After watching the film, a bitter felling comes from what is friendship, after all. Regardless the merits of the book, which I didn't read, one comes to the real hatred that can develops from one side of a friendship otherwise quite strong, coming in our terms to a bro bond, where sex isn't involved, but a real link can be developed between friends. At least, from one side of the fellows. The behavior of one of the 'friends' remains a mystery if we don't go to Freudian explanations of love and death. The performance of principals is mediocre, according to a TV movie. We can't see inner motivations that make Finny (Toby Moore) behaves as he does, and Gene(J Burtons) is perhaps a little too innocent is his movements. As a hole, a watchable film. But don't wait for a masterpiece.
24 Reviews
Frustrating
bandw1 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I found watching this frustrating since I felt that there is material enough in Knowles' book to make a great movie, but this effort falls decidedly short.
On the surface the story is simple: two boys meet as roommates at a prestigious northeastern prep school and become close friends, then a life-changing singular event occurs and its effects are described.
The two boys are Gene and Phineous (affectionatly known as "Finny"). Gene is reserved and studious whereas Finny is an outgoing athlete who likes to buck the rules--he is the most popular guy on campus. Relationships between such personality types are not uncommon and can be quite intense. That is one of the problems I had with this movie--I felt it failed to establish the intensity of the friendship, and that is crucial to the whole enterprise. Prior to the pivotal event in the tree, Finny is portrayed as an eternally smiling extrovert, so much so that his shallow non-stop good humor and cavorting around started to grate on me.
Gene and Finny never had a substantial conversation about anything, so it was hard for me to see what either saw in the other, outside of opposites attracting. Given that, latent homosexuality would make sense to me, but the chemistry of strong attachments is always a bit of a mystery, so answering the question about the sexual content of the relationship is not essential.
The question of what happened in the tree is central and the movie leaves little doubt that the act was willful, rather than impulsive, on Gene's part. In the book, there remains an ambiguity and that is at the heart of the novel. The reason for Gene's act remains open to question, even in the movie. Did it rise out of jealousy? Or was it to quell the constant fear of repeatedly having to jump out of the tree in order to please Finny? Or was it from resentment that he was becoming too subservient to Finny? Or maybe he was afraid of developing too strong an attachment to Finny? Or maybe it was the reason that Gene postulates toward the end of the book, "It was just some ignorance inside me, some crazy thing inside me, something blind, that's all it was." I want to think that it was some evil atavistic impulse that lies deep in the DNA of man--a small act that paralleled the evil of WWII that served as the backdrop to the story.
The opening scene that has fellow students pulling Gene and Phineous out of their sleep to be marched to an auditorium when they would be the subjects of an inquiry into what happened in the tree is a mistake. I assume that the idea was to provide a hook to interest you in how the situation evolved to that scene, but it takes away any surprise that scene has at the end--a scene that we then have to watch again in its entirety.
Neither J Barton (as Gene) nor Toby Moore (as Finny) seems to be a natural actor. Most of their scenes were stilted and awkward. And Moore is too old to be playing a seventeen-year-old.
An oddity that struck me as unreal was that there was no mention of sex or women. You coop up a bunch of male teenagers in close quarters and there just has to be discussions about sex, encounters of a sexual nature, or some form of sexual expression (either internal or external).
There are many scenes that do not work. One such is a conversation between Gene and Finny just before they head out to the tree where Finny expresses surprise that Gene needs to study to do well. These guys had been roommates for several weeks by this time, so it should have been pretty obvious that Gene was studious. Would it not be clear to anyone that study is required to perform well at a prestigious school? Finny's comment was, "I thought it just came natural to you." There was a scene where a couple of guys came into Gene and Finny's room with one of them pretending to be Hitler (complete with fake mustache, a brown shirt, and Nazi armband) and then the four guys proceeded to strut around and do a dance that was embarrassing to watch. Another scene involves a student known as "Leper" (totally overplayed as a geek) who has gone to war and returned as a basket case and has come back to the campus, but not as a student. He subsists by stealing food and living in a thatched hut in the forest near the campus. How ridiculous is that?
This film is an unfortunate misfire.
On the surface the story is simple: two boys meet as roommates at a prestigious northeastern prep school and become close friends, then a life-changing singular event occurs and its effects are described.
The two boys are Gene and Phineous (affectionatly known as "Finny"). Gene is reserved and studious whereas Finny is an outgoing athlete who likes to buck the rules--he is the most popular guy on campus. Relationships between such personality types are not uncommon and can be quite intense. That is one of the problems I had with this movie--I felt it failed to establish the intensity of the friendship, and that is crucial to the whole enterprise. Prior to the pivotal event in the tree, Finny is portrayed as an eternally smiling extrovert, so much so that his shallow non-stop good humor and cavorting around started to grate on me.
Gene and Finny never had a substantial conversation about anything, so it was hard for me to see what either saw in the other, outside of opposites attracting. Given that, latent homosexuality would make sense to me, but the chemistry of strong attachments is always a bit of a mystery, so answering the question about the sexual content of the relationship is not essential.
