User reviews

The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only "see" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there.

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is among my favourite works in literature and have read it numerous times, never failing to be drawn into the story of Marlow and his journey up the river to encounter the mad and enigmatic Mr. Kurtz. Knowing only it being the basis for the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now I was eager to see an adaptation that was going to be closer in nature to the Conrad novella and being directed by the great Nicolas Roeg it was bound to be interesting. But, alas, it was disappointing, to say the least. Being a fan of Nicolas Roeg and his striking visual style and fragmentary narrative he seemed liked an ideal director to get into psychology of the characters and their story. But the direction is lazy and uninspired, the performances by Tim Roth and John Malkovich are just dull.

Sadly we were robbed of a filmed version by Orson Wells which would have had Wells playing both Marlow as well as Kurtz---a very intriguing idea and has long been a theory of mine that the story should be read psychologically of a man confronting his own worst aspects. In the story we know from the beginning that he has survived his encounter with Kurtz but has been illuminated by this encounter, retelling of his adventure to his companions. There is no mystery to be found other than him looking into the abyss of his own soul as it is manifested by Kurtz. The Coppola film is better when it came to portraying the madness of Kurtz and the need by Willard to destroy him. The Nicolas Roeg film portrays Kurtz true to the source material as a sickly and dying man and devoid of any kind of threat or menace. Brando's Kurtz was a man struggling with the extremes of his soul: the primitive and the illuminated. We can only imagine how Wells might have depicted these characters. We were given only a tantalizing glimpse with two radio adaptations.

This is for fans of Nicolas Roeg. It was made late in his career when he was working increasingly limited budgets and his films during this period were a shadow of his early days, lacking the flair and energy. It's hard to believe this was the same man who directed The Man Who Fell to Earth, Don't Look Now, Walkabout, and Bad Timing.

While the book Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad, in comparison to the movie, was like comparing the mental capacity of a child and a grown adult, the movie followed along with the main themes of the book very well. It is very difficult to put together a movie to describe such a complex book, but director Nicolas Roeg and actors John Malkovich and Tim Roth did an excellent job. Symbolism was a huge component within the film and the book. For example, Kurtz, a main character, was symbolized as a God to the people within the station where he collected ivory. One man said, "You don't talk to that man, you listen to him." Another said, "They (savages) don't want him to go… They adore him." The cannibals that lived within this Heart of Darkness and the people working for him highly adored and exalted Kurtz. Another example of symbolism is the painting of Kurtz Intended, or his fiancé back in Europe. This isn't something that would have a lot of meaning to someone who didn't read the book. The painting was of this woman, but her eyes were covered by a cloth. This represents the idea described in the book about women being shielded from the craziness of our world. Conrad says "It's queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there has never been anything like it, and never can be. It's too beautiful altogether. (Page 28)" I like that I was able to have more insight into the movie because I had previously read the book. Another rhetorical device used is allegory. While one could interpret the story of Marlow's adventure down the Congo River very literally, there's also an underlying meaning. For example, The Heart of Darkness can be referred to as the inner most ivory stations along the Congo River because of danger due to the native cannibals. But it can also describe the atmosphere of the river. Kurtz, who was previously had very good intentions with going down the river, eventually turned for the worse, becoming obsessed with the natives and even obsessed with his persona. Everything changed when he entered the Heart of Darkness. I would recommend this movie, but I would recommend reading the book in depth first. That's the order my English class did it in, and I found it very beneficial because I was introduced to many rhetorical devices and difficult topics within the book, but then I saw them come to life in the movie and I began to understand it a lot better.

Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however.

This had the potential to be a much more satisfying adaption than it ultimately was, as the casting is generally impressive, and Roeg's hallmark style should have been able to achieve a great deal with the heavily symbolic text. But so much of the success of Conrad's story lies in the tone of the telling, which reveals Marlow's particular bias towards the colonial adventure, and little of that comes through in this movie. Instead we have a visually attractive film that never quite gets to its message - we don't SEE how the adventure has changed the narrator, in the way that the novella so clearly emphasises.

