Their Eyes Were Watching God (2005 TV Movie) User Reviews

Taking the extraordinary and making it ordinary!

[michelle33 · 5/10 · 7 March 2005]

If this movie is your first introduction to Zora Neale Hurston's Masterpiece called Their Eyes Were Watching God, then you owe it to yourself to read the book. In fact, it's the only way you'll truly be transported to the another time and place. The television movie didn't even begin to capture the spirit of the book. This book wasn't about a great romance. It was about a woman's self discovery. First off, it's pretty obvious that more than two and a half hours were needed to adequately tell Janie's story. Because the filmmakers didn't take the time, viewers were left with a fast-paced, glossed over, cliff note version of Janie's life. I won't spoil anything if I say viewers were left with big gaping holes specifically what drove this central character. What about Janie's background made her make the choices she made? Most glaring, is it possible to span more than 20 years and not get even a wrinkle? Come on! How can a character look exactly the same at the end of a movie as she did at the beginning? especially after enduring such hardships. I'll admit my stomach turned flips when I found out this picture was being made. Our works of literature are precious and they should be treated as such. If you can't make it better, then leave it alone. Zora deserved better!

Whatever...

[qtipp463 · 5/10 · 20 November 2005]

In class we watched their eyes were watching god, and i found that the movie and the book, although most of the time actually corresponded. It still did not meet my expectations of what i thought the movie should have been like. In the book, it was basically impossible to understand what was going on. Due to the slang words, and abbreviated text, it Forced me to go back and read a page over and over again until i finally got the point. And when i finally got the point i realized that there was a reason for the slang words and abbreviated text. To show the true meaning, and give an accurate description and idea of how things were during this time period. Harsh, separated by race, and a very southern setting. Unlike in the movie where the main character Halley Barry or Janie spoke in a weak southern voice almost sounding like a regular educated person, and did not seem to work half as hard as Janie did in the novel. It was good that the two (movie and novel) did correspond with some exact lines put into the movie which gave somewhat of a good picture of how the book put the story, but i would have rather seen a better effort on other things such as language and attitude rather than exact content from the book. Some may find the movie enjoyable, but me in particular did not find it to be to amusing. Just an average movie. But it did also send out a message that was meaningful as well don't get me wrong, and that is "The story teaches that material things are all right in their place, but if we exchange them for real living and true love, we lose out. Even though there is a tragic end, you find yourself still happy that Janie experienced the kind of love we all dream about." -breesummit.

Never Having Read The Book.....

[Foutainoflife · 7/10 · 2 February 2019]

I didn't think this was that bad. It is a woman's story about going through a few relationships before finding love.

The film is well made with acting, camera work and pace all being consistently good. I also thought the plot was well scripted. However, I never really felt as much passion I think one would want from this sort of film.

read the book!

[danyella82 · 8 March 2005]

There are at least a few good things about the made for television version of Ms. Hurston's classic, Their Eyes Were Watching God. The first being the cinematography, as it is often moody, always rich, and at points ethereal: the water could not be bluer, nor could the people be more vibrantly brown. Also, it is worth noting the clever choices Mr. Martin made when deciding what to film. For instance, in the scene when Janie lies in bed with her first husband and ponders what he would do if she were to ever leave him, the director gives us a rather telling portrait of their relationship with just a few shots. He begins making the inner thigh of Logan Killicks' the center of the frame, thus allowing us to see the old man's flabby skin as it nearly falls from its bone. It is a sensitive portrait; for Killicks is no longer repulsive to the viewer- he is simply ashen, old, and, most importantly, an inappropriate suitor for the supple Janie.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a fine performance by Nicki Michauex and the delight of seeing Ruby Dee working, I find little else commendable about this theatrical mishap. To begin, it seems everyone involved with this production, from the screenwriters, producers, director, and the dialect coach- if one existed at all, did everything in their power to strip TEWWG of its blackness. And by the erasure of "blackness" I am referring to the production's lack of humor and word play, the lack of southern accents and sense of community, that there is no juke joint, hard work, eroticism, and constant reminders of racism so key to Hurston's understanding of the rural Black experience. (What so many Brooklyn accents were doing in Eatonville Florida is beyond me! Moreover, why Halle Berry was not encouraged to do something with her voice, other than what she did in Finding Isaiah is equally distressing.) Those who have read and care deeply about the book will also find disappointing the screenwriters' insistence on whittling down such an obvious celebration and examination of black rural life into a love story, as the camera simply refuses to venture beyond Teacake and Janie's bedroom.

