Reviews

As a big fan of Henry Miller, I must vehemently trash this movie. The director misses the point of the novel completely, and instead INVENTS a tediously pretentious story around the most basic elements of Miller's book. It's an embarrassment, really. Miller and Carl's poverty is such a factor in the book, yet the movie's setting is extravagant and overblown. I had thought that the 1970 version was a poor facsimilie, but I see that that film at least attempted to capture the down-and-out feel of the book, the crudeness of Miller's language in that particular telling, and made some effort to follow the plot of the book. Andrew McCarthy is a snivelling newt with no charisma. McCarthy as Miller? I was cringing the entire time. I couldn't even bear to fast-forward the second half of this version. Dear god, avoid this waste of everyone's time. Why did the director even bother?

I'm reviewing this from the perspective of myself as a fan of Miller .. Though this is a poorly-done piece of amateur cinema, there is at least enough curiosity in seeing the presentation of the characters and other elements of the book, though you will likely be horribly disappointed with everything. "Quiet Days" is certainly one of Miller's crudest books, in terms of him coming off like a real jerk, albeit a smart and charming one (which the actor playing Miller totally lacks). In that sense, the film captures the baseness in the fact that it's as if the novel has been interpreted by tittering frat boys who pick out the most basic "shock" elements and run with them with anti-authoritarian glee. The previous review of this film mentions plot points which make no sense. This is because the director showed his obvious carelessness and sloppiness by not attaching logic to actions which are clear in the book. A curiosity of the late 60's (including footage of Paris in 69/70; also notable for the use of text within image which I actually quite liked), but a real disappointment for Miller fans, and a pretty bad movie overall.