A Separate Peace [DVD]

Helped to understand book

First of all, be sure to read the John Knowles book first. It always helps to do so before watching a film adaptation of a classic story. As for the movie itself, most of it remains true to the novel. Considering it was shot around 2003, the teleplay remains truer to patriotism as opposed to the written version. (Listen to the stories of your grandfathers and uncles. Who would dare speak out against fighting in World War II? Or the conflicts in the present day Middle East?) A few of the circumstances were altered because to reflect this aspect, but, nothing so drastic that the root of the story is changed. The movie is well acted and paced. Every scene pertaining to the main plot is included. I highly recommend "A Separate Peace" to anyone who's in doubt.

This movie is so dated and it doesn't hold up. I watched it when it was first in the theatre. But 50 years later, the story now seems silly and uninteresting.

I purchased this movie for review and consideration to show my ninth grade class. We read this as per the curriculum, and I was glad to see a motion picture which could potentially accommodate it. The movie lack several important aspects of the book. It also takes a very liberal script stand-point. The actors themselves (as well as the scenery) just don't seem to pull the audience in. This movie, I would say, completely missed the point.This movie seems to have fallen into the pool of books-to-movies that completely lose sight of the book's purpose. Where Lord of the Flies film adaptation left the audience feeling deflated for its blatant disregard for the classic, so too did this movie. In what could have been potentially a decent movie, the screenplays and writers seemed to strike out with scene after scene of forced dialogue and awkward interactions. The relationship between Phineas and Gene could best be described as acquaintences at best. The on-again-off-again relationship on-screen doesn't seem to capture the inner struggle Gene had in the book. Finny seemed more fake than peaceful. Gene seemed lacking self-esteem instead of being the brightest student at Devon.Brinker seemed to be the only scripted person who did a rather decent job of his role. Even he couldn't escape the wrath of awful writing as he converses with Gene at the end of the story as if suddenly everything would turn out alright.The writers took liberty to add what seemed like useless scenes. Case in point: the apple-picking scene. For those that have read the book, the apple-picking scene could have been viewed as a replacement for the snow-shoveling scene. Written into the script was a man who bequeaths what we're told is his combat deceased son's military dress hat. The man's reaction to the loss of his son doesn't exactly match up with his eagerness to depart with what he says was the last item he had of his son.Also a half-hearted attempt at capturing the book's tone was the scene involving the Devon Winter Olympics (not Winter Carnival, mind you). This ho-hum single event creates an urge to fast-forward to the next scene in hopes of finding something worth viewing.Leper's character doesn't follow the script either. Instead of Leper going crazy in Vermont, he secludes himself in a hut in the woods just off campus. Because of this alteration we obviously don't see the quick confrontation/ dinner with Gene, Leper, and Leper's mother. Ultimately in the end, it is Leper who says he was at Finny's incident, yet one can think back to the actual footage of the fall and not see Leper's presence at all.The actors, plus the location, just don't do the trick. Finny seems to be apathetic to anything. He doesn't have 'hockey team-size groups of people' following him around campus in the movie. He also doesn't seem to be the center of attention on campus like the book indicates. He seems like an everyday student who smiles at people a lot. Gene seems like a ticking time bomb for reasons outside of the script that are hinted around his southern upbringing (apparently he's from the south in the movie). And while the book takes place at what could be considered Exeter, the campus onscreen does not resemble the description by Knowles. As a matter of fact, it's missing a river, much less the two rivers described in the book. Without rivers, Cliff Quackenbush has no room in the script.The ultimate foul I think, though, is the complete disregard for important dialogue. Basic exchanges between Gene and faculty are completely eliminated. However, it is the revealing conversation between Gene and Phineas in the hospital that could have salvaged the movie. The audience never gets to see Gene tell Finny that he would be awful in war, allowing the audience to realize he was the sole beacon of peace during World War II at Devon. That conversation could have let viewers in on Finny's personality, but unfortunately it does not happen.I am not sure if I will show this to my class. Yet again brief instances of foul language sends an otherwise movie to rated R. I think students will find the movie lacking, complete with a sense of confusion as to what was missing in it. It could be worth a try so long as the educator prefaces the movie with a missive stating the movie is not a study aid. Otherwise I would skip it completely.

The 1972 film version of John Knowles' modern masterpiece is a class act for the reason that Paramount Pictures went to Phillips Exeter Academy and filmed it on location with all student actors from Exeter with the exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School. Though the acting is a little amaturish at times, so what, it should be, for it is the drama society of Exeter and alumni putting on a Paramount film!John Heyl, a former Exeter Student, was eighteen and son of the school doctor. John Heyl does a great job as Finny at the age sixteen, seventeen that Finny would have been in the novel.This was also Parker Stevenson, at eighteen, his first film and in my view his best role as Gene.It is a good adaptation of the book but I would strongly suggest that you read the novel first for the tentions of love, hate, jealously, denial, sexual undertones and regret are pale compared to John Knowles' writing. It is a love story and the viewer decides if it is emotional and / or physical. What else could motivate ones "Best Pal" and roommate to do such a violent act as to attempt to maim him hense excorise him (Finny) from Genes life i.e. emotions that Gene could not deal with at sixteen.I have recently viewed Showtime's 2004 version which was filmed at a college in Canada and has actors that are in there late twenties playing the parts of teenagers. No sorry - veto! John Heyl will always be Finny and Parker Stevenson will always be Gene. The 1972 Film version of A Separate Peace shot at Exeter is a true "PREPPY" classic.

I am usually wary of buying old movies on DVDs because of the sound quality, but this one exceeded expectation. Great sound, no drops, every bit of dialogue crystal clear. Good visual quality too. A good buy!

Thought of it as a tribute to young boys entering manhood at the brink of WW11. All boys school, the competiveness, friendship and learning responsibility. Shows the true meaning of rising above ones ego to the benefit of others, In my opinion, should be required reading for young men as well for young women. More importantly, it would be well for parents to read for a better understanding of how young people learn to cope.

全般的には良かったが、メッセージの力強さに欠けた。元となる小説があるらしいので、次回はそれを呼んで見ることにしようと思っています。俳優はそれぞれ持ち味がしっかりしているし、ストーリーも明快なので、あとは監督(あるいは脚本)の技量だと思う。普通に見てまあまあ。２度見ようとは思わないが、見て損はしない映画だと思う。

More like a tv movie and it can't live up to the incredible book, but still enjoyable just because it's A Separate Peace.