Most regrettably, is the omission of life on the muck, where Janie and her man worked as migrant workers along with persons with colorful names like Bootyny, Sop-de-Bottom, and Stew Beef. For life on the muck, according to Ms. Hurston provides a complex view of Black life. It was in those pages, after all, us readers watched the workers dance at the juke, play the dozens, and deal with their respective experiences of being black, transient, impoverished, and yet, amazingly resilient. This they did with imagination, wit, ingenuity, and violence.

On a sadder note it was on the muck that Teacake beat Janie as other men so proudly beat their women, thereby showing us what Nanny really meant when she confirmed "de n***er woman" to be "de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see." Also, it was via the beating that us readers understood the union of Janie and Teacake to be problematic, if not doomed and not just an excuse for the cheesy face licking of Ms. Berry and Mr. Ealy.

Sadly, these factors will all be lost on those who forwent the novel and settled for the television spectacle. One can only hope that Ms. Winfrey and company's pedestrian effort will encourage others to examine or reexamine Ms. Zora Neale Hurston's masterpiece.

who to blame?

[aja1121 · 6/10 · 21 April 2005]

There are many themes in the novel and I think that the film captured the most important. I am almost certain that this is not all that was filmed. Oprah, only produced the film, she had no hand in directing or editing. There is a discrepancy about what the major theme of the novel is (we can argue about that for years). That is not the point. The point is, a film can only get but so close to the book. The movie was not called "Zora Neale Hurston's: Their Eyes Were Watching God", it was only based on the novel. When filming, it is not the director's priority to make sure that they are within their time constraint, that is the editor's concern. I am certain that the copy before editing was great. Just think about how long they had been filming! However, they only had a 2 1/2 slot with commercials, there is no way they can do the book any justice in that time. If it was a miniseries, despite all of the acting flaws many of you brought up, it would have been much better. Before we criticize how bad the film was, think about the timing, and scenes that may have been sacrificed just to get on TV. I am pretty sure that they wanted to make Ms. Hurston, proud, but in the film industry there are so many internal conflicts and setbacks that us viewers never see or know about. Who is to blame?

Their Eyes were Watching God

[aniquebaby · 6/10 · 30 November 2005]

I read the book and when i seen the preview for the movie i was very excited, after seeing the movie i was disappointed. It wasn't like the book although i did enjoy Michael Ealy I felt that Halle Berry's performance was over rated they should have had someone younger playing young Janie then Halle playing older Janie but don't get me wrong I'm not knocking Halle I mean she gave a good performance it just would have expressed the mood better that she still looked good when she was older but she did mature from her younger years. Also I wished they had of started from the beginning and let people know that when she was younger she didn't know she was black i thought that was a very entertaining part of the novel and would've been a good scene on the screen. Other than that the movie was good specially the part at the piano i thought that was so pretty.

Could be much better if longer..

[vitachiel · 7/10 · 5 January 2009]

Halle Berry once again proves her skills in this romantic drama. Feelings of joy, anger, sadness or passion, Berry acts out all these feelings with the same ease and intensity.

Their Eyes Were Watching God is an interesting movie about a woman growing up in a society were she cannot live out her considerable self-awareness until she finally finds the one with whom she can put into practice her freedom-loving personality, only to end up as a grieved but satisfied widow.

The big flaw of this movie is its length. The story is just too long to fit into the length of a feature film. Consequently we jump with haste from one chapter to the next; in the beginning, Janie is a single 17-year old girl, the next minute she is married to an old farmer and before this relationship is properly worked out, she is leaving to get married again, this time to the ambitious Mr. Starks. Suddenly, 20 years have passed by and the end of that relationship is already in sight… As a result of this swift story-telling, some features are much simplified, such as the portrayal of the gossiping townsfolk of Eatonville and the happy hippie community in the mixed town at the end.

Yes, this would be perfect material for a decent mini series, but alas.

Not All Books Should Be Movies

[view_and_review · 5/10 · 16 December 2020]

I just recently finished reading the book "Their Eyes Were Watching God" for a book club so to see the movie now was perfect. I had a fresh reference of the source material in my head to compare the movie to.