Structurally, the tension builds nicely to the final scenes, but the climax is disappointing. Roeg should have dwelt much longer at the Inner Station - or perhaps he did, but these scenes were cut? Malkovich looks as if he should make a great Kurtz, but his portrayal lacks both dignity and threat - and he rather hams the key death scene. Brando, even though too short, fat and under prepared for the role, was much better and much more frightening in Apocalypse Now. No doubt Welles himself would have been brilliant.

Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.

First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.

Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.

Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.

Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.

Movie Review for Heart of Darkness The movie Heart of Darkness is a movie that will really confuse you if you have not read the book first. There are many things that occurred in the book but never happened in the movie. This was kind of disappointing because this is the only movie ever made of this book. This movie stars John Malkovich, Tim Roth, James Fox, and Isaach de Bankole. This movie is taken place from Joseph Conrad's book Heart of Darkness and it is set in the 1890s in England and Africa. A seaman by the name of Marlow (Tim Roth) is sent up the Congo River in order to search for an ivory trader by the name of Mr. Kurtz (John Malkovich). But the company thinks that the ivory trader is either dead or has turned into a native. When Marlow arrives he finds that Mr.Kurtz has become a completely different person. This is because of his increase in power and his disease.

I recommend reading the book before watching the movie. Mainly because like I said earlier some of the events that take place in the book never happen in the movie which can cause confusion while watching it. The only reason I knew what was missing and why it made sense was because I had read the book before seeing the movie. I will say though if you do read the book and there are some parts you are not quite sure what happened. The movie can more than likely help you to actually see what Conrad was trying to write in the novel. I really hope you do take the time to see this movie. It is one that has forever changed the way movies are made and the book itself is one that is still being analyzed for more interpretations of what the book was actually meant to sound like.

A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director.

Heart of Darkness, directed by Nicolas Roeg, is an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's tale of ivory hunting in the African jungle. Heart of Darkness was a made for T.V. film, airing on March 13, 1994 on TNT (Turner Network Television). Auteur theorists analyzing previous Roeg films may agree that this T.V. adaptation does not hold the same attributes. One may argue that it was made for television, which would place guidelines on how much Roeg could express his autuerist style. Others may believe that Roeg' style is still at work within Heart of Darkness, even though it follows the Hollywood narrative. This film analysis will argue the Roeg elements are still at work. The film begins with extreme close ups of an elephants body. Next we see Marlow (Tim Roth) explaining his expedition of the African Jungle to a group of rich British men. From there, the film cuts to a large library or museum where we see two women in black, almost identical, sitting in the front entrance of an office. Marlow, in a voice over, begins to become uneasy with the women's presence. He makes comments to himself regarding a conspiracy and the women were warning him of something. If one has seen Don't Look Now (1973) they can make a predisposition toward the two women in black and the psychic sisters. Marlow had ambiguities toward the two women, just as John (Donald Sutherland) had toward the sisters, which predicted his outcome (death). Marlow on the other hand assumed danger from the two women and danger is exactly what he found in the Congo. As the film continues we see an aborigine standing outside of a window looking in at Marlow. We later find out that he committed suicide or was speared in the chest by an unruly army headed by Kurtz (John Malkovich). In Walkabout (1971) we see the young aborigine looking into the house at the white girl. In both films the aborigine's are looking into the white man's world. Unfortunately they find the white man's world can be destructive and greedy, as seen in the Kurtz controlled outlandish army. They steal young boys and barter them for supplies. Three young boys are abducted from the camp site, one boy is killed and the others are returned for supplies.

