Customer Reviews

Heart of Darkness [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Lights! Camera! Action! These are the three words which cause the distinction between books and movies. When making a movie based on a book, there are additional factors to be taken into account, thus altering the movie from the book. However, usually these changes just serve as tools to enhance the story, making it more interesting to the audience it is targeting. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" is an excellent adaptation of the novel because everything matches up well with the descriptions used by the author, and it captures the true essence of the story on film.
Set in the wild depths of Africa, the tale slowly unravels as a determined seaman, Marlowe, sets out on a journey to Africa, and soon finds himself on a dangerous expedition in search of a missing ivory manufacturer, who has deceived many people waiting for their ivory. The fact that Africa is such an incredible place filled with fascinating cultures is clearly shown by the settings and casts chosen for the movie. The story is told from Marlowe's point of view, as he is telling the story to group of sailors on a boat. Although the time of day during which Marlowe told his tale was switched from evening to daytime, the same effect is produced because each scene in the movie is so vivid and engrossing, therefore each providing its own effects. The setting for each scene perfectly suits the events which take place. The setting has a very big impact on the plot of the story because one purpose of the story is to depict the true meaning of life in Africa, particularly the uncivilized nature of some of the people that live there, or that have been there too long.
The catchy music chosen to accompany each scene, and the simple, but realistic costumes chosen for each character, set the ideal mood that is necessary in conveying the tale. The music consists of rhythmic drumming mixed together with strange noises similar to those of a person gasping for air, or breathing loudly. The drumming fits in with the African theme and like a drum roll, it adds a hint of suspense and foreshadowing to each scene, which is also expressed by the book. An essential part of making of movie is choosing the ideal cast. Each character fits his/her description in the book, allowing for the vague images in one's mind while reading the book to actualize and come to life.
My favorite part of the movie was when Marlowe finally finds the place that Kurtz resides. When he arrives, a crazy guy, who has gone mad from being in the jungle, welcomes Marlowe to the area. I think that this scene is crucial to the plot of the story, because it is the point at which Marlowe finally finds Kurtz. Once he reaches Africa and found out about the unjust doings of the mysterious Kurtz, he makes it his mission to find him. Although the insane man standing at the entrance seems like a trivial character, I think that he actually represents one of the major themes conveyed in the book. This idea is that people can often go mad from living in the jungle too long, which is what happened to Kurtz. Kurtz finally reveals himself, much to Marlowe's relief. However, due to Kurtz's sickliness and insanity, it was difficult for Marlowe to communicate with him. During this scene, another important idea that is stressed is the uncivilized nature that is constantly shown throughout the book. An example of this is when Kurtz nonchalantly breaks the neck of an innocent pet monkey, while it was affectionately draped around Kurtz's shoulders. This part of the movie encompasses many ideas shown throughout the story, making it an important scene.
My favorite character from Heart of Darkness is Marlowe. I admire the determination he possessed when achieving his goals. He deals with many tribulations as he finds himself in the thick of the jungle. He becomes friends with an African man, Mutumbo, who soon suffers a painful death by a strange African tribe. Nevertheless, Marlowe maintains perseverance as he gains strength from every obstacle he is faced with. His bravery and fearlessness lead him to his ultimate goal of finding the mad ivory producer, Kurtz, and rectifying the ivory situation. However, it is interesting to see that Marlowe did change during his time spent in Africa. He completely went against his usual nature by lying to Kurtz's former fiancée about something that Kurtz never really said. I enjoyed seeing the story from Marlowe's point of view, and noting the good traits of Marlowe, that were somewhat tainted by his experience in Africa.
I highly recommend the movie Heart of Darkness to anybody who likes adventure, particularly someone who read the novel as well. The movie was adapted very well from the book, despite a few changes. Each change helped to make the story more realistic and suspenseful. The cast, the music, the costumes, and the setting, created an exceptional combination, perfectly fitting each description from the book. Many details in the story are difficult to visualize, therefore the movie is helpful and informative to watch. The themes are also more apparent and effective in the movie. Although they each tell the same story, the book and the movie work together to complement one another in conveying the underlying messages of the tale.

This film may differ somewhat from Conrad's book but hey the story isn't the thing it is the atmosphere that counts and this nightmare of a trip to the Heart of Darkness comes across just as Conrad intended it- that's for sure! Tim Roth as Marloe is heartbrakingly fragile and John Malkovitch is excellent, too. See this as an independent piece of art. Then it works.

