MovieChat Forums > The Light Between Oceans (2016) Discussion > If you intend to watch this movie

If you intend to watch this movie


DO NOT READ THE BOOK FIRST. If you want to read the book and watch the movie, watch the movie first (if you must) and then wait at least for half a year until the memory of the movie fades away. Yes. It is that bad. When I became aware of this movie I thought, what a fascinating story. So I bought the book and read it. It is a great piece of literature. But it's not an easy read and you have to understand it. The people who made the movie did not understand the story nor the protagonists. Izzy (Isabel) is perfectly casted by Alicia Vikander. Tom, however, is terribly miscast. He's just too old! Yes, there is the age difference. But both actors are too old. However, while Alicia Vikander looks young and vivid, Michael Fassbender just doesn't fit the role.

The book is a lot about feelings of people, about situations, expectations, memories of war, disappointments. There is not much dialogue. But because of that, the dialogues become even more important and they should have been emphasised in the movie. Because of the lack of dialogue - and of information, therefore - you don't really have a clue what is going on, and why, unless you had read the book. As a reader of the book, you get loads of information along the way. As a viewer of the film, you are completely left in the dark. Also, there was paid too little attention to the way Tom and Izzy met in the first place, and what happened before that.

I knew, of course, after reading the book, that the movie had to be a disappointment. Only Hollywood's finest could have made this one into a really great movie. Like Titanic. Yes, it has the potential. But it was too big a challenge for the producers. Well, this is just my opinion. If you have a different one, I will certainly respect that. 10 points for the book, 3 points for the movie.

reply

[deleted]

Does anyone have any opinion about what I wrote? I was not able to read the only reply before it was deleted by the poster.

I don't think that anyone is entitled to give a statement here unless they read the novel. In another thread, someone wrote: "I started reading the novel and as soon as I saw where it was going I ditched it. It's romance porn, all about some guy whose whole life is dedicated to making some flakey dame happy, even to the point of going against the rules of his job. "
That's nonsense. This story is about how you know what is right and what is wrong. And how this perception changes due to your own history, and what happens if you are indoctrinated with certain believes and are therefore completely certain to do the right thing, when what you are doing is just wrong. It is about the question if the current view of society about right and wrong (which changes over time) is really what should determine what actions we take in difficult situations that concern other lifes as well, not just our own.

reply

"Casted" is not a word.

reply

Great. He found the only grammar mistake/typo. Give the man a cigar!

reply

Haha! Sorry man, couldn't resist.

reply

Because of the lack of dialogue - and of information, therefore - you don't really have a clue what is going on, and why, unless you had read the book.

It really wasn't that complex to follow. And unfortunately you seemed to miss how the stunningly beautiful direction and cinematography filled in those gaps in ways that dialogue never would have been able to.

reply

Maybe I give it another try someday. The scenery was beautiful but what I missed were the harsh weather conditions on that remote island. Anyway, that is why I wrote my initial message in the first place. If you haven't read the book, you might like the movie, but if you did, it's tough because you always wait for something that never shows up. Always watch the movie first.

reply

Isn't that always the case with movie adaptations? And yes on the visual side this movie is stunning.🎥🎥🎥

reply

Can you fill in some gaps that the movie left out (for people who are not intending to read the book)?

Thanks

reply

I'm sorry but I can't do that, it would take me hours. Please read the book, it's worth it.

reply

Films are almost never as good as the books they're adapted from. That's why I've made it a policy that if I think I'm going to read a book and see the film, I must see the film first. A screenplay is very different from a novel, or creative nonfiction. A screenplay is more like a skeleton, whereas a book is more like a whole body.

reply

Exactly.

reply

I loved the book. I liked the movie. But like most films adapted from books, they have to take shortcuts or the film would end up a miniseries. I did miss not having more of Tom's backstory in the film. And more about the families on the mainland. And also details on their life and relationship while on Janus, including the fact that Isabel lost three babies, not two (a critical detail IMO). But I expected to lose some of that rich character and story development in a film version. I didn't mind the casting, save for Rachel Weisz. She's a great actress, but way too old to play Hannah. Her age discrepancy was far worse than Alicia's and Michael's. In the book, Tom is a lot older than Isabel (28 to her 19) so for me, their casting wasn't a stretch. In fact, I liked the match up.

reply

[deleted]

I think I found the root of the problem. Nine years age difference is nothing. But Fassbender looked(!) - and that's what counts - like 50 and Weisz like 30. No problem with that either. However, it is a completely different story. Because Tom came back from the war, traumatized (we are talking Gallipoli here, if you are not familiar with it, pls google it) at the age of 29, which is still young! So the story in the book is about young people, whereas the story in the film is about people in the midst of their lifes. Somehow it doesn't make much sense if you know the book. Both lead characters should have been much younger. I would call that a wasted opportunity.

reply