I have no doubt the novel this script is based on is great, and the actors do try hard, unfortunately, the director just completely misses the mark, possibly due to an incredibly bad script????? Anytime a movie spends so much time percentage on scenery, it's usually because it's trying to impose some emotion missing from the script, unfortunately this never works, as Jean-Claude Van Damme has proved many times, great scenery does not make a great movie.
I haven't read the book, the concepts of too many details and forgetting is a perfectly valid/interesting topic, unfortunately, this script dwindles on a ridiculous love story and the actors although trying have nothing to work with. Poor Roy, he was the worse served by this scrip/director, such good talent so wasted. Maybe he was just miscast? The editing and cinematography were amateur at best, strange decisions in "shaky camera" use and odd "travelings" just served to distract from non existent story. In such a relatively short film, 99 minutes, there should have been no time to waste on how to string together lamb chops, on a kid with a frog obsession, and endless shots of lakes and grass.
Sad sad indeed, and possibly an embarrassment for the writer of the book.
I haven't read the book, the concepts of too many details and forgetting is a perfectly valid/interesting topic, unfortunately, this script dwindles on a ridiculous love story and the actors although trying have nothing to work with. Poor Roy, he was the worse served by this scrip/director, such good talent so wasted. Maybe he was just miscast? The editing and cinematography were amateur at best, strange decisions in "shaky camera" use and odd "travelings" just served to distract from non existent story. In such a relatively short film, 99 minutes, there should have been no time to waste on how to string together lamb chops, on a kid with a frog obsession, and endless shots of lakes and grass.
Sad sad indeed, and possibly an embarrassment for the writer of the book.