"The book was better than the movie." This is a cliché that I hear quite often. Generally, I don't pay much attention to criticisms such as these. For me, it's akin to saying that DaVinci's painting of Mona Lisa is better than the Nat King Cole song by the same name. It may be true, but what's the point? Novels and films inhabit two different worlds with different methods and different strengths. The novel Message in a Bottle by Nicholas Sparks is an engaging story with interesting characters and a carefully constructed plot.
Theresa Osborne (played by Robin Wright Penn) is a divorcee with a young son. While vacationing in New England, she comes across a bottle on the shore, and finds a message inside. The author of the message is addressing a lost love, and describes the ache he feels so poetically that Theresa is moved to share the letter with her friends. They are unanimous in their declaration that anyone would want to be loved like that. Theresa is a researcher for a Chicago newspaper (in the film version), and applies her skills to finding the author of the message. Eventually, she meets the mystery man (played by Kevin Costner) and each tries to help the other overcome their scars from the past.
In Luis Mandoki's film Message in a Bottle, some of the richness and texture of the novel is lost. Plot points are deleted, and an entire subplot added. Locations are changed, and some of the story devices are altered. Many of these changes are necessary and inevitable given the time limits imposed on a standard theatrical film. For character development that lets us inhabit the lives of the central characters, the novel is clearly better than the movie.
Gerald DiPego's screenplay does make some positive changes however. Some of the humorous dialogue is created especially for the film, and works well here, especially when entrusted to Paul Newman. The biggest gain, however, is in the visual elements of the film. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel (Hope Floats, Fly Away Home, The Natural, The Right Stuff) is nothing short of gorgeous. The film is worth seeing if seen only as a series of beautiful photographs.
Alas, the same can not be said of the performances. Robin Wright Penn does a good job with her character, and Paul Newman is in top form here as the father of the mystery man played by Kevin Costner. Unfortunately, Kevin Costner is out of his depths here. This character is deeply conflicted, hoping for a brighter future, haunted by a painful past. Costner comes across as more dazed than conflicted, and it is beginning to appear that he will not survive the transition to middle-aged actor very well.
In the final analysis, there are delightful moments in the film and the film is worth a look. It could have been an excellent film. But in the end, much as it pains me to say it, the book was better than the movie.
Theresa Osborne (played by Robin Wright Penn) is a divorcee with a young son. While vacationing in New England, she comes across a bottle on the shore, and finds a message inside. The author of the message is addressing a lost love, and describes the ache he feels so poetically that Theresa is moved to share the letter with her friends. They are unanimous in their declaration that anyone would want to be loved like that. Theresa is a researcher for a Chicago newspaper (in the film version), and applies her skills to finding the author of the message. Eventually, she meets the mystery man (played by Kevin Costner) and each tries to help the other overcome their scars from the past.
In Luis Mandoki's film Message in a Bottle, some of the richness and texture of the novel is lost. Plot points are deleted, and an entire subplot added. Locations are changed, and some of the story devices are altered. Many of these changes are necessary and inevitable given the time limits imposed on a standard theatrical film. For character development that lets us inhabit the lives of the central characters, the novel is clearly better than the movie.
Gerald DiPego's screenplay does make some positive changes however. Some of the humorous dialogue is created especially for the film, and works well here, especially when entrusted to Paul Newman. The biggest gain, however, is in the visual elements of the film. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel (Hope Floats, Fly Away Home, The Natural, The Right Stuff) is nothing short of gorgeous. The film is worth seeing if seen only as a series of beautiful photographs.
Alas, the same can not be said of the performances. Robin Wright Penn does a good job with her character, and Paul Newman is in top form here as the father of the mystery man played by Kevin Costner. Unfortunately, Kevin Costner is out of his depths here. This character is deeply conflicted, hoping for a brighter future, haunted by a painful past. Costner comes across as more dazed than conflicted, and it is beginning to appear that he will not survive the transition to middle-aged actor very well.
In the final analysis, there are delightful moments in the film and the film is worth a look. It could have been an excellent film. But in the end, much as it pains me to say it, the book was better than the movie.