The question of what happened in the tree is central and the movie leaves little doubt that the act was willful, rather than impulsive, on Gene's part. In the book, there remains an ambiguity and that is at the heart of the novel. The reason for Gene's act remains open to question, even in the movie. Did it rise out of jealousy? Or was it to quell the constant fear of repeatedly having to jump out of the tree in order to please Finny? Or was it from resentment that he was becoming too subservient to Finny? Or maybe he was afraid of developing too strong an attachment to Finny? Or maybe it was the reason that Gene postulates toward the end of the book, "It was just some ignorance inside me, some crazy thing inside me, something blind, that's all it was." I want to think that it was some evil atavistic impulse that lies deep in the DNA of man--a small act that paralleled the evil of WWII that served as the backdrop to the story.
The opening scene that has fellow students pulling Gene and Phineous out of their sleep to be marched to an auditorium when they would be the subjects of an inquiry into what happened in the tree is a mistake. I assume that the idea was to provide a hook to interest you in how the situation evolved to that scene, but it takes away any surprise that scene has at the end--a scene that we then have to watch again in its entirety.
Neither J Barton (as Gene) nor Toby Moore (as Finny) seems to be a natural actor. Most of their scenes were stilted and awkward. And Moore is too old to be playing a seventeen-year-old.
An oddity that struck me as unreal was that there was no mention of sex or women. You coop up a bunch of male teenagers in close quarters and there just has to be discussions about sex, encounters of a sexual nature, or some form of sexual expression (either internal or external).
There are many scenes that do not work. One such is a conversation between Gene and Finny just before they head out to the tree where Finny expresses surprise that Gene needs to study to do well. These guys had been roommates for several weeks by this time, so it should have been pretty obvious that Gene was studious. Would it not be clear to anyone that study is required to perform well at a prestigious school? Finny's comment was, "I thought it just came natural to you." There was a scene where a couple of guys came into Gene and Finny's room with one of them pretending to be Hitler (complete with fake mustache, a brown shirt, and Nazi armband) and then the four guys proceeded to strut around and do a dance that was embarrassing to watch. Another scene involves a student known as "Leper" (totally overplayed as a geek) who has gone to war and returned as a basket case and has come back to the campus, but not as a student. He subsists by stealing food and living in a thatched hut in the forest near the campus. How ridiculous is that?
This film is an unfortunate misfire.
Not a worthy ending for Yates' career
Horst_In_Translation27 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"A Separate Peace" is an American 90-minute movie from 2004, so this is already over 10 years old. Wendy Kesselman adapted the novel by John Knowlses for the small screen here, but the writers' names aren't that known here. The director is. It is British 4-time Academy Award nominee Peter Yates, who directed many big names during his career. One example would be Steve McQueen in "Bullitt". This 2004 film is Yates' biggest work and he really does not go out on a high note here. It is a small screen production and television was far from the quality we have today, so it is a bit sad to see that's where Yates' films landed at that point. Then again, the quality here is small screen material at best. There are many actors in the cast of this film, including J Barton and Toby Moore, the two lead actors, who have hardly or not at all appeared in films after this one we have here. It is the story of two men, who are somewhat friends and somewhat enemies and all in the face of the competitive nature of their sport. Injury and relationships with fellow teammates play a major role as well. But it is never a movie that will have you on the edge of your seat. The lack of talent from the actors made this a very lackluster work in my opinion and the story or drama never worked in a way that it felt compelling or at least authentic. Is that too much to ask for? It is a bit disappointing as there are moments in the script that feel as if they could have been the essence of a quality film. But not with this cast and approach in general. The biggest problem here were probably the two lead actors. I am not surprised at all their careers went south pretty quickly and they have not been in movies for 10 years now judging from what i saw here. Their performances felt really almost interchangeable because neither is making a difference at all with their characters and it seems that most of the time they aren't even trying. I feel truly sorry this is how it ended for Yates. Without having seen most of his work, I am sure he deserved a lot better than this extremely forgettable outcome here and I am not sure to which extent you can blame him. I see the budget here was almost 5 million and that's quite a lot. A prime example of how to burn money in making crappy films. This really should have been a lot better. Not recommended. Final note: According to IMDb, the main language here is German and I highly doubt this is correct. It's probably as wrong as everything else with these 1.5 hours.
Worse than awful
BoogerPudding3 March 2005
First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.
This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.
If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.
Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.
This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.
If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.
Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.
Leonard Maltin should have rated this one BOMB, not the 72 version
fordraff26 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is not a good film. The script is a loose adaptation of the novel with much dialogue that is too direct in stating themes and purposes; nothing is left to implication. This might make it useful for showing in high school classrooms but makes it a tedious business for intelligent viewers.
Because there is no framework here of older Gene returning to Devon, a title announces that it is February 1943. And to grab viewers' attention, the film begins with a scene of black robed and hooded boys bursting into Finny and Gene's room, with Brinker telling his cohorts to haul out Finny and Gene. Then another title tells us we're flashing back to "Seven Months Earlier." Gene is arriving for the first time at Devon from his home in the South.
In a too-explicit expository voice-over, Gene makes it clear that he's not one of the wealthy boys whose families have attended Devon for generations but just an average guy from a middle-class background. Nevertheless, he is glad to have this opportunity to be a student at the school.
The boys are immediately plunged into a blitzball game without explanation as to what this is, and then they are running off to jump from the tree at the edge of the river. This is all too quick. The film needs to introduce the characters, build up the characters and their relationships to each other, and then move into the plot events. Because this isn't done here, the characters remain two dimensional, not people I could become involved with and care about. Thus, the film can register no impact; it didn't draw me in.
