among many lawyers and judges of the era. I had no trouble believing the courtroom of a small, largely uneducated community might have gone just the way it did in this movie... ...except for one thing, where all belief is suspended: the black judge, presiding over a southern courtroom, just after the Civil War. If there actually were any black judges in existence then, my guess would be that, like the few practicing black MD's, they were restricted to cases involving blacks, Native Americans, etc -- and not the trial of a white (and formerly rich) landowner.

Yet this plot device does not get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie over all. The judge strives mightily to be impartial, even with those townspeople who would not be so with him. Their rabid hatred of his race cries out for justice; therefore, the judge appears to provide it, with almost comic relief, precisely at a point when the tension demands it.

A haunting, well-told tale for those who appreciate depth of character over high-paced action for its own sake.

A solid 109 minutes

[r96sk · 7/10 · 9 June 2020]

A good film, if one that doesn't entirely hit every note it attempts.

'Sommersby' features a strong cast, with Richard Gere leading as Jack ahead of Jodie Foster (Laurel). Those two do have sizeable chemistry together, which makes a lot of the romance work here. James Earl Jones and Frankie Faison also add to the film in their respective roles of Isaacs and Joseph.

The premise is no doubt interesting, as it keeps you thinking for the vast majority. It does cover quite a few bases, but I don't think it fleshes everything out perfectly; especially the racism parts. I'm not hating though, as it largely makes for a solid 109 minutes all in all.

I found the premise of this movie completely unbel...

[fester-5 · 3/10 · 11 August 1998]

I found the premise of this movie completely unbelievable. Waiting for a plot twist that would make it work was distracting. This was a case of good acting with a bad story. If you don't care if it makes sense, you may enjoy the picture.

Sweet and noble tear jerker

[gberke · 17 April 2001]

This is a sweet film with noble causes and a grand love story. I've seen it umm, 4 times? now... An improbable story, but moral, epic, just after the civil war, of an imposter southern gentleman returning to his run down plantation, wife, child, and joining all together, black and white, to bring a tobacco farm to being, against great odds, and prosperity to the town.

But the man he is posing as must be prosecuted as a criminal... the imposter can continue the ruse and die for the crime, or confess his true identity, and undo his love, his work, his community. He must prove to the court that he is indeed Jack Sommersby, and must extract Fosters (his wife's) testimony, against her will, that he is Jack Sommersby, because as Jack, he will die. A few grand lines... when Foster must say that he is indeed her husband, that she never loved "Jack the way I loved you" and Gere, in his cell, asks her to be there at his hanging "I can do this thing if you are there."

I've enjoyed it each time I've seen it, and it brings grand tears each time.

Surrealistic story overcomes realistic medium

[critical_reference · 7/10 · 19 March 2002]

I really was skeptical about this movie. It seemed it would be another good imaginative story that failed because Hollywood relies on crystal clear "realistic" film-making. But the film did work for me. After awhile, I was comfortable with these people's acceptance of this man as Jack Sommersby. And if you can more than you ever hoped for by just believing...well, it's definitely a great date flick.

A clever idea... but plays it safer and safer

[fredrikgunerius · 6/10 · 6 August 2023]

There's a clever idea serving as the basis for this film: A farmer returns to his village after fighting in the American Civil War and subsequently being imprisoned for desertion, and turns out to be a much better and compassionate husband and townsman than he was before he left. What has made him change? The period elements are well done initially, and the story is told with an agreeable rhythm by director Jon Amiel (later of Copycat and Entrapment). With a big budget and stars Richard Gere and Jodie Foster trying their hand at the 1800s for the first time, there's a lot at stake for Sommersby. And it ultimately shows, because the picture plays it safer and safer as we get closer and closer to the denouement of the mystery. There's a drawn out segment from a courtroom which feels more like the 1993 version of Richard Gere explaining the plot of a period picture than the charged climax it should have been. Gere and Foster are fine in the interpersonal segments and the everyday life in the village, but they cannot help coming off as anachronistic during said trial. It's partly Amiel's fault, of course - he strips away the story's edge and pain and replaces it with a docile romance aesthetic. Based on the 1982 French film Le Retour de Martin Guerre, which in turn was based on real events from the 16th century.

