Awful, bad, horrible movie.

Totally Agree!! I think this movie corrupted the novel for some instance.

The book is one of my favorites, but the movie ranks among my favorite films. Funny, that.

-Alec

Hello Schtrunfe, I like your comment. I just saw the first 20 minutes of this embarassing schmonzes and than switched off because of the same reasons you have specified. As for my taste you are right with every word you wrote, and although I know nothing else about you, I think I would like you if we ever met. Cordial greetings from Austria!

I don't think the movie itself is awful or horrible (a bit overly long to be sure)...but it is a bad adaptation. I barely registered the connection between what I read and got out of the book and what I saw and got out of the movie.

I find it surprising so many of you have the same negative sentiment regarding the film adaptation of the novel. I first saw the movie when I was extremely young, so perhaps it was my impressionable state of mind that made me fall in love with the film, perhaps Daniel Day Lewis. I found the earnestness of the characters affecting. The director's ability to contrast Sabina's innocence, for she is innocent, to Tereza's obvious innocence quite a feat. I admit Day's portrayal of Tomas was quite bland, but again, it was intentional to convey the character's inability to be touched by reality. The character motivation can be partially driven by the background scenery and the mood it conveys. The filmography was beautiful - to make such a "gray" movie display so much "color" is pure genius. As far as gratuitous nudity, the swimming pool scene irked me as unnecessary; however, the scenes with Sabina were apropos. I'd write more, but I haven't seen the movie in years, and can't give a responsible point of view without seeing the movie again.

Yes, the novel surpasses the film exponentially, but the film does have redeeming qualities.

I enjoy this movie on many levels. Mr. Kaufman couldn't possibly make a perfect adaptation to this book. Imagine throwing in the parts of the book about Stalin's son and his grisly death into the film. That wouldn't make sense at all as far as the story in the movie was going. Or what about the concept of the divine intestine and the holy bowel movements. I like the movie and the book. In this movies defense I liked the way that it looks. The movie is almost never as good as the source novel. I'm sorry you didn't like it. At least you still have a good book to read.

I think the film stands well on it's own. However, as an adaptation of the novel, I feel that it falls a bit short. They took too many liberties. The film was 3 hours long. If they were given the green-light for that long of a runtime, I think they could've included the bits about...

**Spoilers below for both the film, and the novel (for those who have seen the movie but haven't yet read the book)**

...Tomas' son and the editor, Franz's fate at the Grand March, Sabina's final whereabouts, the backstory for each character (Franz's wife and daughter, Teresa's mother, Tomas' ex-wife) and so forth. Don't get me wrong...naturally, I can't possibly expect them to be able to convey the political and philosophical idealogues in film. However, I don't appreciate the liberties they took with the fundamental storyline. Like I said, if they were given the okay for a 3-hour runtime, they should've been able to fit in more of the basic storyline. No excuses for that, in my opinion. I was also a bigger fan of the non-linear timeline in the novel (in that we find out about Tomas and Teresa's deaths about halfway through, instead of in the final 5 minutes)...though I did fall in love with the final scene of the film, and the fade-to-white ending.

In short, I think the film stands well on it's own. Somebody who sees the film and never reads the novel should walk away with a very favorable impression. However, once you've read the novel, the adaptation pales in comparison. It's a good film, but in the end, it's main fault is that it happens to be an adaptation of a brilliant, unfilmable novel. That's just due to a large difference between the two mediums, though. A novel can spell out what characters are feeling, thinking, and why they're doing what they're doing. A film can to a certain extent...but it's a wholly different medium for storytelling.

The novel is a favorite of mine, and on the same token, I thought the film, even if not a satisfactory adaptation, was still a very good piece of work.

-JP

films and novels are two seperate mediums of human expression, we cannot compare them to each other, compare the novel to other novel and the film to other films. As for the acting Daniel day-lewis his is great actor, who are you, you probly don't know you a** from a hole in the ground, yet you know more about actors then Phillip Kaufman. As for the female body for sale, I am sure you understand in yuor infinte wisdom that he is commenting on the comercialism of the female body, but to Milans credit he also presented Tomas as a womanizer not Philip.