Toby Moore is totally miscast as Finny. He towers over the other boys, has a 21st century gym-buffed body, and doesn't project a whiff of charisma. He was 26 when the film was shot and is too old for the part. Finny comes across here as a damned pest who is constantly keeping Gene from studying. One wonders why Gene doesn't simply tell Finny to f*** off. For "A Separate Peace" to work, Finny must have charisma, magnetism, innocence, a quality that makes him irresistible to others, even when he's cajoling them to do something they don't want to. If one doesn't warm to Finny, there is no film.
J. Carton plays Gene, who was directed to give the role a heavy Southern accent, which comes and goes throughout the film. When it's present, it's an annoyance. Other than that, Gene is simply a generic preppy here.
Brinker has had all his rough edges smoothed to become a vanilla blah. And Leper is now just an odd student whom the others treat as if he were the dorm mascot. In one horrendous scene, Leper actually impersonates Hitler and comes along with Brinker into Finny and Gene's room to do a little dance. And Quackenbush has simply disappeared altogether.
The film has a bad score which uses no period music that was so necessary to building up atmosphere in the '72 version. Instead, at one point, we get "Hold that Tiger," which must go back to the 20s at least.
The very important scene between Gene and Finny at the beach is treated inconsequently. The dialogue has been changed from the novel so that Finny says quickly to Gene that it's important to be at the beach "with your best buddy." Finny doesn't add, "Which is what you are." And there's no indication that Gene wants to reply to Finny in kind. The very core of the novel is tossed aside here.
When Gene and Finny climb the tree for the fateful jump, Gene is photographed to look like a devil glowering from under his heavy brows at Finny. And here there is no ambiguity about Gene's jouncing the limb; we see him do it. And since I'd not been drawn into Gene's character any more than I'd been drawn into Finny's, I couldn't care much for what Gene did or what happened to Finny.
When Gene goes to see Finny in the hospital after the fall, Finny is far too hale and healthy, not like someone who's just had a serious accident and had his leg set and put into a cast.
There is a scene here where the students go apple picking in nearby orchards because the usual harvesters are off at war. In this scene, the farmer who owns the orchard tells the boys that his son was killed in the war and that he recently buried him in the orchard under his favorite apple tree. He gives his son's army cap to Leper. This scene makes explicit the implications that are in the much finer scene of the '72 version where the boys are shoveling snow off the railroad tracks and face the young soldiers in the train, who are a mirror for their future.
The best moment in this dismal remake occurs when Gene spots Leper on campus and follows him to his makeshift hideout in the woods. In this scene, Danny Swerdlow as Leper actually has some decent dialogue and a situation to act out, and he does a fine job of it. It was the only scene in the film to register some feeling and begin to draw me in.
The film trickles off after Finny's death. Gene is enlisting, and Brinker, if you can believe this, is going off into the woods wearing Leper's old cap hoping to find the beaver damn that Leper was earlier looking for in the winter. Gene has a voice-over at the end that mouths platitudes like, "Just be yourself; just go on." My God! Is that the best this film can offer? This pallid film version reflects attenuation of the book and isn't going to build enthusiasm for the book or reveal what makes the novel such a fine one.
Because there is no framework here of older Gene returning to Devon, a title announces that it is February 1943. And to grab viewers' attention, the film begins with a scene of black robed and hooded boys bursting into Finny and Gene's room, with Brinker telling his cohorts to haul out Finny and Gene. Then another title tells us we're flashing back to "Seven Months Earlier." Gene is arriving for the first time at Devon from his home in the South.
In a too-explicit expository voice-over, Gene makes it clear that he's not one of the wealthy boys whose families have attended Devon for generations but just an average guy from a middle-class background. Nevertheless, he is glad to have this opportunity to be a student at the school.
The boys are immediately plunged into a blitzball game without explanation as to what this is, and then they are running off to jump from the tree at the edge of the river. This is all too quick. The film needs to introduce the characters, build up the characters and their relationships to each other, and then move into the plot events. Because this isn't done here, the characters remain two dimensional, not people I could become involved with and care about. Thus, the film can register no impact; it didn't draw me in.
Toby Moore is totally miscast as Finny. He towers over the other boys, has a 21st century gym-buffed body, and doesn't project a whiff of charisma. He was 26 when the film was shot and is too old for the part. Finny comes across here as a damned pest who is constantly keeping Gene from studying. One wonders why Gene doesn't simply tell Finny to f*** off. For "A Separate Peace" to work, Finny must have charisma, magnetism, innocence, a quality that makes him irresistible to others, even when he's cajoling them to do something they don't want to. If one doesn't warm to Finny, there is no film.
J. Carton plays Gene, who was directed to give the role a heavy Southern accent, which comes and goes throughout the film. When it's present, it's an annoyance. Other than that, Gene is simply a generic preppy here.
Brinker has had all his rough edges smoothed to become a vanilla blah. And Leper is now just an odd student whom the others treat as if he were the dorm mascot. In one horrendous scene, Leper actually impersonates Hitler and comes along with Brinker into Finny and Gene's room to do a little dance. And Quackenbush has simply disappeared altogether.
The film has a bad score which uses no period music that was so necessary to building up atmosphere in the '72 version. Instead, at one point, we get "Hold that Tiger," which must go back to the 20s at least.
