Is anyone else suprised that a guy who works mainly in horror films enjoys an adaptaion of a philossphicalk novel. I mean, not to make generalizations, but it's kind of suprising, don't you think? I just don't see why?
As to liking or not liking this movie, I would say it's actually a pretty bad adaptation. I found myself rolling my eyes over just how much they water down and moderate the story. As well as the fact that this book is just as much about Plot as it is a work of Philosophy. Without one, you have a pretty dull component.
To me, that' what this film is.
If you want some real insight and a book that might actually change your life, read it. This movie Hollywood fare for a 1960's audience.
reply
share
borodinrodin
12 years ago
No I am not surprised. I think a talented director mind who is used to cheap formula with little real 'art' other than special effects , fright gore would find a effort at conveying the depth of deep philosophical portrayals a true challenge to convey on film.
The film itself I haven't seen in over 20 years though still recall it as being thoughtfully done and memorable (perhaps it is just because I watched it as young adult by myself one the late show in wee hours of morning.
Having read the novel a few years back I realize the movie as I recalled it didn't come close to the depth of the novel (readily understood by the difference in mediums). I think the novel - if ever redone for film - may actually make for better two part miniseries otherwise it would just seem difficult to get it squeezed in effectively into a 120 minute film.
Perhaps as another thread mentions if some very good director did it. I'm thinking perhaps Terrence Malick? With some good casting could pull it off.
reply
share