I'm not sure why Critics hated this! Should it have been a miniseries to do justice to all the ideas a novel tries to tackle? I thought McGregor's self-directed performance was amazing even if the screenplay felt jam packed with incident. Nonetheless, I liked it better than most of the social justice minded films that courted Oscar this season.
il risultato è decisamente di altra pasta rispetto al libro: appiattito e spuntato, sottolineato dalle musiche di un Desplat mai così retorico è banale. L'adattamento cinematografico del buon Ewan è superficiale al punto da rimaneggiare del tutto il finale, trasformando la sottolineatura perfetta di questa odissea fatalista nel classico discorso retorico da film per tutti.
It is oh so academic. I must admit that the novel is complicated to adapt for the screen but the screenplay is dull. Why would you want so much to adapt this book, cut half of it to make it easier for the stupid public to digest and then apply all the boring rules to make it the less complex and the less imaginative ? What is the big idea ? Mc Gregor seems to think that a great film = great cinematography.
It's hard to get Roth right, and although I don't think this film does him justice, it's not a half-bad effort from McGregor. Let's be honest, I can think of more than a few directors who would have fared far worse.
Whereas last year's other Roth adaptation sung in its extended sequences where it let its world stretch, this plays like a cartoon doodled on the bottom corner of the book, the director spraying the scenes like you would flip the pages.
That Ewan directs himself as the lead is problematic. It means the character is never condemned, so we are made to side with him in his struggle not to fuck his daughter.
"You come at people with an open mind, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You get them wrong while you're with them, or you tell someone about them and get them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive. We are wrong."