Heart of Darkness

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.

The movie version of Heart of Darkness has its similarities and differences to the novel. It lacks much of the information that Joseph Conrad wrote about, but still displays the story line decently. Because of this, many people did not enjoy the movie. I agree, but I believe it would be too difficult to make a movie-replica of that sort.

The book clearly makes you imagine the scenery and action as seen through Joseph Conrad's eyes. Life in Africa was not an easy picture to paint, but this clever author used his vast vocabulary and imagery skills to describe to readers his journey through the real "Heart of Darkness." The movie, however, had poorly-made backdrops and cheap scenery to act with. I feel that this was plenty enough to loose the attention of many viewers, including me. However, I defend them to say that it would be far too hard to find the place Conrad had once adventured through. Page after page was the story of his trip, but the movie only had about two hours to try and even begin to explain what he went through.

Personally, I would recommend watching the movie IF and ONLY if you have read and have a basic understanding of the novel. My expectations were not met, but I would consider giving it a try. Even though the movie was only about a quarter accurate, the director, alongside the actors, had plenty of good intentions while making this movie.

"The Heart of Darkness" has a very dark side. Joseph Conrad, the author, wrote this book to show that Africa is not what everyone expects. When I first read this book I thought that it was not interesting and very confusing. On March 1, 2004, in my English class, my class and I watched the movie. Watching the movie has helped me understand the book better. This movie is intended for children above the age of 13. If any younger, I think the child would be very scared. The movie explained, described, and showed me the real side of Kurtz. In the book, Kurtz was not very nice, but in my mind he seemed like a guy that could be sweet at times. In the movie, though, it showed his great cruelty. My rating of this book would probably be a six because it wasn't very great, but it described to me the importants of all the characters.

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.

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.