LeFreak-5
Joined Jan 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews13
LeFreak-5's rating
I loved the novel and thus had all of Sebold's poetic prose, characters, and images well formed in my head. But unlike so many, I don't get disappointed when film adaptations of novels depart from the source material. Instead, I get intrigued by the differences and similarities, and in many cases I come away appreciating the alternate vision of the filmmaker, and the challenges and choices he or she must have faced to bring the difficult and improbable to the screen. Things get dropped, fused, telescoped, reordered. And, to me, this comes off well more often than not. The secret is being open to it--once a writer surrenders rights to a work, it isn't his or hers anymore. It is the filmmaker's.
Such is the situation with this film. The novel packs so much richness of character, plot, and emotion in its 300 original pages that Mr. Jackson had to make some choices. I, for one, really like the choices he made. On its own two feet, the film is solid, touching, and, I think, far more emotionally and morally ambiguous and sophisticated than some around here claim. My only criticism is that there is so much I craved to know, and so little time in which to do it, at times things seemed rushed and a little shallow. Some critics familiar with the novel have lamented the cursory treatment of Ruth and the shallow presentation of Lynn, who in the novel is flawed but strong and more than comic relief. Nonetheless, what Jackson has chosen to keep, alter, and leave behind results in something that works fine for me.
I for one loved the much criticized rendering of Suzie's heaven. It departed greatly from my own vision of it, and as such was something fresh and new. The surreal shifting of colours, images, and shapes evoked, at least for me, thoughts of Kubrick (A Clockwork Orange, The Shining), Lynch (Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive) and Fellini (8 1/2).
I really liked it. And, judging from the unremarkable but still solid 6.8 rating, many others have too. I recommend to anyone to disregard the indignant rants of the disappointed book fans or the film school purists bleating "too much CGI!" and give the flick a go. It is a lot better than much other stuff out there at the moment.
Such is the situation with this film. The novel packs so much richness of character, plot, and emotion in its 300 original pages that Mr. Jackson had to make some choices. I, for one, really like the choices he made. On its own two feet, the film is solid, touching, and, I think, far more emotionally and morally ambiguous and sophisticated than some around here claim. My only criticism is that there is so much I craved to know, and so little time in which to do it, at times things seemed rushed and a little shallow. Some critics familiar with the novel have lamented the cursory treatment of Ruth and the shallow presentation of Lynn, who in the novel is flawed but strong and more than comic relief. Nonetheless, what Jackson has chosen to keep, alter, and leave behind results in something that works fine for me.
I for one loved the much criticized rendering of Suzie's heaven. It departed greatly from my own vision of it, and as such was something fresh and new. The surreal shifting of colours, images, and shapes evoked, at least for me, thoughts of Kubrick (A Clockwork Orange, The Shining), Lynch (Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive) and Fellini (8 1/2).
I really liked it. And, judging from the unremarkable but still solid 6.8 rating, many others have too. I recommend to anyone to disregard the indignant rants of the disappointed book fans or the film school purists bleating "too much CGI!" and give the flick a go. It is a lot better than much other stuff out there at the moment.