Maybe I should've waited longer to watch the movie.

I liked the book TEWWG even if it was a love/hate relationship with it at times. But some books don't translate well into films, and "Their Eyes" is one of them. Halle Berry was a fine choice to play the lead character, Janie, but there were so many subtleties and nuances that were missed it didn't do the book justice.

"Their Eyes" the movie did well to convey that Janie wanted love and found love with Tea Cake (Michael Ealy), but it missed so much more. The book encompassed love yes, but also colorism, sexism, classism, and racism. All of those elements were missing plus others that can't properly be portrayed on screen.

I understand the desire to turn Zora Neale Hurston's book into a movie; it's like giving it the attention and respect it deserves. But I also believe that not all books should be movies, and to make a movie out of a book just because it's loved is still not the best course of action. Yes, "Their Eyes" the movie could've been better, but I think the silver screen could only do so much.

happy with movie, not with hosting channel

[Melrosemiss · 9/10 · 10 March 2005]

While I would never classify this in a category with Roots, I think it was an excellent movie, made bad by the fact that for every 7 minutes of movie, there were 7 minutes of boring and dull commercials which were extremely irritating. I am a middle aged white female and must say that I do think this movie would be of more interest to the female population but as a love story, I think it was wonderful. If this came out on DVD or were televised on cable without commercials, I would gladly watch it again. Sometimes we have to believe in something and it might as well be love. I think Oprah did a wonderful job with this one but it could have been made better on another channel. True and sustaining love is the underlying theme, bad marriages compared to true and lasting relationships and if this is a subject that does not appeal to you, then it is not a movie for you, but if you believe, as I do, that we each have a soul mate out there somewhere, then you will like this too.

novel vs. movie

[surferm88 · 6/10 · 27 November 2005]

In the story, "Their Eyes Were Watching God," the movie is drastically worse then the novel. Having read the novel and watching the movie, I found that the movie was cutting edges on important information which the book gave you with great detail. The main character, Janie, is sought to be less emotional and more beautiful, while the movie somewhat portrays her as having an edgy personality and a woman who flirts with many guys even though she is married to the all black town mayor. Also, in the movie I saw that the blacks discriminated against fellow blacks if they tried to be white, which kind of exemplifies blacks as being hypocrites. I don't exceptionally like either the movie or book, but it was somewhat entertaining.

Does not capture the spirit of the book

[shawnjames_2000 · 1/10 · 15 September 2005]

