MovieChat Forums > A Simple Twist of Fate (1994) Discussion > Silas Martin?

Silas Martin?

posted 20 years ago by freakofnurture
17 replies | jump to latest

I rented this movie last week for three reasons:
1. It shares a title with a Bob Dylan song that I happen to like... but then again I like almost all of Dylan's music.
2. I saw that it had Steve Martin as the lead actor with a small girl tethered to his leg in the front cover art.
3. It was on the "COMEDY" rack. Because of this and because of reason #2, I must have assumed that ASTOF was going to be riotously funny like the movie Parenthood.
Add these up and it's 100% of the background info that I had before watching the movie. I didn't even read the back cover of the box, so I had no idea what to expect plot-wise (being in a hurry for reasons I don't care to explain).
I agree 100% with John Ulmer's comment in IMDB's user reviews for the movie: "It's pretty sad when Catherine O'Hara generates more laughs in the film than Steve Martin himself." That's exactly how i felt when I was watching it.
Let me summarize.
About 30 minutes into the movie, I concluded that there was no noticeable connection to the Dylan song, which didn't bother me much.
Forty minutes into the movie I found myself wanting very badly to fast-forward the tape until I saw Steve Martin doing something that might be kind of funny.
(I had been feeling gloomy for days so I had decided to rent 3 "comedy" movies as treatment. Some treatment. I found myself only more depressed. I wasn't necessarily depressed by the plot as much as the spectacle of Steve Martin's uncomfortable role as a dramatic actor rather than a comedian. He seemed very out of his element in this movie.)
About 1 hour into the movie I ejected the tape, stuck it in the rewinder and went to sleep. I'd given up.
After my nap I went to IMDB to see if anybody actually enjoyed this movie. It was only then I noticed that ASTOF was adapted from Silas Marner. My initial response was "cool... I think I remember that book..."
End of summary.
More background information here: I now quite clearly recall being assigned to read Silas Marner for English class in the 9th grade. The book was also too boring to sustain my attention. As a result, I didn't get halfway through reading the book either.
So, in conclusion, I have one sincere compliment for Steve Martin, regarding this film... Due to my almost identical reactions to the book and the movie, I've decided that Martin's screenplay for A Simple Twist of Fate is an EXCELLENT adaptation of George Eliot's novel.
Okay maybe I'm being bitter and it all stems from my lack of attention span.

MDC

[–] purple_pixies 19 years ago

HAHAHA

Yea, we studied it in like 7th grade. God, for a such widely renowned novel, it really lacks originality- same with the movie. By the way, George Elliot is a woman- I found that really funny after finishing 23 pages of notes and summaries for my seventh grade novel project. Like 6 years later I stumble across this movie and CRACKED up! I couldnt finish it...

Are you calling me a ditzy flirt??!!...thankyou

[–] guildenstern5 19 years ago

The two previous posters need to stick to the MTV generated, non-thinking movies. ASTOF requires you to use that lump above your shoulders. Might I suggest to both of you Club Dread or Super Troopers. These should be right up your alley.

[–] foster1234 19 years ago

I never thought it was supposed to be a comedy, do you guys ever read the back of the box?

"When next we meet, we shall be as golden clouds upon the sky"---The Raisuli

[–] jelly11 18 years ago

You know it really doesn't. The screenplay is really thick and boring and it lacks depth. it's like they assume you've read Silas Marner and if you haven't, than its just pointless.

[–] bensspambucket 16 years ago

My wife and I are both teachers, enjoy, and are quite well accustomed to "thinking movies" and honestly, we both laughed really hard when we read this post. I don't see how this movie requires any thought at all. The dialogue is absurdly transparent, the acting stiff, and the plot almost completely unbelievable. Despite it's name, none of the key developments in this event-driven plot could be dubbed a "simple twist".

Besides the moral of this story is laughable, "you're only fit to have kids if you've got a lot of money."

At least now that we know it's totally anachronistic plot was "suggested" by a book from the 19th century so something makes sense.

[–] jelly11 18 years ago

It lacks originality because of the era it was written. In the victorian era plots were written very simply. The plots like Marner that we think of cliche weren't cliche then, because these books were the originals.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 19 years ago

Freak:

I can completely understand why you didn't like the movie. You were expecting comedy from a comedian and the cover art for the movie even implied that there would be humor. So...I can't fault you AT ALL for being disappointed.

However, if you watch it again think about Steve's genius with comedy and then ask yourself this question; "can he pull off a serious role."

He did. This movie is proof.

As Carl Reiner asked in his recent <u>Razor</u> article on Steve Martin. "Is there anything this man can't do?" I'm beginning to wonder myself.

So if you like Steve Martin and think he is just amazing consider this movie further proof that you are right.