Engaging and well acted, with an intriguing plot twist

[Nat-21 · 9/10 · 12 February 1999]

"Sommersby" is an intriguing film that keeps the audience barely outside the scenes but close enough to be touched by them. The story, of Jack Sommersby (or so it appears) a changed man after returning to his wife and hometown years after being held captive in the Civil War, was borrowed from the French film "The Return of Martin Guerre." But apparently this one has some new twists.

As we watch this movie, we're not quite sure what to think. The townspeople, his friends, his dog and even his own wife aren't certain this is the man who left for the war. That, and the trial toward the end of the movie, stretches credulity a bit, my minor complaints. But after all, this is the movies, and there is a pretty good story here. A real tear-jerker, for certain.

Jodie Foster and Richard Gere carry this plot well, both putting in what I believe is some of their best work. The direction and cinematography also shine.

In the end, this movie is all about pure love of a man for a woman, in which he literally loves her more than life itself. That may seem a bit hokey, but it's a refreshing and enduring message in an movie age in which a one-night stand passes for a long-term relationship.

american version

[wodulf · 7/10 · 13 September 2020]

American version of french movie the return of martin guerre 1982 with gerard depardieu

Sommersby - Difficult to Identify With

[krocheav · 5/10 · 23 August 2019]

The plot of this glossy remake of a based-on-fact story leaves much to be desired - pacing is poor and too many situations just don't hold up. Most performances are good but its Jody Fosters film all the way. A big budget was allocated to this production but somehow it never looks as convincing as it should. Romantics might enjoy the situations but anyone looking for believability might be better off seeking out the original. Still, good entertainment for the easily pleased.

Foster, Gere, and Jones do their best, but the script has problems

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 2 February 2023]

It's an identity drama set in 1866-67 small-town Tennessee, soon after the end of the Civil War. It follows a man who returns from the war and has questions raised about whether he is who he says he is. It's loosely based on the 1982 French film, "Le retour de Martin Guerre."

Jack Sommersby (Richard Gere) returns home in 1866 after six years from his wife and young son. He had been thought killed as a soldier in the Confederate army. His wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), has tried to maintain the family estate with the help of Orin Meacham (Bill Pullman), who she agrees to marry if her husband doesn't turn up in another year. Jack says he has been in prison for four years.

Jack takes leadership in rallying the town to try a new crop--tobacco. He promises to sell off parts of his land to locals if the community share crops the tobacco. In addition, he insists that newly-freed slaves be part of the arrangement, to the dismay of some. Several incidents raise questions about Jack's identity, and his sudden arrest and trial for capital murder lead Jack and Laurel to face difficult decisions. The trial has added intrigue because Judge Isaacs (James Earl Jones) is African American.

Foster is a favorite actress of mine. She, Richard Gere, James Earl Jones, and Bill Pullman are fine in their roles. The problem with the movie is the script. It tries to make a storyline believable that stretches credulity. Better writing could have made it marginally more plausible. Foster, Gere, and Jones do their best, and the film is entertaining, but the script detracts from "Sommersby"'s potential.

Phew! Stinko Long Boring Chick Flick

[pluto-11 · 5/10 · 8 April 2001]

I like films set in a Historical context - especially those set in the American Civil War period. A good example of such a film is Ang Lee's "Ride with the Devil". This one, "Summersby", is contrived, unbelievable and boring. I have liked films with Jodie Foster. I have liked films with Richard Gere. Together? Noooo chemistry I could detect - good acting, but no sexual tension. A film must have some mutual attraction going for a romance/suspense film such as this to succeed. Perhaps the rumored sexual tendencies of these two fine actors is swaying my opinion subconsciously, but I just didn't detect any attraction between them. Then the concept - that married people separated for a couple of years wouldn't recognize each other? No way. I'm sorry. No way! Then sitting through the whole thing when I progressively buy the premise less and less just didn't make for a good experience for me.

I give it a 5 out of 10. Gere and Foster deserve that for showing up. But unless your powers of "suspension of disbelief" are far more powerful than my own, I suggest staying away from this one.

"I'm Thinkin', Who Is This Man Sittin' In My Kitchen?"

[stryker-5 · 4 March 1999]

A soldier comes home from the Civil War to his village, and his wife and son. The South during the Reconstruction period is an austere, impoverished place. The returning man, Jack Sommersby, quickly establishes himself as the leader of the community and sets about rebuilding the people's prosperity. But is he who he claims to be?

