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.

noitebras You may of course disagree but John Fowles sometimes "goes beyond the edge" and, in my view, after "The Magus" and "The French Lieutenant's Woman" he may have depleted his more interesting sources of literary creativity. As I look into "The Magus" I see in it a magnificent deconstructing of reality where symbologies & myth become the only identifiable elements in an unknown territory. I know of at least one Ph.D. Thesis dealing with similar topics here in Spain, at Comillas University, by a young American philosopher called M.Armenteros. He has seen the film and related its contents to some contemporary features of agnosticism. In "The Magus" the whole of reality is questioned. Only symbols appear as if to soften the sense of total absurdity. But even such symbols are discomforting, the meanings of life and death, deprived of transcendence, wind up getting closer and closer to the fog of mythology (i.e. "nothingness"). I interpreted the "Magus" as a film which attempts to depict hopelesness through absurdity. It is not about "climb every mountain" but rather "doubt every faith". In the book, the element of personal and political "Freedom" ("Elevteria") played a larger role in that deconstructed vision of a supposedly questionable reality. For both Fowles and Sartre our lives are an absurd where freedom becomes a mirage that distracts us from the only basic reality: death. Freedom is just meandering across our own hells. Even if I disagree with it I find the film discomforting indeed but worthy of watching and far better that the cheesier version of "The French Lieutenant's Woman".

pninson John Fowles's novel is a long, dense, complex work, and trying to compress the story into a two-hour film seems foolhardy, at best. Having read the book six months ago, I was expecting something really bad, especially considering the earlier reviews I've read here.I found the movie fascinating. It's very late 60s (especially the musical score, which is quaint, to put it politely), and the ending is unsatisfying, whether or not you've read the book. However, I can overlook these flaws because the movie does, incredibly, succeed in conjuring up some of the mystery and magic of the book --- the forceful character of Conchis, the tempting sexuality of "Julie", the jarring shocks when the story seems to suddenly change direction.I can't think of two actors better suited to play the roles of Urfe and Conchis than Michael Caine and Anthony Quinn. Candice Bergen is a good choice as "Julie".It's beautifully filmed, which helps to reinforce the atmosphere.Anyone who watches this movie expecting everything to be explained at the end is bound to come away frustrated. Many people felt the same way about the book, but I started it knowing that it probably wouldn't all make sense, so I was prepared when it ended somewhat ambiguously. The very end of the movie does seem like a cop-out (after all, there's a good 150 pages of plot that are dropped from the novel) but perhaps it's as good as you can expect from a theatrical feature.Now that the film is available on DVD, beautifully remastered with an excellent anamorphic picture and sound, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys surrealism and doesn't mind a certain amount of ambiguity. This film does give you an idea of what the book might be about (something I'm still pondering). Nice to have it on DVD.

zies-2 I saw this first in the evening aboard a naval ship, before going up to the bridge for the midnight to 4AM watch. It was a very interesting 4 hours, after which I had a real interest in reading the book. As with most novels, it would be very difficult to re-create on screen. The movie though, gave enough of a flavor of the continuous surprise twists that it draws you in to the mystery of trying to figure out what is going on. I have most of it on a video tape somewhere, and don't remember it as being very good. John Fowles agrees with me. He also said in an interview that he didn't think much of the book, but many people disagree with him on that. It was at least another version of the theme, and visually very interesting. I rated it high because it caused me to think and explore Fowles works further, for which I am very grateful.