The Oprah Winfrey Presents adaptation of the Zora Neal Hurston novel Their Eyes Were Watching God is a major disappointment. Winfrey's shallow adaptation barely skims the surface details of Hurston's novel and does not capture the spirit of the great book it is based on. Winfrey says the late Ms. Hurston would be proud of her movie; I don't think she should be so eager to speak for the dead. I doubt any author would want to see their work butchered the way Winfrey has done this novel on screen. Oprah Winfrey's adaptation of Hurston's work strips it of its unique identity by removing all the references to African-American culture of the time. Instead of telling a story that detailed the role of Black women in the 30's, detailed the light skinned/dark skinned intraracial issues, sexism, the dozens, symbolism, and utilized the wonderful Southern dialect that made the characters come alive, we get a pasteurized movie that boils away the black culture away like it was an impurity. Without that culture to show us what life was like in Janie's time the movie lacks a true heart and soul. This makes the characters lifeless and one-dimensional. Stripped of her soul, Janie Crawford in this movie becomes a totally different person than depicted in the novel. Because I never got to see the childhood that would have defined the characters' independent free thinking ways, I saw Janie as a slut when she kissed the boy. When Nanny says, "black women are the mule of the world" the words have no meaning. Her marriage to the old man comes off as a way to preserve Janie's morality not stifle her independent way of thinking. Because Winfrey decided to remove all instances of domestic violence from her movie Janie has no motivation for leaving her first husband. In the book she left the old man because he beat her. On screen she comes off as lazy and irresponsible when she hates doing the work on the farm. When she meets Joe Starks it looked to me like she was a gold-digger wanting to live the high life. When Janie gets married to Joe Starks the movie turns into a bad romance novel. He wants to possess her; she regrets letting him objectify her. He only gets angry when Amos is coveting her. The confrontation Joe and Janie had was supposed to build into a humiliating argument that destroyed him as a man. On screen the fight comes on the porch has no bite because Winfrey removed the dozens game and most of the violence from the movie. When Joe dies the film treats his death with a sense of relief. I really started hating this movie because Janie on screen seemed downright cruel. She barely worked a day in her life and was more anxious to spend her husband's money than grieve his loss. The relationship with Tea Cake in the book is not as loving as depicted on screen. Winfrey subjectively decided to leave out of her movie all those scenes in the book where Tea Cake beat Janie in an attempt to make him a big hero. After a flat courtship, they leave town to go on the road spending money and engaging in some lukewarm love scenes. Winfrey makes Tea Cakes' abuse of Janie seem like it's honorable. When he steals Janie's money to go gambling it's depicted as noble. Janie just forgives him for gambling away their money and car and they go off to live in a village full of hippies. The climatic hurricane sequence has no feeling of drama at all. The scenes where rabid Tea Cake and Janie face off before killing him have no tension and no suspense. Arbitrarily Oprah leaves out the funeral scene in the novel where Janie grieves the loss of her true love. What's really important are those frames showing that Janie is still wealthy in spite of her tragedies. Upon returning to town in the end Janie shows absolutely no sense of remorse about killing Tea Cake, the great love of her life. She goes fishing and frolicking as if nothing tragic has happened in her life swimming in the lake she says smiling that she's watching God. That final shot of her made my stomach turn. The Janie Crawford in this movie doesn't make me believe she comes to the conclusion that she loves herself. I see her as a loose gold digging ruthless woman who takes no responsibility for her actions. The men in her life were just fodder to give her nice things. Inheriting Joe Starks' wealth made her someone. Nice message Oprah. Oscar winner Halle Berry is uninspired in the role of Janie. She makes no effort on her own to add dimension to the character, sleepwalking through her part reading her lines as if she were on autopilot. She has no chemistry with Reuben Santiago-Hudson or Michael Ealy at all. Having watched all of Berry's performances since 1989, I can truly say this is the worst performance of her career. She actually put more effort performing in the terrible B.A.P.S than working on this movie. Rueben Santiago-Hudson is passable as Joe Starks. He does his best with the role but there's no script here for him to work with. Terrence Howard's portrayal of Amos rises above the heartless screenplay. He adds dimension to his role making you see the sleazy man coveting Janie from afar. Michael Ealy is a very stale Tea Cake. He's just here to be the baby oil splashed boy toy showing off his abs, pecs and smiling for the camera. Ruby Dee is strong in her small part as Nanny. I believe if they gave her more to do she would have stolen the movie. If you haven't read the book, please do so. Avoid watching this twisted movie adaptation that perverts everything the late Ms. Hurston wrote about. The values promoted by this movie totally betray the message in the book.

Great movie, but the book is still better!

[Girliy · 8/10 · 10 December 2005]

We watched the movie as a class assignment after reading the book and i must say i really liked the movie, but the book is still so much better! so if you liked the movie, i advise you to read the book - its fantastic! Many key points in the book (or so i thought) was not in the movie, an example is Janie's trial after she kills Tea Cake and several of the characters were also Unfortunately left out. But it is a very good movie - especially for a made for TV movie.

to everyone who enjoys a good movie with some meaning to it; see this movie

to everyone who have read the book; the movie is great and really does the book justice (As least as much as can be expected from a movie made for such a great book)

A well told story

[Marsh-4 · 7/10 · 7 March 2005]

This is a well told tale, set in rural Florida. The cast -- Halle Berry included -- were equally up to the task of depicting the feel, sounds, and look of a small black community. I loved the accuracy of the costuming, the speech, and the attitudes of hardworking people trying to get along in life. None of the characters, all races included, were overdrawn or exaggerated. The movie is very evenhanded in its telling. The movie is long, 2 and 1/2 hours. The tale slowly unfolds, focusing of the Halle Berry character, and is an uplifting story -- a celebration of life. The cinematography is astounding, and beautiful to see. I would recommend, however, waiting for the DVD so that the story can be savored. Captions on the DVD would help the viewer catch all the wonderful dialog. There are idioms unique to the south, the Black community, and the times. I gave it a 7 out of 10 rating, but it is still a great movie.

their eyes should have been doing something else

[hydebee-1 · 1/10 · 7 March 2005]

