Read The Book, Watched the Movie, Got Mad
You might be thinking: I read this book and really liked it, I need to rent the movie! I can't speak for the 2004 TV remake, but a word of caution on anyone who thinks the 1972 version has any redeemable, successful, artistic moments.
It doesn't. And if you liked the book, you will find it painful. Some problems:
1. WRITING. Narration in the book helped us understand the complexity of feeling, and no one can relate those feelings on screen. The writers try to add some stilted lines, but you can't convincingly voice your deepest vulnerabilities, so they fall flat. When Gene knocks Finny out of the tree, we wonder where the anger came from - no visible feelings have built to it. It seems almost random. That alone nearly ruins the movie.
2. DIRECTING. The directing is tiresome; rarely are nice pictures framed or does the camera work relate the tension, anarchy, and rebellion that should be lurking under the surface. Peerce just follows the boys around with his camera and uses mostly head-on shots or profile shots. Maybe this was the norm in 1972, but watching it now is frustrating.
3. ACTING: A few minor characters have some good moments (I thought Peter Brush handled the role of Leper adequately), but neither of the leads realizes his role to any extent. As Finny, John Heryl doesn't have the hypnotic quality, the musical voice, the striking appearance, or the charisma to make his character larger than life. That energy is the center of the book, so there's a gaping hole. Stevenson is over his head as Gene, a role full of complexities. Where his capable assuredness should make him savage and compelling, Stevenson just blandly lolls along, awkward, uncertain, and dull.
The movie can't decide whether it wants to suggest homoerotic undertones or just be strange. The awkward dialogue between the leads would make sense if there was some type of basis - loyalty, dependence, fraternity - but no feelings seem to exist. We don't get the intensity of their friendship that makes everything plausible, and this makes the movie entirely dependent on the book.
All in all, this movie just hasn't aged well. It's not a charmingly outdated through back, but a tedious march through drudgery. It is difficult to watch a book so full of meaning and angst roll blandly across the screen frame by frame.