The pedigree behind "The Beach" is such that by all accounts it should be a great film. It should be, but somehow isn't, and the disappointment is bigger as a result of the expectation. I'm not one of those people that whinges forever when books undergo changes on their way to the screen, but it seems that John Hodge has over-simplified an already relatively simple novel. Others have detailed the changes and vented their spleens in that direction so I won't go into it, suffice it to say that there are several moments in the film where, as a direct result of those changes, things just don't make sense, and that weakens the movie.
That said, I didn't think the changes were as numerous as some people are claiming. Significant yes, but not that many. The problem I think lies in the fact that, bizarrely, it seems more realistic when you have to visualise it yourself as you do when reading the book. Seeing it onscreen it all suddenly becomes so desperately and ridiculously melodramatic that it's harder to suspend disbelief. Sure, the cinematography is great, but after a while it all becomes too much. Half the fun of the book is that the beach is a state of mind, and that's just impossible to put on film.
The acting honours go to Robert Carlyle, whose ranting madman can't have been onscreen more than five minutes; but next to him every other character seemed paper-thin. DiCaprio did a serviceable job, given the material. It doesn't so much matter that he is American here (and McGregor is too old for Richard anyway.) The problem was simply that Richard comes across as a total git; maybe that's the point, but in the book he was the one telling you everything, which made him sympathetic.
On the upside, there's soundtrack: new tracks from Leftfield, Underworld, Orbital and New Order all one CD?! Boyle has always had a good ear, give or take the odd bum note (Ash, anyone?) It's surprising, then, that in the film it seems so wishy-washy. The squeaky drivel of All Saints' "Pure Snores" (sic) was layered prominently over the cheesy moonlight love swim, whilst a couple of the aforementioned great artists are relegated to a few seconds of background, coming out of someone's stereo. Which is a shame. The best musical moment in the film comes when Richard revisits the mainland on the rice run and the tourist-trap neon nightmare is accompanied by The Chemicals' "Out of Control".
The least one could expect of Boyle is the odd flash of brilliance, and sure enough there is some striking imagery on hand to oblige, such as the trail of blood across the white sand. And there are a couple of great surreal moments; the video game sequence was amusing - it would have been better if it had been set up more carefully. The madness arc was for me the most interesting part, sadly it just came out of nowhere and was totally at odds with the lyrical, languid pace and style of the preceding 80-odd minutes. [And the endless "Apocalypse Now" gags wore thin.] Again, they would have been better had Richard's 'Nam obsession been given even a passing mention beforehand; in fact, this is one area where making him an American could have helped. Instead it was wasted.
The kindest word to describe this movie is "uneven". When it's good it's okay, but when it's bad it's boring. I'd love to know how much is down to the director and how much the studio interfered. On reflection, I think they adapted the wrong Alex Garland book. Just imagine what the "Trainspotting" team could have made of the multi-faceted philosophical gem "The Tesseract"! Maybe next time...
That said, I didn't think the changes were as numerous as some people are claiming. Significant yes, but not that many. The problem I think lies in the fact that, bizarrely, it seems more realistic when you have to visualise it yourself as you do when reading the book. Seeing it onscreen it all suddenly becomes so desperately and ridiculously melodramatic that it's harder to suspend disbelief. Sure, the cinematography is great, but after a while it all becomes too much. Half the fun of the book is that the beach is a state of mind, and that's just impossible to put on film.
The acting honours go to Robert Carlyle, whose ranting madman can't have been onscreen more than five minutes; but next to him every other character seemed paper-thin. DiCaprio did a serviceable job, given the material. It doesn't so much matter that he is American here (and McGregor is too old for Richard anyway.) The problem was simply that Richard comes across as a total git; maybe that's the point, but in the book he was the one telling you everything, which made him sympathetic.
On the upside, there's soundtrack: new tracks from Leftfield, Underworld, Orbital and New Order all one CD?! Boyle has always had a good ear, give or take the odd bum note (Ash, anyone?) It's surprising, then, that in the film it seems so wishy-washy. The squeaky drivel of All Saints' "Pure Snores" (sic) was layered prominently over the cheesy moonlight love swim, whilst a couple of the aforementioned great artists are relegated to a few seconds of background, coming out of someone's stereo. Which is a shame. The best musical moment in the film comes when Richard revisits the mainland on the rice run and the tourist-trap neon nightmare is accompanied by The Chemicals' "Out of Control".
The least one could expect of Boyle is the odd flash of brilliance, and sure enough there is some striking imagery on hand to oblige, such as the trail of blood across the white sand. And there are a couple of great surreal moments; the video game sequence was amusing - it would have been better if it had been set up more carefully. The madness arc was for me the most interesting part, sadly it just came out of nowhere and was totally at odds with the lyrical, languid pace and style of the preceding 80-odd minutes. [And the endless "Apocalypse Now" gags wore thin.] Again, they would have been better had Richard's 'Nam obsession been given even a passing mention beforehand; in fact, this is one area where making him an American could have helped. Instead it was wasted.
The kindest word to describe this movie is "uneven". When it's good it's okay, but when it's bad it's boring. I'd love to know how much is down to the director and how much the studio interfered. On reflection, I think they adapted the wrong Alex Garland book. Just imagine what the "Trainspotting" team could have made of the multi-faceted philosophical gem "The Tesseract"! Maybe next time...