Yadda yadda yadda <i>this is my signature line</i>

[–] freakofnurture 19 years ago

And now... a year and half later... i get 4 replies.

To guildenstern5, no, I'm not an MTV kid, thank you. I wasn't raised on cable tv. How many MTV kids actually know who Steve Martin is? Maybe 20%, of which maybe 1% have seen The Jerk.

To foster1234, for the record, and as I stated earlier, my video rental (an independent business btw, I like it) had this movie on the *comedy* rack. I assume this is due to the prominent position of Steve Martin on the cover and the fact that none of the clerks there actually watched it.

MDC

P.S. maybe THEY are the MTV kids.

[–] jclynne 19 years ago

As an English teacher and an avid reader, I found this string of posts very entertaining. Fortunately, I was never assigned Silas Marner in school, though I believe Marian Evans aka George Eliot deserves kudos in both versions. I loved Steve Martin in this film, though I knew it wasn't a comedy. I think he is at his best in these toned-down, still waters characters. It is the tone of your first critique, freak, that set up the rest of those responses. I was doing a little eye rolling while reading it myself.

[–] rach_xxmwahxx 18 years ago

We had to read Silas Marner for our year 10 coursework, which is for our GCSE's (big exams we have to take at 16 for all you Americans). Everyone in my English group thought it would be really boring, including me and I enjoy pre 19th Century novels. But after conquering the first quarter of the book, we all got really into it and couldn't wait until the end. It's a fantastic story and very original. Well done George Eliot :)

*I don't like Cricket*
And that's why I don't like cricket!

[–] pjheberling 18 years ago

*I don't like Cricket*
And that's why I don't like cricket!

"Oh, no! I love it!"
– Eric Stewart

[–] BilligerVogel 17 years ago

Okay maybe I'm being bitter and it all stems from my lack of attention span.

Or maybe your age. I think it's aimed at the 40 and over crowd. I really don't think I would have appreciated it earlier in my life either.

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

[–] RainbowyGoodness 17 years ago

Forty and over? I'm fifteen and really enjoyed it. Well, not that I'm normal or anything...I just recently watched it, having just finished Silas Marner for my ninth grade honors English class. I must say I liked ASTOF more than the book, the way it held my attention so much better. The wordiness of ninteenth-century English novels always seems to be an instant turn-off for me.

I really think the first few posters need to open their minds. I think that a mark of true talent is when the actor can actually pull off a role that isn't exactly within their genre of expertise. Steve Martin did this perfectly in my opinion.

[–] DisneyFanatic844 17 years ago

I agree completely with TheRabidOtaku.

I'm fifteen too (and a little weird maybe), and my Lit. class just finished watching it. My teacher didn't like the book (nor listening to us reading aloud) and we listened to it on tape first, then watched this movie. Everyone in the class was really into the movie. Yes, I admit I was expecting it to be funny, but I'm glad it wasn't. It would've ruined the whole movie.

Steve Martin may have done some B movies, but this isn't one of them. It deserves more credit.

[–] AnthmWright 16 years ago

This is one of Steve Martin's best movies because it is not stupid slapstick.

I can see how you were disappointed by the movie because it did not have the right mood that you wanted to be in, but that is your own fault for not coming on the Internet first to check it out.

A simple Twist of Fate is one of those movies that you have to see to the end because it is intended to make you feel a variety of emotions before the cathartic finale.

Anthony

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 14 years ago

Sorry about your video store having this in the comedy section. I think this is one of Steve's best roles. I haven't read the book though.

Kelloway: Doyle, get in the car.
Doyle: But I ordered Onion Rings.
Kelloway: Doyle!

[–] mrmultimedia 7 years ago

I'd think that at some point you'd recognize the movie wasn't a comedy and adjust to it - and evaluate it on it's own terms rather than the wildly inaccurate preconception of it you had. I've enjoyed many movies that weren't what I expected. I thought Shawshank was going some sort of religious type of movie before I actually watched it. Hollywood routinely mispackages movies to market them.

For Simple Twist of Fate, I had absolutely no expectations going in - I'd never heard of if. I probably expected a comedy based on Martin, but that really had no effect. There were some elements that were a bit dated - the money element for example. But by the same means, I don't think things were nearly so off the mark at the time. A single man of relatively meager means would have a difficult time getting custody of a child compared to a wealthy married couple.

You could argue that it was a bit clichéd at times. A miser, concerned about accumulating/collecting something precious - whose cold heart melts for a child. I liked it, but get it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I do however take issue with anyone who criticizes the adaptation. It wasn't until later that I read Silas Marner - and I definitely enjoyed it. But it was very dated - very much a product of its times. I think Martin's adaptation was outstanding. He kept the heart of the story, in some parts paying clear homage to the original source, but made it more approachable and modern.