Hearts in Atlantis (2001)
Anthony Hopkins, Anton Yelchin, Hope Davis; d. Scott Hicks; B+

You really have to admire William Goldman for ommitting all of the dark, disturbing, and downright weird elements of "Low Men in Yellow Coats," the story of which Hearts In Atlantis was based on. Normally I would complain if darker, more complex elements were ommitted in leu of a more cheery, audience-friendly version (*cough*The Great Gatbsy*cough*), but the fact that Goldman's version was still somewhat solid, and with consideration of what time it came out (two weeks after the September 11th attacks), does at least garner admiration.

But...

That isn't to say that Goldman's script was flawless or even good, because it's what displays the script visually that saves it from itself. The problem with the script is that it's heavily cliched, borrowing selections from the Hollywood Coming of Age Catelouge, and has huge, gaping holes within the development. You never fully understand how a certain character developed a certain characteristic, or how the plot got from one point to another. Nor do you really have many fully devloped minor-but-play-a-major-role characters whose presense are noticing or menacing enough. If their presence isn't made worhty by their given actors, then they don't get the attention they need. As a result you can't fully connect to much that goes on in the movie.

Part of the script's problems with development is the omission of certain dark elements of the story. In the film, photographer Robert Garfield (David Morse) looks back on the last summer of his childhood after an old childhood friend has died. However, looking at the events that take place within his flashback, you can easily see how they may awaken certain mature sensibilities in Robert (then Bobby, played by Anton Yelchin), but cannot see how they may end his childhood all together. In the book, events that take place in Bobby's coming of age are so drastic and traumatizing that it is all too clear how his childhood ends. Had that not been omitted, or had we been given more information as to what happened to Bobby after the time in which the flashback takes place, maybe this statement about the loss of childhood would have been more easily understood.

Yet another problem is how the script deals with the pesky supernatural element of the story. Hearts in Atlantis clearly aims to be a Class A Stephen King movie (gripping human drama, i.e. The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Stand By Me), yet tries to retain some elements of a Class B Stephen King movie (supernatural/supsense tales/thrillers, ie everything people normally expect from a Stephen King movie). In the story, the supernatural element is more developed than the one in the movie, and much more complex and menacing, yet does not seem to be completely at peace with the rest of the story. The climax of the supernatural element (and thus the story) seems cheesy and detatched from the rest of the story yet it clearly is essential to the development of Bobby. In the movie, Bobby's special adult friend, Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins), is a friendly intellectual old man who eggs Bobby on to feed his brain but not feed himself with brain. He also just happens to be a psychic. While the element of Ted being psychic is intriguing it is not developed to its fullest extent. The friendship between Ted and Bobby is obviously key to the plot, but Ted's psychic nature is not. It's only an interesting character quirk that lends to some very intense and well made scenes (like Bobby's encounter with a seedy card dealer), but also some rather tedious and unneccessary scenes.

So, it's with relief that I say that there's other things in the movie to look foward to. For one, it's Hopkins' finely understated performance as Ted. For another, it's Mychael Danna's score, beautiful and eerie at the same time. And yet another is the late Piotr Sobocinski's lush cinematography. If it's becoming obvious that I'm leaning on this movie for mostly audio/visual matters, you better believe your butt I am, because it's those very elements that wrap the film in a haunting aura of beauty that sucks you into its story regardless of flaws.

The only major flaw I can see outside of the script is Scott Hicks' direction, and even that is not to the extent of the script. The way he chooses to shoot certain scenes comes off as false or a bit hoakey. Otherwise his direction is decent, brilliant in some parts but in need of improvement on others.

Yet...

Regardless of my outside ravings of the film, I still say read the book.