When a disgraced former college dean has a romance with a mysterious younger woman haunted by her dark, twisted past, he is forced to confront a shocking fact about his own life that he has kept secret for fifty years.
This is the story of Coleman Silk (Sir Anthony Hopkins), a classics professor with a terrible secret that is about to shatter his life in a small New England town. When his affair with young troubled janitor Faunia Farley (Nicole Kidman) is uncovered, the secret Silk had harbored for over fifty years from his wife, his children, and colleague, writer Nathan Zuckerman (Gary Sinise), fast explodes in a conflagration of devastating consequences. It is Zuckerman who stumbles upon Silk's secret and sets out to reconstruct the unknown biography of this eminent, upright man, esteemed as an educator for nearly all of his life, and to understand how this ingeniously contrived life became unravelled.Written by
The camera used to tape the interview is a Sony PD-150, a camera that didn't exist in 1998. See more »
Did you ever kill anyone when you were in Vietnam, Mr. Farley?
Did I kill anyone?
Isn't that what I was supposed to do when I went to fuckin' Vietnam, fuckin' kill gooks? They said everything goes, so everything went.
See more »
I love Roth's novel. I love Nicole Kidman. Above all I love Anthony Hopkins... and I think that both actors did a very good job indeed... But the casting of this film is absolutely wrong!
1)sir Hopkins: He's one of the greatest actors of our time, but this fair-skinned, blue-eyed gentleman with a charming Welsh accent is pretty unbelievable as an afro-American from New Jersey...maybe I haven't much imagination but I simply can't figure him as Coleman! Plus, there's very little resemblance with the guy who plays the young Coleman.
2)miss Kidman: You need the greatest suspension of disbelief to watch Nicole playing this sort of white trash, outcast janitor...
3)Gary Sinise: TOO YOUNG. Nathan Zuckerman is meant to be in his 70s, Sinise is in his 40s and the age gap with Coleman is too wide. In this way the very poetic "Cheek to cheek" scene lost much of his meaning. Read that scene in the book and you'll understand what I'm saying!
Only Ed Harris seems to fit better.
Just my two cents!
24 of 32 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this