Opiniones de daghda_jim

I enjoyed this film when it first came out and a number of times since. Travolta was excellent, as were William Hurt and Andie McDowell as damaged, fragile people.

But every time I watched it, there was a nagging feeling that I knew this story, or at least something very similar. I did some searching on the names of the screenwriters, thinking that one of them might have adapted a previous work, but had no luck. Then one day, I got a flash of a book title I had read many years ago: "Eddie and the Archangel Mike." I had only a faint recollection of the plot details but it did involve a sort of picaresque journey of a beaten-down alcoholic newspaperman, a vulnerable young woman, and the Archangel Mike, who turned out to have a rather earthy, rough-and-tumble disposition and a mysterious mission concerning his two new friends.

The fantasy novel was by Barry Benefield and came out during the early '40's. It's long since out of print, but there are used versions floating around, according to a little Googling on the author and title.

I have to wonder if it's some kind of coincidence, or whether Ephron, Dexter, or the other credited writers might have read that book long ago, and subconsciously hung onto the premise. I don't think it was deliberate appropriation; these are professional folks with brilliant careers and resumes.

I just wonder.

I think any movie that can be described as both (a) a Scientology recruiting pamphlet, and (b) an analogy to Jesus' life has to be a bit out of the ordinary. In some ways, this film reminds me of another seeming science fiction movie that really turned out to be about people's response to the unusual: `Charly' In both films an extraordinary increase in intelligence frightened the people around the main character; they just couldn't deal with it and feared him for it. The love story was a gem. Lacy had obviously been badly hurt by a past relationship, and simply didn't want to encourage George's love. But when he began to be hurt by the way some of his friends treated him, she warmed and opened her heart to him. The way George tried to describe how he looked at things differently and saw relationships that he'd never seen before reminded me of classical descriptions of the act of creativity in many fields. And it's a sad thing but true that we are all capable of concentrating harder and focusing on things to achieve more, but it's very difficult, and more often than not, we tend to take the easier road. Good thought-provoking flick.

...but quite different from the book. I saw this film first, then read Wister's novel, which was reminiscent of the better Zane Gray tales, in their portrayal of the real West and what westerners were like.

Bill Pullman did a fine job, as star and director, but I have to wonder why they made a number of pulp western-y changes. The shootout in the book was simple and powerful, compared to the film's version. The book had examples of rude horseplay and one-upmanship that was the basis of Trampas' hatred for the Virginian, and went deeply into what kind of a man you had to be to survive out in the West of that time.

In some way this gives you the best of both media: see the film first, for the enjoyment it provides, and then dig up a copy of the novel for an interesting, considerably different version of the story.