User reviews

After watching the film, a bitter felling comes from what is friendship, after all. Regardless the merits of the book, which I didn't read, one comes to the real hatred that can develops from one side of a friendship otherwise quite strong, coming in our terms to a bro bond, where sex isn't involved, but a real link can be developed between friends. At least, from one side of the fellows. The behavior of one of the 'friends' remains a mystery if we don't go to Freudian explanations of love and death. The performance of principals is mediocre, according to a TV movie. We can't see inner motivations that make Finny (Toby Moore) behaves as he does, and Gene(J Burtons) is perhaps a little too innocent is his movements. As a hole, a watchable film. But don't wait for a masterpiece.

First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.

This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.

If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.

Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.

This film proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a large one. The setup is simple: Strong friendships between students slowly turns into bitter rivalry with fatal consequences. I really like this type of film, as it reminds me of French movies where it's more about the characters and their environment. My only problem with the film was the supporting cast. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them at the end of the day. A final rating of 7/10.

I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting.

ASP is my favorite book or at least in my top 3 or 4. I remember watching the 1972 film near where I went to college. I was blown away by that film with Parker Stevenson playing Gene and John Heyl as Finney. In my mind, sometimes I intertwine the pair of remakes, and while I preferred the original version, I didn't think this one was that bad the second time I viewed it. It's just a different take but the substance of the book is true enough. I recommend watching both films and just decide for yourself which one you prefer - no sin in liking both of them. As a rule I hate remakes since I am all for original ideas more than rehashing stuff that has already been done.

John Knowles modern masterpiece, A Separate Peace, are one of many subtle, and subtly is the watch word, themes of love, hate, jealously, denial and regret. The 1972 version does attempt to address this style and what the book is - A love story with war looming in the background.

The 2004 version does not use subtly at all but overtness in the portrayal of the story. What is staring you in the face when you read the novel - is a love story, and yes maybe it is arguable, a gay love story. In the novel and 1972 film version there are sexual undertones everywhere in the writings and dialog.In the 2004 Showtime film version these tensions were omitted and the actors were in there late twenties playing teenagers which caused for mature acting taking away from any tenderness or hesitation of innocence in youth.

I did not like this remake for more reasons. The hair that broke the camels' back was that Phineas was given a surname on the letters he received from the draft boards! Finny is a character that does not have nor needs a last name. John Knowles did that intentionally.

Though I accept the 1972 version the acting was at times a little amateurish, so what, it attempted to be sincere to the novel by shooting on location at Phillips Exeter Academy that The Devon Acedemy was based on; which also the writer John Knowles attended as a student.

The directors and producers took all teenage Exeter students, with exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School, to play in a Paramount Film! Class act by preppies compared to this Canadian College shot, played with adult actors, politically correct, platonic version. No - Veto on this sham try again. The 1972 film version with John Heyl and Parker Stevenson was the real deal for A Separate Peace on the screen. The Showtime 2004 film made for cable version was not.

to the 1972 version (which I have not seen). But I can't agree that there is no suggestion of a homosexual love interest in this movie. The director didn't beat you over the head with it, but the signs were pretty obviously there--or at least it was obvious to me.

Not being familiar with the novel it's based on, I can't say how well this film stuck to that story. There did seem to be quite a lot of loose ends that were never satisfactorily tied up (or even loosely laid back into place). But I found no faults with the location or the actors. A good piece of work, though not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.

I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.

Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.

People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it.

Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.

Having read the book 2x in school, I remember the story fondly. Seeing it enacted on screen gave me flashbacks and although i did not remember everything, i remembered enough. Since this is a dramatic movie, it's success depends on the viewers' emotions. I already knew the ending but i still felt a great sense of tragedy and sadness. It made me go look for my book and i ended up buying a new copy and reading it in one sitting. The book of course gives a much deeper, broader picture.

Things they coudld've done better: Reading the book, i was enthralled at its depth and complexity. the movie could've used more of that. since gene narrated the book, it is of course different on screen. and probably the biggest issue would be the war/ peace theme. the movie is called a separate peace, but what does that mean? these are 16-17 y/o boys who are enjoying their last year of "Freedom" before getting sent to war. The war hung over them like a dark cloud, but for Gene and Phinny, they managed to create their own world of peace with the two of them in it, and of course gene's fight with himself and the codependency of the two. in the book, we find gene is successful in life, at least financially, but it is never clear if he really defeated his inner demons, but it is clear that phinny i still a big part of his life. having read the book, i knew all of this and on screen i felt it but i know if i hadn't i would probably not get it.