First let me say i am a white male, whether or not race or sex enters into if you like this movie or not i don't know,from the people who love this movie i wonder if i was watching a different movie altogether I thought it was a terrible movie (i have seen comments like love conquers all-yeah right-i did not take this away from the movie it had no point it was like watching queenie, cotton club and 28 days later all wrapped into 1 movie), the lead actress halle b., acting career has gone in a downward spiral from catwoman to TV movies, she seems only capable of the queenie accent, I thought I was watching a zombie movie for a while, I can not believe that some folks think this is so good it had no point what a waste, I think of movies with black actors such as, roots,which i consider one of the greatest of all time , boyz in the hood, even the the color purple or Morgan freeman in so many other movies , this was a boring movie from the beginning and toward the end it got to be what I would term a zombie movie( I think I saw 28 days later)i kept waiting for him to bite her and her bite the whole camp and the whole state of Florida become rabies central(better than gators i suppose) , how bad was this?to me I thought it could possibly be the worst movie I have seen in years on TV ever!!!! oprah seems to have more money than sense and the movies she makes are so predictable (the black woman is a super hero all they need is tights and to fly)after watching this so called movie i want my 2 1/2 hours back what a waste -how can anyone have liked this? or got more out of it nothing great here in fact nothing average here well below average down right terrible no point ,it was much worst than the 5 people you meet in heaven, this is only my opinion and I will give it 1 star out of 10

Screeplay missed some important key features of the book...

[cfjwp · 19 March 2005]

If one has not read the book _Their Eyes Were Watching God_, then the movie was probably wonderful. Unfortunately, for those who have read the book, it is obvious that the screenplay writer missed some important aspects of the book-- or for some reason chose to omit them. The plot in the movie revolves around Janie and her love affairs, however, what is most important to Janie, in the book, is feeling loved and accepted not only by a man, but her community.

Janie is a "light-skinned" African American and is treated different because of it. The book addresses a caste system that was prominent at the time that Hurston wrote the book. This important aspect of the story was not addressed in the movie. This is just one of many "aspects" that was not addressed.

On the up side, the casting is superb. Halle Berry is perfect for the part of Janie. She is beautiful and strong while being sensitive and vulnerable. Michael Ealy is a wonderful Tea Cake. What chemistry!

All in all the movie is-- OK. Hopefully, it will entice the viewers to read Zora Neale Hurston's fabulous book.

Mostly Faithful!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 24 April 2008]

The book by Zora Neale Hurston of the same name was about Janie Crawford's life in Eatonville, Florida at the turn of the early part of the twentieth century. The movie doesn't reveal about Janie's birth or past and Ruby Dee is used to play Nanny which she was also the voice of the unabridged version of the book on tape. Halle Berry is great as Janie Crawford and earned an Emmy nomination for her performance. This book adapted to the television film is first rate for television movies. It is produced by Oprah Winfrey's production company and it is one of Oprah's favorite books which was featured as a book club member. I'm sure Zora is smiling down at Oprah. Zora, the author, was quite a character in herself. She wrote about the life of a typical African American woman in post-slavery America in Florida where there were not many choices for women at the time.

Halle gets back to good scripts.

[triple8 · 7/10 · 8 March 2005]

I have not read the book upon which, the film was based, as so many others have. I am not surprised, though that it wouldn't be the same because it is the rare movie that does this and most movies that come from books do not shine as brightly as the book versions.

For what this was however, I enjoyed it. I don't think it was Oscar quality but for a television movie it was very good. Halle Berry gave a strong performance and is it a relief after movies like Catwoman and Gothica, to see her with a quality script again.

The movie itself was very interesting and captivating in the way it depicted the time period, atmosphere and small village life at that time. The characters, all of them, were multi dimensional and interesting. I loved the camaraderie between the townspeople and the character of Janie, as played by Berry, was an interesting and complex woman. I found the movie to be very well done, emotionally powerful in some places and never dull at all. It, to me, rates around a 7.5 of 10 and did inspire me to want to read the book. Who knows, if the book's as good as is said on here, maybe my feelings will change after reading it. But while this movie may not be perfect I don't see how it could be called bad.