Previous to the abduction, we see random shots of a boy with an ivory necklace. We later see the necklace lying near where the boy had been sleeping. Immediately following the abduction is a dream sequence which Marlow sees a dead elephant, stripped of its' tusks, lying alongside a trail. Maggots are seen as the camera moves in for a close up. Juxtaposed with the elephant are the identical women and finally a claw tool. This sequence expresses the dangers associated with the Congo, not only on the explorers but aborigines and animals. These sequences are Roegian for its' underlying themes. What do two women, an elephant and a claw have to do with a journey in the Congo? The elephant is clearly associated with ivory and greed. The women mean a clear and present danger in the Congo. The claw depicts violence and is later seen sitting in Kurtz's hut. In one shot we see Mfumu looking into the water where it appears blood is floating on the surface, foreshadowing his own death. After he is speared Marlow throws his body overboard and blood floats atop the surface again. Roeg does not hold back on the grotesqueness within Heart of Darkness. In one scene we see another explorer repeatedly kicking and striking a black man. After Mfumu is speared, Marlow pulls on the spear and blood explodes from the chest. Surprisingly T.V. allowed this scene as well as a few others. Moments later Marlow and his guides enter Kurtz's village where there is a young boy covered in blood and tied to a tree. There are also boys' heads on stakes and on branches in trees. More boys are taken from the crew and traded, and one is killed. Kurtz's makes his appearance in the final 20 minutes of the film. He appears to be a god to the aborigine army. He is quite crazy and slowly dies away in a most unusual and unauthentic way. He is buried in an upright position and is draped in white cloth. There appears to be some sort of metal attachments from his upper body to his arms to keep them out in front of him. I am not sure what Roeg was getting at with this, but it may have to do with Kurtz being crazy and having instilled his own ideologies to the army. There is one theme in which is unusual. There is an aborigine woman that closely resembles Kurtz's white wife. The black beauty is framed with Kurtz's wife's painting. The black beauty appears to have some sort of skin ailment or body paint. Maybe Kurtz has put her up to painting or brandishing herself to slightly resemble his wife back in Britain. At the end of the film Marlow approaches the widow and tells her of Kurtz's last moments. This scene seems so out of place. The black and white woman reflecting each other in some sort of weird African fantasy makes sense, but Marlow actually going to see the widow has no real premise. It does appear Roeg intentionally mirrored Kurtz's loves, but the widow scene seemed so hurried. That did not at all seem Roegish. Finally the end montage near Kurtz's death is the most Roegistic style in the whole film. Roeg compiles every theme into about one minute of juxtaposed images containing Mfumu's death and the spear exiting his chest in slow motion. The elephant's rotting carcass, the two women being seen again, the ivory necklace and young boys are also shown again. Random shots of Kurtz's masked army are installed. The black and white women are repeated. Heart of Darkness is much so a Roeg film only with a T.V. limit.

The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.

The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.

I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.

Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.

Heart of Darkness (1993 TV Movie) was directed by Nicolas Roeg. It's based on the famous novel by Joseph Conrad. Tim Roth stars as Marlow, a young seaman who is hired to captain a steamboat up the Congo River into (then) The Belgian Congo.

Roth is a competent actor and he makes us believe in Marlow. John Malkovich portrays Kurtz. Everything in the novel rotates around Kurtz, but we don't see Kurtz until late in the novel. In reality, Roth is the star, and Malkovich is playing a supporting role.

Isaach De Bankolé depicts Mfumu, a relatively minor figure in Conrad's novel, but a more significant figure in the movie. He is an African worker with whom Marlow bonds.

However, as many critics have pointed out, Conrad's novel is written about Europeans and it's meant for Europeans. It portrays a time when colonialism was painted over with a thin veneer of enlightenment. This enlightenment was barely present anywhere in colonial Africa. In the Belgian Congo, everyone there knew it was a total pretense.

The movie would work somewhat better on the large screen, because some of the jungle views are breathtaking. However, we saw it on DVD, where it worked well enough.

Heart of Darkness has a terrible IMDb rating of 5.7. The movie is well acted and well produced. All I can assume is that people don't like Conrad's novel. That's not director Roeg's fault, but he gets the blame. In addition, Conrad's novel is based on his meticulously crafted paragraphs. The plot of the novel isn't as important as are Conrad's words.

Other than doing continual voiceover, there's no real way to bring Conrad's verbal genius to life. In movies, what you see is (literally) what you get. What we get is the story Conrad gave us, and apparently people don't like the story.

I don't think Heart of Darkness is a great movie, but I think it's an excellent movie and rated it 8.

After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.

Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.

The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.

I loved the movie and I certainly loved the book, but I find Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' as an allegory far more touching, involving and more beautiful. Mainly, 'Heart of Darkness'(TV) matches nor Roths intensity, nor Malkovichs presence. Which does not mean it isn't a tremendous attempt to adapt Conrads novel.

Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.

Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010

A Shot in the Dark

It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail.

Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole…I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony.

This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target.

How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.

With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointless—and it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs.

Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls

Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)

If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.