good:

the actors for all the major character, esp gene and phineas did a great job. the scenes with the two of them were magnetic and you could feel the friendship and the tension (of gene in the beginning of the movie) between them. despite the things they left out and didn't touch upon to deeply was, they managed to nail the friendship between the two. To see it finally resolved between them only for "it" (the ending of the movie, i do not want to spoil) to happen, i felt very emotion and felt the loss as if it were my own and because of that i recommend the movie

but i highly suggest getting the book first then watching. i hope this helps some

The story just doesn't seem to translate well to film. Maybe if it had narration and was voiced over by Gene it would have been better. There's just too much going on in Gene's head to explain in a movie, especially to someone unfamiliar with the book. I didn't care for either movie version. Neither seemed to do the book justice.

The gay question always comes up with this book. We had to read it as a class in 10th grade English and several in the class picked up on the supposed gay theme, including me. Guess we'll never know for sure. Perhaps the good thing about the book is you can make the Gene/Phineas relationship what you wish.

This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.

This movie... I don't even know... there is a scene in this movie where a kid dresses up as Hitler, actual Hitler and after that they just cut back to the next day like it was nothing.

Some books seem natural for high school study. They need to be simple to read, but contain enough ambiguity and analogy to show students that real literature is more than a plot. If the book is set in high school, so much the better. I think the existence of this market niche is why this book has survived. There can be no other reason.

I mention the ambiguity, because that is why the book works; you never really know for sure what happened on that tree.

Alas, but TeeVee movies do not like ambiguity because they find their own market niche. So the only potentially valuable bit from the book is scrubbed out.

Still....

It did resonate with me. Its an odd thing when you encounter a story that has accidental settings and events that mirror important events in your life. I went to an elite boarding school, a military school in fact. The dynamics among boys in such an environment can have no analog anywhere else in the world. There were a characters like these (in the movie). There was at the time an expectation that many of us would go to the then current war in Viet Nam. There was anxious enthusiasm about roles that could in our imagination be achieved and a black market for swapping dreams of which of these roles were claimed first.

All this you see on the screen is true.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I read ASP for English this year (my sophomore year) and personally loved it. I fell in love with the characters (particularly Finny) and re-read the book three times (naturally I aced my exam) and I'd been wanting to see the movie for a long time. After calling every rental store in my town I finally came across it and happily rented it and just finished viewing it.

As with all book-to-film movies, this naturally wasn't a play-by-play. Scenes were added, scenes were cut, details were left out. But this was a generally good film, and goes hand-in-hand with the book, granted that you read the original first.

The acting was superb; to my delight, Finny was exactly as I wanted him to be, and I was pleasantly surprised with Brinker and Leper, who I hadn't thought too much of at first. Gene was very good too, could've been better (but the cute accent was a nice touch!) All in all it was great.

As I said, this could've been a better adaptation, mostly because Gene's descriptive narrations aren't heard in the movie. Read the book, then watch the movie. It's a good pair, despite the differences. 8 out of 10.

--Robin-chan

I am also a big fan of the book, I didn't even know that a movie was made until I stumbled across it at the video store, coincidentally when I happened to be re-reading the book. Although I did notice when an event in the movie did not line up perfectly, it really didn't bother me that much, such as Brinker telling Gene that Phineas wanted to see him, and also telling him that he had a phone call, instead of it being Mr. Ludsbury. That's one less character to cast, and it doesn't affect the story significantly. I believe they stayed true to the underlying interpersonal themes of the book. In order to get the entire scope of Gene's inner self, it would have had to become over-narrated, his voice telling the viewer what he was thinking constantly. Here I guess it's better to have read the book, because just watching the movie without reading it, it would be much harder to pick up all of the workings of Gene's mind and heart. To me, seeing it portrayed on-screen accentuated the emotion and personalities of the characters in a positive way--Phineas' energy, Leper's peculiarity, Brinker's always-in-charge demeanor,Gene's inner self masked by his outward demeanor, which flashed unexpectedly at times. I think that Gene was casted and played brilliantly, outwardly soft-spoken and innocent, inwardly driven and insecure, allowing the viewer to see what he was capable of doing deep inside, and then to some degree seeing his guilt and shock of realizing what he had done to Phineas. (I don't think his accent was overdone either, it even helped to promote his country boy 'innocence'.) And I could go on about more details. All in all, I did like the movie, although it did take a little (and sometimes a lot) of liberty with the original book, and admittedly it didn't carry out all the underlying themes of the book. But as far as portraying the relational and interpersonal themes, between the central characters of the book, and in the portrayal of those characters, I believe it did a good job. To me it didn't ruin the book at all, I think it will make reading it better.