The very important scene between Gene and Finny at the beach is treated inconsequently. The dialogue has been changed from the novel so that Finny says quickly to Gene that it's important to be at the beach "with your best buddy." Finny doesn't add, "Which is what you are." And there's no indication that Gene wants to reply to Finny in kind. The very core of the novel is tossed aside here.
When Gene and Finny climb the tree for the fateful jump, Gene is photographed to look like a devil glowering from under his heavy brows at Finny. And here there is no ambiguity about Gene's jouncing the limb; we see him do it. And since I'd not been drawn into Gene's character any more than I'd been drawn into Finny's, I couldn't care much for what Gene did or what happened to Finny.
When Gene goes to see Finny in the hospital after the fall, Finny is far too hale and healthy, not like someone who's just had a serious accident and had his leg set and put into a cast.
There is a scene here where the students go apple picking in nearby orchards because the usual harvesters are off at war. In this scene, the farmer who owns the orchard tells the boys that his son was killed in the war and that he recently buried him in the orchard under his favorite apple tree. He gives his son's army cap to Leper. This scene makes explicit the implications that are in the much finer scene of the '72 version where the boys are shoveling snow off the railroad tracks and face the young soldiers in the train, who are a mirror for their future.
The best moment in this dismal remake occurs when Gene spots Leper on campus and follows him to his makeshift hideout in the woods. In this scene, Danny Swerdlow as Leper actually has some decent dialogue and a situation to act out, and he does a fine job of it. It was the only scene in the film to register some feeling and begin to draw me in.
The film trickles off after Finny's death. Gene is enlisting, and Brinker, if you can believe this, is going off into the woods wearing Leper's old cap hoping to find the beaver damn that Leper was earlier looking for in the winter. Gene has a voice-over at the end that mouths platitudes like, "Just be yourself; just go on." My God! Is that the best this film can offer? This pallid film version reflects attenuation of the book and isn't going to build enthusiasm for the book or reveal what makes the novel such a fine one.
Good
manitobaman8130 August 2014
This film proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a large one. The setup is simple: Strong friendships between students slowly turns into bitter rivalry with fatal consequences. I really like this type of film, as it reminds me of French movies where it's more about the characters and their environment. My only problem with the film was the supporting cast. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them at the end of the day. A final rating of 7/10.
A True Disappointment
ender328815 December 2006
I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.
Not a Bad Remake for my $$$
jockeyup7 October 2018
ASP is my favorite book or at least in my top 3 or 4. I remember watching the 1972 film near where I went to college. I was blown away by that film with Parker Stevenson playing Gene and John Heyl as Finney. In my mind, sometimes I intertwine the pair of remakes, and while I preferred the original version, I didn't think this one was that bad the second time I viewed it. It's just a different take but the substance of the book is true enough. I recommend watching both films and just decide for yourself which one you prefer - no sin in liking both of them. As a rule I hate remakes since I am all for original ideas more than rehashing stuff that has already been done.
The 1972 version was a true preppy classic 2004 was not
mmalcolm_988 December 2004
John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background.
The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.
I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.
Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.
The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.
The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.
I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.
Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.
The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.
I can't compare it
musing8512 September 2005
to the 1972 version (which I have not seen). But I can't agree that there is no suggestion of a homosexual love interest in this movie. The director didn't beat you over the head with it, but the signs were pretty obviously there--or at least it was obvious to me.
Not being familiar with the novel it's based on, I can't say how well this film stuck to that story. There did seem to be quite a lot of loose ends that were never satisfactorily tied up (or even loosely laid back into place). But I found no faults with the location or the actors. A good piece of work, though not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.
Not being familiar with the novel it's based on, I can't say how well this film stuck to that story. There did seem to be quite a lot of loose ends that were never satisfactorily tied up (or even loosely laid back into place). But I found no faults with the location or the actors. A good piece of work, though not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.
Missing Component
Davalon-Davalon17 November 2005
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.
I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.
Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.
People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.
Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.
I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.
Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.
People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.
Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.
Great move though book is better
cyke9317 September 2004
Having read the book 2x in school, I remember the story fondly. Seeing it enacted on screen gave me flashbacks and although i did not remember everything, i remembered enough. Since this is a dramatic movie, it's success depends on the viewers' emotions. I already knew the ending but i still felt a great sense of tragedy and sadness. It made me go look for my book and i ended up buying a new copy and reading it in one sitting. The book of course gives a much deeper, broader picture.
Things they coudld've done better: Reading the book, i was enthralled at its depth and complexity. the movie could've used more of that. since gene narrated the book, it is of course different on screen. and probably the biggest issue would be the war/ peace theme. the movie is called a separate peace, but what does that mean? these are 16-17 y/o boys who are enjoying their last year of "Freedom" before getting sent to war. The war hung over them like a dark cloud, but for Gene and Phinny, they managed to create their own world of peace with the two of them in it, and of course gene's fight with himself and the codependency of the two. in the book, we find gene is successful in life, at least financially, but it is never clear if he really defeated his inner demons, but it is clear that phinny i still a big part of his life. having read the book, i knew all of this and on screen i felt it but i know if i hadn't i would probably not get it.
