Give this film a chance

Rating: 8/10 (14 February 2000)

This is probably a case where reading the book first is a distinct advantage in understanding some of what has been harshly described as "incomprehensible" events. This story is a parable, on many levels, and as such, is ripe with thought provoking, not to mention conversation provoking, material. Isn't this one of the pleasures of seeing a film - the discussion it can foster? I think many factors have influenced the critics: The desire for iconoclasm where Leo is concerned (many reviews editorialize with subjective comments about him); the disappointment that the film is "dark" and not noble enough; and the fact that screenwriters have to make difficult choices; e.g., if the Vietnam/video game fascination had been more of a thread running throughout the film, as in the book, then perhaps some of Richard's behaviors would not have been perceived as "incomprehensible". In short, I think many things in this film were misunderstood. I enjoyed this film on many levels, but maybe more so because I had read the book. My husband thought it was "great". I enjoyed the prerequisite "Danny Boyle" inventions which added an element of quirkiness. (I also resent the sense that we have to practically apologize for liking this film!) Richard's character is complex - needy, selfish, sensitive, sometimes cold...this translates as interesting and Leo portrayed him artfully. Also, in a stroke of genius, the character of Sal was made even more interesting than in the book.