My major problem and here comes the WARNING-SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!! Since I hadn't read the book, I didn't know the story. But I did feel that some things seemed contrived. I knew, as soon, as Janie, narrating the story talked of how TK gave her love every day, that something terrible was going to Happen. Then came talks of the hurricane. Now there came the question to me-why were Janie and TK the only ones who stayed behind? It's always like this in the movies. The characters do things that don't make a lot of sense and sometimes it seems like they do these things just so the movie can have a plot twist to throw at us.The hurricane's coming, they know it's gonna be bad, everyone else leaves.Now I know there was no weather channel back then and they didn't want to miss a week's pay but to me it seemed like this the way this happened was a bit contrived.

The movie gives away what's to come as the word hurricane is thrown around repeatedly, shots of the ominous looking sky are shown, repeated talks of how bad it's gonna be....then the rabies which is just the icing on the cake(though in all fairness that did seem a bit less contrived then the staying behind during the hurricane).

I must say that is my major complaint. Still, I thought this was better then I thought it would be and solid as a well done television drama. Hopefully, Halle will stop winning razzies and stay with quality scripts once again and I think she made a good choice with this one. My vote is 7.5 out of 10.

ups and downs

[pyro_babe15 · 6/10 · 14 March 2009]

The book and movie almost started off the same- with Jaine awakening and describing the pear tree; beautiful passage. Now remember in the book, Janie's Grandmother was raped, got pregnant, had her daughter, then her daughter was raped, had Janie (both by white men). Halle Berry is mixed in real life and to cast her was good choice; she fits the part perfectly. Also, remember her hair was talked about a lot in the book. Texture of a white person but still curly and able to grow it out longer than a normal black woman could because of the texture of the hair. However, there are always going to be differences between a book and a movie; In the way they made conversations were a little boring and gave no point when in the book, they were more meaningful talks. The plot of the movie skips some major events that occurred in the book. The movie made the story seem flat, and the major actions that were supposed to be grabbing to the audience were easy to miss. The book is a lot more interesting than the movie. But the movie itself, if you don't compare it to the book was pretty good. (I prefer the book over the movie)

falls far short of the book

[lkh2006 · 4/10 · 7 March 2005]

This book is wonderful because of the strength of its main character, Janie. The story is of a girl growing into a woman and realizing, finally, that she has the right to be more than the mule of the world, that she is strong and has the right to be loved and respected for who she is, not just her beauty or usefulness to others. Her story is very sad in many ways and haunting in its direct, raw ending, but in the end Hurston's book is uplifting and beautiful in so many ways. The movie, on the other hand, while well-acted and visually attractive, does not seem to understand that it is Janie's character development, not her finding love, that is the most important part of the story--and without this development, even with the chemistry between the actors, the story feels shallow. In the novel, Janie's finding Tea Cake is heartening because it is a symptom of her growth into a woman who can lead herself and has the strength to find and believe in that sort of love. In the movie the character did not change as much as she sought to be free from being boxed in--in the film she was always the person she is as she narrates her story, just without the final independence and freedom she achieves. Though it makes sense that the movie had to move things along quickly, the slowness of the story is itself important--watching Janie move through life so quickly aids in our not getting an appropriate sense of her development as a woman. Losing Tea Cake as she does--which is haunting and well-played, as the look on his face as the drool drips down will stay with me for a long time--is not as it should be, just as the story leaves one uncertain and frustrated as to its meaning.

A little slow in spots, but beautifully moving

[breesummit · 9/10 · 7 March 2005]

Taking on the adaptation of a literary classic like this one is daunting at best, but as always, Oprah is up to the task.

Being married to an elderly man at the age of 17 is ghastly, no matter how kind the man is. So we understand the attraction that Janie would have to Joe Starks, who, still much older than her, represented the whole wide world of possibilities to a young, uneducated Florida woman in the 1920's. Unfortunately, she became a trophy wife, valued only for her beauty and obedience, and not her mind. Although the 12-years her junior Tea Cake seems like the last person Janie should end up with after a relatively loveless 20-year marriage and eventual widowhood, appearances can be deceiving.

The story teaches that material things are all right in their place, but if we exchange them for real living and true love, we lose out. Even though there is a tragic end, you find yourself still happy that Janie experienced the kind of love we all dream about.

It was Okay!