good:
the actors for all the major character, esp gene and phineas did a great job. the scenes with the two of them were magnetic and you could feel the friendship and the tension (of gene in the beginning of the movie) between them. despite the things they left out and didn't touch upon to deeply was, they managed to nail the friendship between the two. To see it finally resolved between them only for "it" (the ending of the movie, i do not want to spoil) to happen, i felt very emotion and felt the loss as if it were my own and because of that i recommend the movie
but i highly suggest getting the book first then watching. i hope this helps some
Things they coudld've done better: Reading the book, i was enthralled at its depth and complexity. the movie could've used more of that. since gene narrated the book, it is of course different on screen. and probably the biggest issue would be the war/ peace theme. the movie is called a separate peace, but what does that mean? these are 16-17 y/o boys who are enjoying their last year of "Freedom" before getting sent to war. The war hung over them like a dark cloud, but for Gene and Phinny, they managed to create their own world of peace with the two of them in it, and of course gene's fight with himself and the codependency of the two. in the book, we find gene is successful in life, at least financially, but it is never clear if he really defeated his inner demons, but it is clear that phinny i still a big part of his life. having read the book, i knew all of this and on screen i felt it but i know if i hadn't i would probably not get it.
good:
the actors for all the major character, esp gene and phineas did a great job. the scenes with the two of them were magnetic and you could feel the friendship and the tension (of gene in the beginning of the movie) between them. despite the things they left out and didn't touch upon to deeply was, they managed to nail the friendship between the two. To see it finally resolved between them only for "it" (the ending of the movie, i do not want to spoil) to happen, i felt very emotion and felt the loss as if it were my own and because of that i recommend the movie
but i highly suggest getting the book first then watching. i hope this helps some
Doesn't do the book justice. Gay theme is there if you want it to be.
pascalintow4 August 2014
The story just doesn't seem to translate well to film. Maybe if it had narration and was voiced over by Gene it would have been better. There's just too much going on in Gene's head to explain in a movie, especially to someone unfamiliar with the book. I didn't care for either movie version. Neither seemed to do the book justice.
The gay question always comes up with this book. We had to read it as a class in 10th grade English and several in the class picked up on the supposed gay theme, including me. Guess we'll never know for sure. Perhaps the good thing about the book is you can make the Gene/Phineas relationship what you wish.
The gay question always comes up with this book. We had to read it as a class in 10th grade English and several in the class picked up on the supposed gay theme, including me. Guess we'll never know for sure. Perhaps the good thing about the book is you can make the Gene/Phineas relationship what you wish.
Great casting, but fails to tell Knowles' story.
RandySavage13 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
"A Separate Peace" is one of my favorite books. An absolutely horrible film version was made of it in 1974, so I knew Showtime's updated version was virtually guaranteed to be an improvement. An improvement it is... but it could - and should - have been much better.
First the Good: Finny has got to be one of the hardest parts out there to cast. The part calls for natural athleticism and tremendous charisma - a truly rare combination (especially in actors). Toby Moore was inspired casting. I have no idea who he is or where he came from. He had an almost impossible task, and he nailed it. The actors who played Gene and Brinker also performed admirably. If it had a script that stuck to the actual Knowles' story, this film might have been something very special.
Now to the Bad: Knowles' story is much more than a story about adolescent friendship and betrayal. It is about how a person can only find peace within himself when he is forced to face his own darkness. Finny, who knows only love and forgiveness, seems to be the only exception to this rule - and because of that, he is destroyed by his best friend. By the end, Gene makes peace with Finny and finally finds peace within. The writer and director missed much of these key elements. Important scenes are brought to life beautifully, but we never really get inside Gene's head, so we can't understand how or why he achieves a 'separate peace.'
The writers also decided to omit the other key theme of the book: Finny as a representation of peace in world at war. While Finny talks like he was rearing to go to war, he in fact is unable to do so - because of his leg, but also because it is not possible for him to hate (as Gene describes in the final 'you'd be terrible in a war, Finny!' dialogue). Alas, none of it makes it into the film.
All in all, it was great to see a terrific performance by Moore as Finny, as well as some great scenes from the book brought to life (The Headmaster's Tea, The Winter Olympics, The Trial). However, I will still have to wait for a film to be made that is true to the spirit of this American classic.
First the Good: Finny has got to be one of the hardest parts out there to cast. The part calls for natural athleticism and tremendous charisma - a truly rare combination (especially in actors). Toby Moore was inspired casting. I have no idea who he is or where he came from. He had an almost impossible task, and he nailed it. The actors who played Gene and Brinker also performed admirably. If it had a script that stuck to the actual Knowles' story, this film might have been something very special.
Now to the Bad: Knowles' story is much more than a story about adolescent friendship and betrayal. It is about how a person can only find peace within himself when he is forced to face his own darkness. Finny, who knows only love and forgiveness, seems to be the only exception to this rule - and because of that, he is destroyed by his best friend. By the end, Gene makes peace with Finny and finally finds peace within. The writer and director missed much of these key elements. Important scenes are brought to life beautifully, but we never really get inside Gene's head, so we can't understand how or why he achieves a 'separate peace.'
The writers also decided to omit the other key theme of the book: Finny as a representation of peace in world at war. While Finny talks like he was rearing to go to war, he in fact is unable to do so - because of his leg, but also because it is not possible for him to hate (as Gene describes in the final 'you'd be terrible in a war, Finny!' dialogue). Alas, none of it makes it into the film.