Conrad's look at imperialism and the destruction of Africa was an allegory shown by the inner destruction of Kurtz. This film plays out the slow trip of the short novel -- as slow and monotonous as the trip up the river was for Conrad -- an ocean sailor. But the Kurtz character gets lost in the mystery -- and his dark machine-like ablilty to kill is shown only in the contrived yet riveting scene with a pet monkey. Even the skulls are downplayed. Here too Kurtz is allowed to die and be buried in his village by those who "love" him rather than having him die on the way back -- for affect? It is an uneven and, at times, a slow piece. We don't find out much about Marlowe as well. But we get a true sense of Marlowe wishing to spare Kurtz's lover with a lie -- just as those selling ivory chose to lie about the circumstances.

It is not surprising that this film, a work based on Joseph Conrad's thought-provoking novella of the same name, has garnered a wide variety of opinions and perspectives- just from the Amazon reviews alone! People saying its terrible, people who love it, even those who would have it as "art" above a normal television film. Well, I thought I'd add my two cents to the views already expressed. So here goes... First off, one who did not know any better would never be able to guess that it was made for TV. I mean where (in the US anyway) do you see television movies that look like this, or have this kind of story. We're talking African rivers and jungles, madmen, ivory, and intense imagery here... and Nicolas Roeg seems to have been the perfect choice for so unusual a project. The atmosphere set throughout the film is, like the book, excellent and for lack of a better word, creepy. From the ingenius title (both opening and closing) squence of the camera panning over a wounded elephant, to the two ladies in black, and the doctor who examines Marlow's head, and his offices, everything is visually stunning. The indoor sets, the costuming, hair, make-up (Iman as "Black Beauty" stands out in that department), the jungle, props, even Marlow's river boat, the production design and execution could scarcley have been better done, or on a TV budget at any rate. Everything from the ivory to Kurtz' army (Weird with a capitol 'W') comes vividly to your eyes, and ears. Obviously great care was taken to envoke the atmosphere, and stunning visuals wrought by a good reading of the book. The lighting, sound effects and music (!) really stun here as well. Another big plus is the acting. Although my enthusiasm for the film as cooled somewhat with my getting used to it, I still find the cast remarkably good. Tim Roth and Isaac DeBankole, stand out for sheer, near-perfection in performance while John Malkovich as Kurtz paints a picture of a unique individual, a great mind gone horribly awry, killing and displaying a greed that only politicians and business chairmen can challange! Ian McDiarmid (Star Wars series) gives a grin-worthy performance ( for Star Wars fans anyway) as the doctor who measures Marlow's head, and Phoebe Nicholls (Bridshead Revisited) is to be watched for as Kurtz' "Intended." Also, for those who claim that film lacks exitment/engergy, I challange you to watch the end of the trip down the Congo (the part after Kurtz' men attack) without feeling just a pang of exitment. The intensly real performances, fog, river and jungel in general, and the surreally weird army of Kurtz' makes for an oustanding scene in the film overall. In short the film has atmosphere, superby visuals flare, an oustanding cast, exitment, GREAT sound and music and an award-worthy title sequence, that I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet, and of course a great overall story. So, why four stars instead of five? As a reader, and fan of the book, and Conrad as far as I have read, the screenplay, or rather teleplay, for all of Benedict FitzGerald's excellent dialogue and drama, veers a little far from the book for my taste at times. I will admit that most of the changes, relatively minor, either enhance the story and atmosphere, or are of little effect all around, but Marlow's meeting with Kurtz, as well-acted and intense as it was, was just a little much. The inital Kurtz rave scene and portrayl of Black Beuty went well, and the character stayed alive but the first hut scene with Kurtz and the one where Iman's character hits Marlow over the head, knocking him unconsious, got dangerously close to cheesy in some parts, in that sci-fi/adventure sort of way. Still all went well overall and the characters and basic plot comes through ( though I miss the woods scene at night with Marlow and Kurtz and of coures the line "The horror, the horror!" should never have been removed under any circumstances, even replaced as it is with a stable closing monologue with Malkovich's Kurtz. On the other hand as regards the teleplay, there is exitment and a definite climax, that does its job well enough. So in conclusion, bearing he liberties taken by FitzGerald, 4/5 stars overall for Nicolas Roeg's adaptation of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"

I was curious about this film when I heard about it years ago. I love Nicolas Roegs early work but saw that his later movies were weaker and it seemed Roeg had lost his magic. "Heart of Darkness" is a Nicolas Roeg film and it's quite nice to see the old boy has still got it in him. The subject matter suits his odd style of film making. A good film. DVD please!!!

