Heart of Darkness

The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only "see" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there.

The Heart of Darkness was unfortunetly hard to understand. fortunetly I had the choice to read the book first which simplified things in order to understand the book. Since the movie did not go in chronological order, it was a little hard to follow. Marlow was having flashbacks and such so you didnt know what was going on. The plot was a little brief... a young man goes to Africa and faces obsticles along the way! simple. I would give the acting a 7. they were good but they weren't perfect. Basically, The Heart of Darkness is about a young man who gets a job sailing down the Congo River to Africa. Earlier another young man by the name of Kurtz goes to Africa to collect ivory. After being in the jungle for so long it starts to get to Kurtz and he becomes an angry charismatic man who spends all his time collecting ivory. Their are many obstacles Marlow faces, from dying passangers to being attacked by natives. This movie is packed full of action and adventure. I would give this movie an overall rating of 8.

I loved the movie and I certainly loved the book, but I find Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' as an allegory far more touching, involving and more beautiful. Mainly, 'Heart of Darkness'(TV) matches nor Roths intensity, nor Malkovichs presence. Which does not mean it isn't a tremendous attempt to adapt Conrads novel.

Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.

First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.

Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.

Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.

Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is among my favourite works in literature and have read it numerous times, never failing to be drawn into the story of Marlow and his journey up the river to encounter the mad and enigmatic Mr. Kurtz. Knowing only it being the basis for the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now I was eager to see an adaptation that was going to be closer in nature to the Conrad novella and being directed by the great Nicolas Roeg it was bound to be interesting. But, alas, it was disappointing, to say the least. Being a fan of Nicolas Roeg and his striking visual style and fragmentary narrative he seemed liked an ideal director to get into psychology of the characters and their story. But the direction is lazy and uninspired, the performances by Tim Roth and John Malkovich are just dull.

Sadly we were robbed of a filmed version by Orson Wells which would have had Wells playing both Marlow as well as Kurtz---a very intriguing idea and has long been a theory of mine that the story should be read psychologically of a man confronting his own worst aspects. In the story we know from the beginning that he has survived his encounter with Kurtz but has been illuminated by this encounter, retelling of his adventure to his companions. There is no mystery to be found other than him looking into the abyss of his own soul as it is manifested by Kurtz. The Coppola film is better when it came to portraying the madness of Kurtz and the need by Willard to destroy him. The Nicolas Roeg film portrays Kurtz true to the source material as a sickly and dying man and devoid of any kind of threat or menace. Brando's Kurtz was a man struggling with the extremes of his soul: the primitive and the illuminated. We can only imagine how Wells might have depicted these characters. We were given only a tantalizing glimpse with two radio adaptations.

This is for fans of Nicolas Roeg. It was made late in his career when he was working increasingly limited budgets and his films during this period were a shadow of his early days, lacking the flair and energy. It's hard to believe this was the same man who directed The Man Who Fell to Earth, Don't Look Now, Walkabout, and Bad Timing.