All in all, it was great to see a terrific performance by Moore as Finny, as well as some great scenes from the book brought to life (The Headmaster's Tea, The Winter Olympics, The Trial). However, I will still have to wait for a film to be made that is true to the spirit of this American classic.
i was disappointed
shountypoo-18 March 2006
This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.
Wow, way to suck all the life out of a good story
crazymanmichael4 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A Separate Peace is a novel many of us read (i.e. "were required to read") in high school, and I suppose our appreciation of any cinematic rendering may be colored by that recollection. If the book spoke to you, then you'd probably have some fond memories of it. If not, well, you probably wouldn't be watching this video. Or reading this review.
Yeah, I get it. Rendering a story that's told primarily through internal monologue is a tricky thing to transfer to the screen, nevertheless it is possible. All it takes is a little creativity and thought, foreign concepts to the filmmakers here, apparently. I have not seen the previous cinematic treatment of this novel, which here in IMDB also gets a pretty low rating.
Thus, whether it succeeds better than this one or not, I couldn't say.
I can say that a story that carried some serious emotional weight in print was presented here as something that I frankly couldn't give a crap about. The characters come as close to disappearing into the background as any I've ever witnessed, and someone really should tell these actors (and I use the term loosely) that acting involves more than simply reciting some words. Even the climactic scene, where the depth of Gene's betrayal is finally presented to Phineas in a way that he could no longer deny became a "so what?" moment, so denatured it was. Honestly, I couldn't have cared less. Oh dear. Leper went crazy in combat. Oh dear. Finny died during the resetting of his second fracture. Had I seen something similar in a theater - without any foreknowledge of the plot - I probably would have forgotten those pivotal moments before I got as far as the sidewalk.
These characters were presented with vividness and depth in the novel. On screen, they're tiresomely one-dimensional and you learn almost nothing about them, certainly nothing that wasn't laboriously and clumsily spelled out in the stunningly lame dialog.
Ah well. One good thing about this film was that it made me want to re-read the story.
Yeah, I get it. Rendering a story that's told primarily through internal monologue is a tricky thing to transfer to the screen, nevertheless it is possible. All it takes is a little creativity and thought, foreign concepts to the filmmakers here, apparently. I have not seen the previous cinematic treatment of this novel, which here in IMDB also gets a pretty low rating.
Thus, whether it succeeds better than this one or not, I couldn't say.
I can say that a story that carried some serious emotional weight in print was presented here as something that I frankly couldn't give a crap about. The characters come as close to disappearing into the background as any I've ever witnessed, and someone really should tell these actors (and I use the term loosely) that acting involves more than simply reciting some words. Even the climactic scene, where the depth of Gene's betrayal is finally presented to Phineas in a way that he could no longer deny became a "so what?" moment, so denatured it was. Honestly, I couldn't have cared less. Oh dear. Leper went crazy in combat. Oh dear. Finny died during the resetting of his second fracture. Had I seen something similar in a theater - without any foreknowledge of the plot - I probably would have forgotten those pivotal moments before I got as far as the sidewalk.
These characters were presented with vividness and depth in the novel. On screen, they're tiresomely one-dimensional and you learn almost nothing about them, certainly nothing that wasn't laboriously and clumsily spelled out in the stunningly lame dialog.
Ah well. One good thing about this film was that it made me want to re-read the story.
Oh my god
x-man-935143 May 2018
gene drives me crazy
sarjot27 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
okay....i haven't seen the movie yet (were watching it in English this Monday) but i just read the book.....awesome book....but the only thing is that GENE DRIVES ME UP THE WALL AND ONTO THE CEILING!!!!!! he doesn't cry when his best friend dies....and he wore finnys clothes....he isn't finny, and never will be, and i don't care how much he is jealous of finny......HE Shouldn't EVEN BE NEAR FINNYS CLOTHES!! finny is so cool...and gene is just obnoxious....maybe he wasn't like that when he came back to devon 15 years later....but when he went to devon school he was so annoying....i just thought that i would say that...........this book is really great though....even though gene didn't cry when finny died i did
More like a BBC
mcalester6627 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I bought this movie with very low hopes, seeing that most of the IMDb reviews called it trash. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT? I thought it was a very good adaptation. Here are my thoughts:
The High Points: Overall, the film was presented in as normal a way as possible, without big screen stars and fancy CGI to pretty it up. It struck me more like a BBC film, which I prefer. I felt that the four friends were good, especially Leper, who captured the lovable innocence that I felt there was in the character. Some key points were missing, like Gene taking off the layers of clothing when Finny returns, and the encounter with Quackenbush, but still, the acting was excellent. I also liked the soundtrack, everything from moody piano to "Hold that Tiger." Pity the soundtrack isn't released on CD.
The Low Points: The missing points which I mentioned earlier, plus the fact that Gene's narrations only occur at the beginning and the end. I think Gene should have narrated throughout, to convey his thoughts about Finny. When I watched the movie with my family, my grandmother was confused as to why Gene knocked Finny out of the tree. My mom, grandpa, and I had read the book, so we understood, but if you haven't read the book, you wouldn't understand. The other big change which I didn't like was Gene's confrontation with Leper, which rather than taking place at his house, occurs in a little survival hut built by the insane Leper in the woods. Leper is very straightforward there about his feelings which showed the actor's talent, but not so much the Leper from the book.
