Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

aj989 So-called "Woman's Films," containing narratives built around the dilemmas (romantic or otherwise) faced by the film's central female character, were popular attractions at movie theaters throughout the 1930s and 1940s only to die out as tastes changed. Audiences were drawn to these films, which usually featured strong female characters, romance, and stories of female perseverance. "Cross Creek" functions more or less as a "woman's film." It's the story of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings (Mary Steenburgen), the author of the classic novel "The Yearling." Seeking inspiration after a fallow creative period, Rawlings sets out, despite the concerns and objections of others, including her current husband, to a remote part of rural, backwoods Florida, populated only by people who live off the land, not because they have to, but because it's the only way the know how to live. And they love it all the same. After an initial rough start in her new home in Cross Creek, Rawlings perseveres. At Cross Creek with the help of her maid Geechee (Alfre Woodard), neighbors (Rip Torn and Joanna Miles), a farmhand/moonshiner (Ike Eisenmann) and the pastoral beauty of her surroundings, Rawlings finds community, solace and the inspiration to write "The Yearling" after a series of repeated rejections by her publisher. Marjorie's romantic life is a lesser concern for the film. She has a suitor (Peter Coyote), who she rejects at one point, before agreeing to his proposal, but the film is more about Marjorie's love for her surroundings. Martin Ritt captures the damp, sweltering beauty of this part of Florida wonderfully. The production design and costumes are additionally well done.Refreshingly, the film largely refuses to condescend to those who call Cross Creek home. When they could've easily been portrayed as a bunch of hicks for cheap laughs or simply out of derision, Cross Creek's inhabitants are seen as normal people living in a unique environment. Only Geechee, the maid played with wonderful exuberance by Alfre Woodard, is rather cliché ridden. (It should be said that the film really isn't interested in Geechee at all – she doesn't even possess a real name) The character is a stereotypically loyal, deferential servant used occasionally to lighten the film's usually somber mood. And her boyfriend, LeRoy, is shown as simply shiftless. A few other faults remain with the film. "Cross Creek," in general, has all the ingredients of a good "Woman's Picture" (escapism, female triumph and perseverance, a little romance), except for, perhaps, the most important part - a strong female lead. Steenburgen, often appearing as she's about to wilt, just isn't strong or compelling enough. She's awfully milquetoast and dainty in the lead role, which makes her character's eventual triumphant adaptation to her often harsh and unwelcoming surroundings a little less believable. Coming off her massive success in "Melvin & Howard," "Cross Creek" was the first time she had the opportunity to headline a major motion picture and it was also basically the last time as well. The film (decidedly character driven) also drags at times and one occasionally may wonder, over the course of the film's two hour running time, about the film's larger meaning and the reasons for it being made. Is it about the importance of community; the inspiring powers of nature; a woman's quest for independence and meaning; or is it simply the tale of how "The Yearling" came to be? The film doesn't quite seem to know either.

ravmeltt This movie was apparently made in 1983, and I can't believe this is the first time I've seen it. Many have commented that it is a pretty laid back movie, and I agree. But laid back is not necessarily a bad thing. I for one did not realize that Florida had such lavish greenery and beautiful creeks. The beauty of the landscape was very well shown, and I thoroughly enjoyed looking at it. As someone asked, would we want to change these people, to make the movie more exciting? No we wouldn't, because that is the era that the movie is depicted in, and laid back is what that time was. If one wanted to see an action packed movie, then one should have looked at something else, but this movie to me was truly beautiful, and it made me go further into looking at the biographical life of Ms Kinnan Rawlings. In this age of internet and people being able to freely write their criticisms, it is so easy for anyone to become a critic, and I think that some people have been very critical of Ms Steenburger, or Mr Ritt (I think he is the director) and the film itself. But how many of us if given the opportunity, could do as good or better. It is time to sit back and enjoy some of these laid-back movies, and remember a time that is long past, a time that we daresay we may never ever see again. Because in this age of killing, and swearing, and condos, and high rise buildings, it is wonderful to sit back and relax in a movie such as Cross Creek, and embrace a time long past and almost forgotten.PS. I did not know Mary Steenburgen was previously married to Malcolm McDowell. Also, Alfre Woodard was so great in this movie that I found myself wanting to know more about the character she depicted, Geechee, but obviously nothing much was said about Geechee, even in Ms Rawlings' biography or autobiography of her. If anyone has any more info on that, would be great to hear it.

screenman I actually saw this movie at a cinema. At the time, I was working shifts and went there during a matinée on a hot summer day when I couldn't sleep. The cinema was air-conditioned.It was an early multi-screen complex and I somehow got into the wrong venue. I had intended to doze through something else. But as things transpired, there would be no sleeping. Shortly after the wrong movie began, I was additionally disconcerted by a group of female cleaners who came in and used it as their social club. I was the only other person there, and it is a measure of the movie's appeal that they habitually expected the place to be empty and asked me if I minded their presence. I didn't.Within about half an hour, the cleaners' conversation proved to be more interesting than the entertainment I had paid for.This movie oozed out of the screen with the cheesiness of very stale mayonnaise. The kind that has little dark, hairy, tufts growing on the surface. I particularly remember my senses being assaulted by strident cords of music that would blare out with very little warning, and even less meaning. The cleaners provided an anticipatory cue by putting their fingers in their ears.It was about some city bird going to live in the sticks amongst a load a backwood folk, putting them straight but at the same time being taught a moral lesson or two herself. Like you do. A sort of 'journey of discovery'. There was a sententious smugness about the whole production. In particular, the leading actress had an irritating habit of staring at every hick with a kind of intense beatific compassion, as if she herself were the patron-saint of thickies.And I believe at some stage she wrote a book.Long before the end, I had become fascinated by one of the cleaner's hushed and breathy tails of sexual impropriety.One suspects that there are some to whom sitting quietly for a couple of hours and not having to think, constitutes a meditation. The best that I can say is that I would not want to share their salad.I have never seen this movie advertised as showing on television, which surprises me. It is just the sort of pap that is screened in the afternoon to punish the unemployed for not having jobs.If you ever work shifts, be sure to get into the right theatre. Or hope for some cleaning ladies.

Al (darien3) Sorry - but I have to strongly disagree with anyone who thinks this movie's boring. I think they've missed the point. The story is supposed to be reflective of the times in which it takes place. This is a VERY "laid-back," rural Florida. Although a "woman's story," in a certain sense, I admire the bravery that this "genteel" woman had - just as I admire anyone who "does their own thing." She took a LOT of chances in order to follow her desire to make something of herself - on her own.I could go on about specific points in the story, but really don't have the time right now to do that - and, in any case, some others on here have already done that. What I will say is that this is one of the best "character studies" that I have EVER had the pleasure to see.Perhaps we have become too accustomed to the continuous action-packed and often violent films of today for some viewers to fully appreciate a just plain good dramatic character study such as "Cross Creek." Perhaps we've become too used to the language in today's films: i.e. every other word being "the f word..." Maybe that at least in part accounts for how and why some might consider a just plain down-to-earth GOOD drama as being "boring."Give it another chance - this time watching it without expecting a "thrill ride," but rather in studying the effort in acting which goes into each and every one of the characters in the story. I guarantee that you will then appreciate it a lot more, viewing it as I believe its creators intended.