FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

christopher-underwood This looks so good. Majorca, in the main, standing in for Greece. And it should have been good. The novel was a rite of passage for those of a certain age and this little picture is what we get. Pretty picture, pretty poor. I thought watching this and seeing nothing, not only not make sense, but not even be involving. Surely the director has some vision here because surely Fowles in adapting his own novel, will have some vision. But, no the more it goes on, the more it goes on. Poor Michael Caine looks lost wandering through this bland and meaningless landscape of pretentiousness. He is lost, as are we and the suspicions I had as I watched aghast was that maybe nobody knew what was going on or what they were doing. The plentiful extras supplied with the Blu-ray confirm this with the contribution of the director's son who apparently got to help with the filming, particularly helpful. Majorca was beautiful and largely unspoilt but nobody least of all Fowles seemed to know what they were doing there. So sad because we have a very pretty Anna Karina and Candice Bergen falling over themselves to look silly as Anthony Quinn prattles on, seemingly the only one who has any belief in the project that was clearly dead even before the cameras began to roll.

maxmiller4 Not a bad movie, but please do not watch this until you have read the book. The book is much better, very readable, and much deeper and richer. This is like eating fish sticks when you could spend a little time and eat sashimi. The entire point of the story is muddled in this movie and becomes lost. The point made by the movie is nothing like the point of the book, which must be thought about and considered in different contexts to understand the main character's final actions and motivations. John Fowles is a master, give him the benefit of the doubt. This movie can be watched after, as a fun way to see a novice's understanding of the sex and lies in the book.

tedg Fowles' first novel became the darling of the emerging counterculture of the 60s. It fit a handy niche of layered narratives, connected in ways that emulated the emergence of "secret" cosmologies. By itself, it created a little stir because of the way it was folded by a certain kabbalistic technique while including reference to that technique. The history of this makes it essential viewing. Its Fowles' first novel, partially autobiographical, taking over a decade to write. Its grand, risky, sloppy. It is perfect in its way, being as confusing in how it is written as the narrator within is. Its a happy accident that its deficiencies increase the effect.The screenplay is quite a bit more incompetent and at the same time leaving out most of the ambiguities in the story. So the film is a disaster. Fowles would later straighten up the narrative in the novel and issue what in the film world would be a "director's cut" which tries to keep the ambiguities in the story but reduce them in the narration. Its far less effective than the original.So why should you see this? Because it is a historical document that changed things significantly. Its based on two sources: one was a then little-known set of Kabbalistic lessons on Tarot ambiguities. The other is a piece of literary theory from the thirties: "Seven Types of Ambiguity." (Don't search it out: it is far less interesting than the title implies.)Fowles simply conflated his own life (and remorse over handling a romance) into these two notions, deliberately trying to capture the seven types — which incidentally inform my study of narrative folding.In September of 1966 while in Spain for the filming of "How I Won the War," John Lennon, who hardly read anything, read this (twice, once heavily rugged) and it changed his life, the direction of The Beatles and hence enfranchised a new form of narrative. (He called and later visited Fowles while this script was in development. There is no artifact of that in the script.) Its not Joyce, but it is the child of what he envisioned, dumbed down, but still raising the bar for narrative structure and affecting — I assert — nearly everything.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

beltezam I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.