If you get this movie, do not judge it by the other reviews. See it for yourself. You may be pleasantly surprised as I was.
9/10 for some key points missing.
The High Points: Overall, the film was presented in as normal a way as possible, without big screen stars and fancy CGI to pretty it up. It struck me more like a BBC film, which I prefer. I felt that the four friends were good, especially Leper, who captured the lovable innocence that I felt there was in the character. Some key points were missing, like Gene taking off the layers of clothing when Finny returns, and the encounter with Quackenbush, but still, the acting was excellent. I also liked the soundtrack, everything from moody piano to "Hold that Tiger." Pity the soundtrack isn't released on CD.
The Low Points: The missing points which I mentioned earlier, plus the fact that Gene's narrations only occur at the beginning and the end. I think Gene should have narrated throughout, to convey his thoughts about Finny. When I watched the movie with my family, my grandmother was confused as to why Gene knocked Finny out of the tree. My mom, grandpa, and I had read the book, so we understood, but if you haven't read the book, you wouldn't understand. The other big change which I didn't like was Gene's confrontation with Leper, which rather than taking place at his house, occurs in a little survival hut built by the insane Leper in the woods. Leper is very straightforward there about his feelings which showed the actor's talent, but not so much the Leper from the book.
If you get this movie, do not judge it by the other reviews. See it for yourself. You may be pleasantly surprised as I was.
9/10 for some key points missing.
Parallel Branches
tedg25 May 2009
Some books seem natural for high school study. They need to be simple to read, but contain enough ambiguity and analogy to show students that real literature is more than a plot. If the book is set in high school, so much the better. I think the existence of this market niche is why this book has survived. There can be no other reason.
I mention the ambiguity, because that is why the book works; you never really know for sure what happened on that tree.
Alas, but TeeVee movies do not like ambiguity because they find their own market niche. So the only potentially valuable bit from the book is scrubbed out.
Still....
It did resonate with me. Its an odd thing when you encounter a story that has accidental settings and events that mirror important events in your life. I went to an elite boarding school, a military school in fact. The dynamics among boys in such an environment can have no analog anywhere else in the world. There were a characters like these (in the movie). There was at the time an expectation that many of us would go to the then current war in Viet Nam. There was anxious enthusiasm about roles that could in our imagination be achieved and a black market for swapping dreams of which of these roles were claimed first.
All this you see on the screen is true.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
I mention the ambiguity, because that is why the book works; you never really know for sure what happened on that tree.
Alas, but TeeVee movies do not like ambiguity because they find their own market niche. So the only potentially valuable bit from the book is scrubbed out.
Still....
It did resonate with me. Its an odd thing when you encounter a story that has accidental settings and events that mirror important events in your life. I went to an elite boarding school, a military school in fact. The dynamics among boys in such an environment can have no analog anywhere else in the world. There were a characters like these (in the movie). There was at the time an expectation that many of us would go to the then current war in Viet Nam. There was anxious enthusiasm about roles that could in our imagination be achieved and a black market for swapping dreams of which of these roles were claimed first.
All this you see on the screen is true.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Poor adaptation, but excellent movie
Robin-chan1 June 2005
I read ASP for English this year (my sophomore year) and personally loved it. I fell in love with the characters (particularly Finny) and re-read the book three times (naturally I aced my exam) and I'd been wanting to see the movie for a long time. After calling every rental store in my town I finally came across it and happily rented it and just finished viewing it.
As with all book-to-film movies, this naturally wasn't a play-by-play. Scenes were added, scenes were cut, details were left out. But this was a generally good film, and goes hand-in-hand with the book, granted that you read the original first.
The acting was superb; to my delight, Finny was exactly as I wanted him to be, and I was pleasantly surprised with Brinker and Leper, who I hadn't thought too much of at first. Gene was very good too, could've been better (but the cute accent was a nice touch!) All in all it was great.
As I said, this could've been a better adaptation, mostly because Gene's descriptive narrations aren't heard in the movie. Read the book, then watch the movie. It's a good pair, despite the differences. 8 out of 10.
--Robin-chan
As with all book-to-film movies, this naturally wasn't a play-by-play. Scenes were added, scenes were cut, details were left out. But this was a generally good film, and goes hand-in-hand with the book, granted that you read the original first.
The acting was superb; to my delight, Finny was exactly as I wanted him to be, and I was pleasantly surprised with Brinker and Leper, who I hadn't thought too much of at first. Gene was very good too, could've been better (but the cute accent was a nice touch!) All in all it was great.
As I said, this could've been a better adaptation, mostly because Gene's descriptive narrations aren't heard in the movie. Read the book, then watch the movie. It's a good pair, despite the differences. 8 out of 10.
--Robin-chan
very
Hunky Stud12 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen the old movie from a local library. Then just a few days ago, I saw a new DVD displayed in another library, and I was surprised that they made a movie again. And I didn't even know about. When I got the actually DVD, I realized that it is actually a Showtime TV show. Too bad, it only had one and half hour. I am sure that it could be even better if it had a little more time. One thing, according the print on the DVD, it was made in 2002, however, according to this site, it was released only in 2004?