Hollywood's version of the Martin Guerre legend, "Sommersby" boasts a good performance by Richard Gere and a wonderful one by Jodie Foster (as Laurel, Sommersby's wife). Until it allows itself to be deflected by an unconvincing and unnecessary murder trial, the film is a likeable and sensitive study of love and identity.

The story moves through the seasons, from the harshness of winter in the aftermath of war to the solemnity of autumn as Jack Summersby is led away to Nashville. As the opening credits roll, Summersby is literally in the 'dead' of winter, surrounded by images of mortality. He buries a body (the real Jack?) under a pile of rocks, then walks through a cemetery. Children prod the swinging corpse of a hanged man. Hope returns in the spring, as Jack distributes land to the villagers and launches the tobacco-growing project. High summer brings the successful maturing of the crop and with it the pinnacle of Summersby's fortunes.

The murder trial weakens the film irretrievably. It does not sit comfortably with what has preceded it, and just does not work as a courtroom drama. The ground has not been prepared for it, and so the film is obliged to lurch in an unexpected direction. Laurel is called as a surprise witness for the Defence, and Jack is startled as she approaches the stand. Is it really conceivable that Jack's attorney would adopt this strategy without having discussed it with his client?

"Is this a court of law?" asks the prosecutor, and the viewer is inclined to wonder the same thing. No attorney would say, "I believe the prosecution has proved beyond a doubt ..." The lawyer's personal belief has no relevance at all, and it is for the jury to decide if the case has been proved, not the prosecutor. Taking a straw poll of opinions in the public gallery is utter nonsense, as is the presence of a black judge in a Southern court in the 1860's. And judges do not pronounce on guilt or innocence. Juries do that. The word 'sassy' is hardly likely to have been in currency with its modern meaning in Tennessee 130 years ago. That a defendant in a murder trial should fire his attorney then immediately cross-examine his own wife, who is HIS witness, is incredible.

The early part of the film lays emphasis on the human cost of war. Many of the menfolk of Tennessee are maimed or mentally scarred. Sommersby explains the changes that have come over him by hinting that he has undergone some psychological trauma and personality shift.

Laurel works in the field, trying to hoe the dirt while encumbered by her long skirts. This is a metaphor of her life as a Southern woman of the period. She married a man who neither loved nor respected her, then 'lost' him in the war. Now she has the burden of learning to love this man all over again. Just as her skirts hamper her, as a woman she is restricted socially and emotionally.

Tiny Jodie Foster turns in a mighty performance. Her character is by turns grave, coquettish, withdrawn and affectionate - and at all times bestowed with intelligence and dignity. This is a woman who yearns to be loved, but whose painful experiences have taught her to be wary.

Bill Pullman is good as Orin, the capable, trustworthy local man who was courting the 'widow' Laurel and had expectations of marriage until Jack showed up. His feud with Jack is thoughtfully handled. Orin helps cure the tobacco bug problem when a lesser man would have enjoyed Jack's discomfiture.

Ultimately, the story just does not ring true. Would a whole village take a stranger for the man who grew up in its midst? And Jack's final choice (which cannot be revealed here) negates everything for which he has striven. It defies logic.

A mess of a remake

[Kreme · 4/10 · 5 November 1999]

This remake of The Return of Martin Guerre is little more than a mixed-up waste of time. Jodie Foster is fine. The translation from medieval France to Civil War USA is nothing short of silly. If you found even a speck of interest in this film you owe it to yourself to see the original, which, incidently, is a true story.

Its about true love

[rezabahmanzad · 10/10 · 7 December 2018]

This movie is one of the best movies i've ever seen. Both Jodie Foster and Richard Gere were great and I can't tell you how strongly they played, Amazing movie!

A fairly poor remake

[EdeBorrett · 3/10 · 17 February 2021]

I am fascinated by the constant comments about this story being "unbelievable" considering it is solidly based on a true story and the basic premise is accurate to that story.

Having said that this is a VERY poor remake of the original movie (the Return of Martin Guerre, with Gerard Depardieu in the title role). Unlike some critics I don't have a real problem with Richard Gere although he is totally out-acted by Jodie Foster. My main problem is why relocate the movie to the US and the Civil War in the first place? Does Hollywood really still believe that its audiences will only watch movies set in the US?.

Overall the movie is nowhere near as good as the original - especially in the trial scenes and in the relationship between the two main characters.

It's a passable waste of time but for entertainment and emotional involvement, watch the original.