I don't remember the book very well, apart from feeling that it was wildly overwritten--the author's sense of lyrical self-importance almost overwhelmed everything else. But the basic elements seemed like they'd adapt well to film. However, when this came out I heard very mixed things about it, mostly that it was very pretty to look at but not very compelling otherwise. So it's taken me a long time to get to it.
Indeed, it's a very good-looking movie, maybe more genteel than the story needed. You don't get much sense of conflict except in isolated scenes, and the dynamic between the brothers seemed less intense than what I remembered from the book--maybe because Brad Pitt is at the height of his "I don't need to act, just stand around and look pretty" early phase, his charaacter never seems much of a troubled soul, let alone a doomed one. The much more briefly seen figure of the romantic lead's brother is far vivid as someone who's his own worst enemy. Craig Sheffer's character is better defined, but on the other hand you can see why that actor's career didn't really take off--he's perfectly fine, but there's no memorable personality or particular charisma behind the competence. The supporting performances are decent enough.
It's an OK movie, but all its expensive craftsmanship can't substitute for the real inspiration this story really needed to come alive onscreen. Redford is usually a solid director, but he's very literal-minded, and has no particular flair for action or tension. He's good at elevating dialogue- and issue-driven material like "Ordinary People," but this film needed a poet's sensibility, and Redford is more like a dutiful transcriptionist. Then again, plenty of people think the book is a great work of art, because it acts the part of being one. Similarly, this movie may strike some as a classic because it looks and sounds as if stuffed with gravitas. I just wish I actually FELT that gravitas, rather than feeling the movie's earnest self-importance without being particularly moved by the characters, the story or even the picture-postcard photography.
Indeed, it's a very good-looking movie, maybe more genteel than the story needed. You don't get much sense of conflict except in isolated scenes, and the dynamic between the brothers seemed less intense than what I remembered from the book--maybe because Brad Pitt is at the height of his "I don't need to act, just stand around and look pretty" early phase, his charaacter never seems much of a troubled soul, let alone a doomed one. The much more briefly seen figure of the romantic lead's brother is far vivid as someone who's his own worst enemy. Craig Sheffer's character is better defined, but on the other hand you can see why that actor's career didn't really take off--he's perfectly fine, but there's no memorable personality or particular charisma behind the competence. The supporting performances are decent enough.
It's an OK movie, but all its expensive craftsmanship can't substitute for the real inspiration this story really needed to come alive onscreen. Redford is usually a solid director, but he's very literal-minded, and has no particular flair for action or tension. He's good at elevating dialogue- and issue-driven material like "Ordinary People," but this film needed a poet's sensibility, and Redford is more like a dutiful transcriptionist. Then again, plenty of people think the book is a great work of art, because it acts the part of being one. Similarly, this movie may strike some as a classic because it looks and sounds as if stuffed with gravitas. I just wish I actually FELT that gravitas, rather than feeling the movie's earnest self-importance without being particularly moved by the characters, the story or even the picture-postcard photography.