I read a few negative comments from other viewers, I actually think that this is a very good TV show which I rated it a ten. It simply reminded me of that bygone preppy era. I am not in the age for prep school. However, the preppy life is always a way of my life or at least something that I like. I have several pink t-shirts and shirts, and some preppy looking ties. So this TV show really touched my heart. Talking about that, I especially like the ending. The empty room without Finny, and gene was crying as he turned off the light, with the camera fixed on the empty bed which Finny used to sleep. When it ended, I somehow wished that it was a real life story. And I was hoping that Finny could have lived. Life without Finny could be so pale.
And those actors were very good, and each fits the role very well. Jacob Pitts as Brinker surprised me, I have seen him in Euro Trip which is such a different movie. He was able to act entirely differently in those two shows. I also like J. Barton as Gene, he has sad eyes. He played Gene well.
I also have read the book and seen the old movie. However, I can't remember much since it was so long ago. So I can't comment on which show was the better one. However, I remembered that those two men from the old movie were not so cute. This time, those two guys look good, and the environment seems to be so surreal. Everything is so neat and clean. It is almost dreamlike, a fantasy land. Even when they went out to do some apple picking, they still look so neat. I also like how that old man told the boys about his dead son, very touching.
Some say that it is not so homosexual. I think that it has described the friendship, love between those two men well. Sometimes, love and friendship don't have to be so obvious. You know that they felt with each other. Too bad, the DVD did not have any extra materials. Maybe some day, they can get those actors together, and ask them to talk about their experience with the show. This is definite something that I can watch again.
I read a few negative comments from other viewers, I actually think that this is a very good TV show which I rated it a ten. It simply reminded me of that bygone preppy era. I am not in the age for prep school. However, the preppy life is always a way of my life or at least something that I like. I have several pink t-shirts and shirts, and some preppy looking ties. So this TV show really touched my heart. Talking about that, I especially like the ending. The empty room without Finny, and gene was crying as he turned off the light, with the camera fixed on the empty bed which Finny used to sleep. When it ended, I somehow wished that it was a real life story. And I was hoping that Finny could have lived. Life without Finny could be so pale.
And those actors were very good, and each fits the role very well. Jacob Pitts as Brinker surprised me, I have seen him in Euro Trip which is such a different movie. He was able to act entirely differently in those two shows. I also like J. Barton as Gene, he has sad eyes. He played Gene well.
I also have read the book and seen the old movie. However, I can't remember much since it was so long ago. So I can't comment on which show was the better one. However, I remembered that those two men from the old movie were not so cute. This time, those two guys look good, and the environment seems to be so surreal. Everything is so neat and clean. It is almost dreamlike, a fantasy land. Even when they went out to do some apple picking, they still look so neat. I also like how that old man told the boys about his dead son, very touching.
Some say that it is not so homosexual. I think that it has described the friendship, love between those two men well. Sometimes, love and friendship don't have to be so obvious. You know that they felt with each other. Too bad, the DVD did not have any extra materials. Maybe some day, they can get those actors together, and ask them to talk about their experience with the show. This is definite something that I can watch again.
Outstanding cast!
TheGPoobah23 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I love the book and think the four young men in the principle roles did an outstanding job. Toby Moore truly shines as Finny. I hope we are going to see a lot more of this actor. Wendy Kesselman also did a great job on the script, with one exception. She confirmed that Gene purposefully knocked Finny out of the tree, where the book, leaves that determination to the reader. The scene with Leper and Gene in the woods, after Leper deserted, is worth making this movie a "must see" by itself. Peter Yates can chalk this one up to another directing success. This is a far superior production than the previous, 1972 version, and I think a movie everyone should see.
movie was great despite variations
barnstormer__28 March 2005
I am also a big fan of the book, I didn't even know that a movie was made until I stumbled across it at the video store, coincidentally when I happened to be re-reading the book. Although I did notice when an event in the movie did not line up perfectly, it really didn't bother me that much, such as Brinker telling Gene that Phineas wanted to see him, and also telling him that he had a phone call, instead of it being Mr. Ludsbury. That's one less character to cast, and it doesn't affect the story significantly. I believe they stayed true to the underlying interpersonal themes of the book. In order to get the entire scope of Gene's inner self, it would have had to become over-narrated, his voice telling the viewer what he was thinking constantly. Here I guess it's better to have read the book, because just watching the movie without reading it, it would be much harder to pick up all of the workings of Gene's mind and heart. To me, seeing it portrayed on-screen accentuated the emotion and personalities of the characters in a positive way--Phineas' energy, Leper's peculiarity, Brinker's always-in-charge demeanor,Gene's inner self masked by his outward demeanor, which flashed unexpectedly at times. I think that Gene was casted and played brilliantly, outwardly soft-spoken and innocent, inwardly driven and insecure, allowing the viewer to see what he was capable of doing deep inside, and then to some degree seeing his guilt and shock of realizing what he had done to Phineas. (I don't think his accent was overdone either, it even helped to promote his country boy 'innocence'.) And I could go on about more details. All in all, I did like the movie, although it did take a little (and sometimes a lot) of liberty with the original book, and admittedly it didn't carry out all the underlying themes of the book. But as far as portraying the relational and interpersonal themes, between the central characters of the book, and in the portrayal of those characters, I believe it did a good job. To me it didn't ruin the book at all, I think it will make reading it better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
