May contain mild spoilers
All the pretty horses is a movie based on a Cormack Mc Carthy novel by the same name. I read the novel after I had seen the movie because I wondered why the movie left me so empty inside after watching it. I couldn't say that it was bad but I couldn't' find the passion and depth I usually find in Mc Carthy's work. The funny thing is that even after having read the book I couldn't find an instant explanation why the movie didn't work. The director didn't leave anything out and yet, the magic of the book was "lost in translation".
I will try to name some possible reasons:
1.The first thing that strikes me is the age difference. Matt Damon- though young looking-plays a teenager of 16,17 years. He can't hide the fact that he's over ten years older. Since one of the main themes of the movie is the coming of age, it doesn't work because the main protagonists are already grown up.
2.A second problem is Mc Carthy's poetic language that is totally neglected in the visualization. A director should know how to transfer the poetry of words into pictures. It's not impossible – many have successfully done it. If he can't do it, he should pick another type of genre to direct where poetry isn't needed.
3.There are some recurrent motives in the book like the guilt (and responsibility) the main protagonist feels for the death of a young boy. A second important motive is his respect for parental figures because he never had a real one. Unfortunately in the movie everything is told with the same pace ignoring to underline important motives or set priorities. The director seems to have one universal stylistic device and that is showing horses in all possible variations. It is just not enough.
All the pretty horses is a movie based on a Cormack Mc Carthy novel by the same name. I read the novel after I had seen the movie because I wondered why the movie left me so empty inside after watching it. I couldn't say that it was bad but I couldn't' find the passion and depth I usually find in Mc Carthy's work. The funny thing is that even after having read the book I couldn't find an instant explanation why the movie didn't work. The director didn't leave anything out and yet, the magic of the book was "lost in translation".
I will try to name some possible reasons:
1.The first thing that strikes me is the age difference. Matt Damon- though young looking-plays a teenager of 16,17 years. He can't hide the fact that he's over ten years older. Since one of the main themes of the movie is the coming of age, it doesn't work because the main protagonists are already grown up.
2.A second problem is Mc Carthy's poetic language that is totally neglected in the visualization. A director should know how to transfer the poetry of words into pictures. It's not impossible – many have successfully done it. If he can't do it, he should pick another type of genre to direct where poetry isn't needed.
3.There are some recurrent motives in the book like the guilt (and responsibility) the main protagonist feels for the death of a young boy. A second important motive is his respect for parental figures because he never had a real one. Unfortunately in the movie everything is told with the same pace ignoring to underline important motives or set priorities. The director seems to have one universal stylistic device and that is showing horses in all possible variations. It is just not enough.