Joseph Conrad's dark imagery in the book is only surpassed by the film techniques used in the movie. The directors use of light and dark contrasts to convey the underlying good and evil in the book is excellent. To me, where the book seemed to lack a definite climax, the movie took up the slack in order to give the viewer a heart stopping account of even the most minute details of the book. However, the movie does tend to "drift" away from the plot of the book at times. Also, Apocolypse Now is another movie that might be of use to those interestd in the book.

Conrad must have shuddered from yonder heaven when this miserable adaptation graced the screen. That such prestigious actors should prove so totally incapable of portraying with some semblance of integrity such great characters and that the director could permit-or initiate- such a total "rape" of this great work speaks volumes on the cultural level of Film today. I had hoped to use it in my class but I will stick to "Apocalypse Now".

Unlike many other reviewers I enjoyed this movie. I originally saw it televised and I watch it again every couple years. I think some viewers judge "Heart of Darkness" harshly when reflected alongside "Apocalypse Now" I think without the comparision, "Heart of Darkness" stands as a fine movie.

"Heart of Darkness" is subtle, dark and beautiful. It does not offer commentary or explanation. It is a fascinating character study of Marlowe and Mfumu especially; along with DeGriffe, Gosse, Captain Fenard, and a fascinating mix of players. Great casting on many interesting side characters and the various roles they play in a complex business of human exploitation and greed. Some of them go mad from what they see.

I would give the movie five stars right away for Tim Roth as Marlowe and Isaach De Bankole as Mfumu. The friendship between the two is based on inner understanding between them. Roth plays Marlowe as a contained observer, something he does extremely well. In the midst of violence he (rightly for survival in this place) looks cool on the surface. He is just the sort of actor to play this. You can sense he knows how to endure without cracking in the moment but that the experience will never leave his inner world.

I don't even know how to explain Isaach De Bankole as Mfumu. I've never seen someone portrayed with such strong inner conviction. Mfumu comes from a whole different world. Marlowe says his people are still cannibals. Yet there is a strong morality within Mfumu. He tries to protect the wards under his care. Once he is dedicated to Marlowe, he is dedicated for life. Other people may judge Mfumu for beliefs and practices that the "civilized" world cannot understand, but his heart is true.

Like the book, by the time Marlowe finds Kurtz (Marlow's whole quest was based on finding him) the story seems somehow anti-climatic. I wonder that it is inevitable -- that the man Kurtz -- spoken about so often beforehand that he became somehow mythological -- is such a disappointment.

Marlowe finds Kurtz ill and close to death. I don't know what I was expecting from Malkovich in his role as Kurtz, but I was more troubled than enchanted about it. (also, perhaps the point) He seemed off and not-present, speaking with disjointed pauses. When Tim Roth as Marlowe comes to see him it feels like there is no energy exchanging or real interaction between them. Perhaps there is no other way it could be.

This movie has to be seen only after reading the book. If I truly feel the movie deserves five stars the book is six. Often people confuse media. This is a movie it is not a book. The book is not a movie. Yes, they will be different. For one thing is you are going to watch the movie one time, forget it, you will probably not enjoy it and you will be utterly confused. This movie requires several viewings. The first viewing may be a silhouette of white noise, flat and static. Further viewing, in the right frame of mind, adds dimension and clarity to the story. Do not watch this movie with a sweet wine. This will leave a terrible taste in your mouth by the finish. This movie is best watched with a Sam Adams. The wonderful bitter hops of the Sam Adams complements the story. For Gosh sakes watch this movie all the way through three time.

Mike

There is an inherent difficulty in translating any novel into the film. Every reader's experience is unique and so, before the first film draft ever sees the light of the day, there already are thousands of movies in existence. To compete with them is often impossible. But, there are strategies some directors successfully use (see Milos Forman's version of One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest). Unfortunately, Nicolas Roeq did not. While explaining/simplifying Conrad's masterpiece and repackaging it into a contemporary genre, he lost the plot. He neither remained close to the original text, nor moved away from it far enough to allow his own voice to be heard. As a result, we have ended up with a neither/nor situation that benefits no one. Rather than adding to our understanding of issues and concerns raised by Conrad over a hundred years ago ('the other', the parallels between the outer and inner worlds, the reciprocal impact of colonisation, actual or metaphorical...) Roeq's film, as other reviewer's efforts indicate, adds nothing, and thus falls short of its potential.