For those who have read the book

ah. the curse of the book adaptation. though it is an interpretation of an original source, the film is nonetheless an original art form itself.

in this instance i saw the movie first. i was enchanted by the haunting story and the interesting characters involved.

a year or two later i read the excellent book. and a few other paul auster novels to-boot.

generally, i'm disappointed with a book adaptation if the film characters don't honourably act out the quality of the characters in the book. it is also important that the mood of the book is preserved, or at the least, recognisably attempted.If i recognise a successful portrayl of these elements in a film adaptation, it's easier for me to appreciate the presence of the book's by-product.the finer details or slightly inconsequent changes in the story become acceptable.

i thought that the movie did an excellent job of bringing the book's characters into the real world. At times a book, despite its quality, can be too firmly anchored to the reality of fantasy. It exists in a world separate from our own, which may be essential in captivating us and inspiring us to read it. When made into a film, the story becomes closer to our own worlds as we can access it with more of our senses, our sight and sounds.

on this occasion i appreciated the actors work involved and their excellence in portraying the mysterious rendezvous of several unique destinies. some scenes which remind me of this iclude mandy patinkins stirring ode to song at jacks birthday celebration, and the harmonic personality chemistry between the two estate owners, particularly when coming to name the 'wailing wall'.


btw i cant get enough of robert deniro and particularly enjoy his earlier works Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter & Mad Dog and Glory. I wish Michael Douglas could perform as consistently as the great DeNiro.

Never read the book, loved the film.

I love your kids

[deleted]

I thought it was a good adaptation of the Novel.Literature doesn't always transfer well onto the screen but James Spader and M.Emmet Walshe were excellent in it.I love the bit when Pozzi hollers 'Will you get a load of what we just did !'
Paul Auster's cameo at the end was a nice touch but I prefered the sudden ending in the novel, it was much more effective.

Actually I was surprised that many scenes in the film came very close to what I imagined it would look like when I read the book. Of course you are right when you say the whole beginning was cut out. But I think it was well done how you learn more and more about Nashe's life in the course of the film. Concerning the end, it seems to me as if Paul Auster himself wouldn't have starred in the final scene if he wouldn't have agreed with that alternative ending. So after all, for me, reading the book was more fun, but the film is definitively good.

I'd actually seen the film about 4 or 5 times before I read the book, it's an all-time fave... but when I found out it was from a Paul Auster novel, who is also a fave writer of mine I had to read it. I have to say the book was masterful as his work always is... they definitely had to cut some corners for the film adaptation but I thought they did an extremely good job (for once) of adapting it to the screen. I was surprised at how many lines they used verbatim - much more than in other adaptations I've seen. The only part I thought was a shame they cut out was near the end when Nashe has his time alone without Pozzi and with the piano - he really explains his deathlust for the hired hand's kid which wasn't so clear in the film (you just assume his distaste for him is due to him ratting out Pozzi). And his loss of sanity is fascinating. Of course the book is much more poetic, and gives the whole story much more depth. However I think the existential feel did translate quite a bit, considering it was a mainstream(ish) film.

The only thing that REALLY disappointed me in the novel was the ending - I can see how if you read the book you'd think the film was a "happy ending" copout, but the way Auster ended the book, with him crashing the car into oblivion was a real letdown after following his whole journey throughout. So it was just a slow trap then decline - blecch. I like the ending much better in the film, not because he survived (although a bit unlikely lol), but because of the beautiful symmetry between his chance meeting with the bedraggled Pozzi by the side of the road at the beginning, and his being in the exact same place at the end... thought it brought home the message much more of the capriciousness of chance, free will vs determinism themes etc of the whole story. They had effectively "switched places". Brilliant. Was anyone else disappointed with the novel's ending??

It was SUCH a treat though to read the whole number passage in the book (about the winning lotto pick) which they condensed for the film.... magic!

I was also disappointed but not surprised. It is a reader's book. Hard to make a movie of it. It really only works as a book. But I did prefer the ending of the movie to the ending of the book. The only thing that disappointed me about the book was the ending. But Paul Auster's endings are usually disappointing to me.

The second I saw the actors in the movie, I realized it wasn't gonna be any good for me. How they started without any of the (brilliant) backstory, and how they'd cast Pozzi (An actor in his 30s, which didn't look a bit younger, as oppose to the description of him in the book), left me fairly pessimistic through the rest of the film. Probably shouldn't be commenting just 14 minutes into the film, but those impressions is enough for me to feel guilty about watching the rest. I haven't got enough experience watching movies based on books I've read to handle this.

Edit: The soundtrack is also completely misplaced imo.

Edit 2: The Nashe character makes no sense at all without the backstory.

Edit 3: Pozzis loyalty makes no sense without showing the bonding that was established prior to the "business" proposition.

Edit 4: Also annoying that the changed the time of year from the book (Assuming that's due to location of filming).