[forensicscpa · 6/10 · 11 March 2005]

The movie was only interesting enough to watch one time. Wouldn't make it part of my collection. Typical Oprah film. I've seen better performances by Halle. It was more of a lust-bust film than an actual art of what a real actress she is. I didn't get the plot nor the climax of the film. Still wondering what it was about. Needed more simplicity, a complicated movie, and I didn't get the point. The title was irrelevant to the subject of the film. The film would have probably been better if another person would have produced it. I was excited to see the film but was disappointed when I saw it. Oprah need to spruce up her production skills.

Thought it would be better

[ghm749 · 1/10 · 7 March 2005]

I didn't read the book so all I got out of this picture was that Halle Berry's character was never satisfied with her lot in life, had a nice house and a prosperous business in the town where she lived and gave it all up to go off with some stranger only to end up in a hurricane floating on a board with her rabid husband. And, they find time to kiss amidst a raging storm.For all the trials and tribulations she supposedly went through, she seemed almost retarded with the constant laughing and giggling and running down to the water to jump in and float around "watching God". Halle Berry looked almost out of place in that town with her perfect teeth, refined features and skinny body. And that hair! That deserved a place in the credits all it's own. Just smearing a little dirt on her didn't make her look as if she plowed fields, slaughtered pigs and helped build a town. I found the whole movie annoying. I don't recommend it. Guess I should read the book.

Awesome Movie!!

[snuggle_princess89 · 10/10 · 18 May 2006]

I think this movie was great because it teaches you a moral lesson by showing you that money is not everything in the world and also that if you love somebody it doesn't matter if they are rich or poor you should see what they are made of on the inside before judging them. In this movie the main character Janie goes through many things that women today are facing and show how strong she is. You shouldn't always listen to what people have to say because they don't know what's going on inside of you. I think movies like this could help people see the differences between love and money and how it could make a person change their lives by becoming a stronger person.

Halle Berry once again disappoints me and there had to be better way of casting this movie.

[jazzyteddy4559 · 3/10 · 3 October 2005]

I'm sorry. I know that I'm going to get my head bitten off, but Halle Berry is not as great of an actress that everyone wants her to be. I have been extremely disappointed for years with Halle's performances. In this movie, there was no exception. It seems that if there is a sex scene, that is when we see her act her best. Spoken parts just seem not to be her strong suit. Michael Ealy is generally a powerful actor in movies he is in. But I was not feeling Tea Cake at all. It has always been said that: "The book is always better than the movie." And this is true, but sometimes the movie can be as effective as the book it is portraying. But this movie was highly disappointing. I'm a black college student and I read this book my freshmen year in college. I was moved by this wonderful piece of art and excited when they said that there was going to be a movie. While watching the movie, I was shaking my head and thinking of better characters to play in this movie. And I can name plenty. It might be a good movie to watch, if you are a Halle Berry fan. If you aren't really a fan, don't bother.

Awful Movie

[docral · 7 March 2005]

I've read the book and seen the movie; the book is better. To do justice to the book, the movie should have been in two parts, the first could have focused on Janie's childhood and youth and her life with Joe Starks and the second could have focused on her life with Tea Cake. I knew I'd have problems with the movie when Oprah introduced the movie by talking about Janie kissing Tea Cake. No movie could include everything in the book, but by leaving out Janie's family history, we don't get a clear idea why Nanny forces Janie to marry Logan Killicks. In the novel, the people in Eatonville are complex and interesting people. In the movie, they are reduced to clichés. Don't any of the work? Sorry, but race is an important part of the book and there should have been a way to include this in the movie. Mrs. Turner and the trial are important parts of the novel; the movie was a Lifetime feature. Halle Berry doesn't have the acting chops to play Janie. She looked the same from beginning to end. Put a little dirt on her and she still looks good. The scenes in the Glades were awful. Unlike, the novel, there was no sense of the people working. The movie gives the impression that these people spend most of their time singing and dancing in camp. Talk about a cliché. In the novel Janie makes a choice to go work with Tea Cake; in the movie it was Halle going slumming. The end of the novel is grabs you; the movie's end was laughable. By the way, I don't think the novel is anti-male or anti-white. Oprah said that Zora Neale Hurston was going to let out a shout. Yes and the shout would be "Orpah you ruined my novel!" Orpah made a movie called "Their Eyes Were Watching Halle." I hope someday, someone will make a real movie of "Their Eyes Were Watching God."