I thought it was passable. Anthony Hopkins, as usual, was outstanding. Anton Yelchin (the main character) did a pretty good job too (laid back, not too melodramatic).
I got the feeling that the movie was trying very hard to be nostalgic but it never really hit the right note. King likes to write about childhood friends growing up in the early '60s (“The Body” and “It” come to mind) and I think the movies based on those books did a better job of capturing the right mood. “Hearts” goes through all the motions (the music, the gold-tinted sunlight, the clothing) but it doesn’t flesh out the secondary characters enough to make me feel immersed in the film. As much as I wanted to like Carol, she just didn’t have enough screen time to charm me. And forget about Bobby’s other friend (what was his name?). I think he had about two lines of dialog in the whole movie.
One of my major beefs is that the “low men in yellow coats” from the book became just the “low men”. I think the movie was trying to downplay the supernatural element by giving them more “normal” clothing and throwing in hints that they were actually G-men out to capture Brautigan for his mind-reading skills (so they can defeat the commies I guess).
In the book I really liked the fact that the low men dressed in bright yellow suits and drove big flashy cars. It made them seem really bizarre and spooky. With such gaudy clothes you’d think they’d have trouble hiding. In a way it makes sense – if your quarry can sense you coming from miles away then there’s no point in trying to disguise yourself. I have no idea why the movie tried to make them into govt. spooks. Maybe the filmmakers though the audience needed some kind of rational explanation for them.
And why’d they call the movie “Hearts in Atlantis”? The part about the college kids playing hearts in the dorm wasn’t in the movie so the filmmakers had to throw in the guy at the carnival and the quote about Atlantis just as an excuse to name the movie after the book. I like the title “Low Men in Yellow Coats” much better. It’s more gutsy and mysterious.
Eh. I liked it. I liked it better when it was entitled The Green Mile more, though.
And is it just me, or did it seem like they were going to come across a dead body on the railroad tracks at any given second?
<SPOILER SPACE>
And when the hell did Bobby and, um, his girlfriend get too cool to hang out with Sully? I mean, he was a dweeb and all but, geez, I thought they were supposed to be friends…
I thought Hopkins was wrong for the part, personally. He was too sane and sensible. You ought to be thinking, “Is this guy actually nuts or not?” But Hopkins played the character as the exact opposite of crazy, making the mother’s worries about his relationship with her son seem totally unmotivated.
I liked Stand By Me better. Nice photography, though.
I think I’m kinda in agreement here, the movie didn’t work for me.
To me it seemed like the screenwriters were like: “if we just put Anthony Hopkins in a movie where he plays a quirky old man where the weight of the world is behind everything he says, and make every single scene mean something, people will eat it up.” Frankly, I felt Hopkins was sleepwalking through the role, maybe even was miscast!
The movie is too linear, it just does not grab you. While they try and get over that the boy needs a father figure, for some reason that bond just does not get across with Hopkins. I also didn’t blame the Mom for not wanting the boy hanging with the Hopkins character he really DID come across as creepy! Besides, I wouldn’t want my kid sharing root beers with Hannibal Lector either!
The supernatural/FBI element seemed really out of place to me. What should have been a life-scarring expereince seems to be glossed over when we see the older boy (Davis Morse, great actor).
Didn’t see the movie, but enjoyed the book (all of it, not just the 1st part). But I am disappointed to hear they are not doing up the low men. Was looking forward to seeing them and their rides.
I agree, by the end of the first section there is no doubt that they are supernatural, and that’s an important element of the story in my opinion - that Brautigan was not crazy, and that the things after him were very alien.
Yeah, I was disappointed that the supernatural element was almost absent. Bobby even has a very specific line (“So that’s what this is all about, isn’t it, Ted.”) relating the G-Men idea incitatus mentions; as he utters it, he’s reading an article to Ted about the FBI denying the use of psychics to defeat the Commies. I’m a fan of the Dark Tower series and while I love King’s treatment of childhood and coming of age and all, I was curious to see if the film would touch on the Dark Tower connection.
What’s interesting to me on a personal level is that I thought the movie didn’t grab me because I was extremely distracted for about 9/10 of it. I thought I saw my ex come in with some woman (it turned out it wasn’t him) and spent most of the movie staring at the back of this stranger’s head trying not to hyperventilate. Now, reading and hearing the comments of others who’ve seen the movie, it seems that my impression of it would have been the same even if I’d been focused 100% on the screen. It was good, but not great, though I did really like Hopkins.
GYAHHH! That story is the only thing King ever wrote that gives me the screaming, stay-up-all-night-with-a-crucifix-and-a-baseball-bat, The-Lord-is-my-Shepherd-Hail-Mary-full-of-grace heebie jeebies. The idea of that hideous rotted THING standing over me while I sleep… gyahh!
Guess I won’t be seeing this movie ever. Which is too bad because “Library Police” was really cool and I’d have liked to see a nod to it.
Hehe, I caught “The Library Police” reference, too. What was the demon-lady-killer-nympho thing’s name again? Damn, I get shivers still about that whole story. “I’m a poleethman” aaahhh!!!
Well, I don’t think the movie would have been good if I hadn’t adored the book so much. I thought Anthony Hopkins was right for the role, but none of the changes they made were for the better… I went with a girl I know, to whom I had lent the book before. She loved it as much as I did, so we agreed not to see the movie without each other. Anyways, the scene with old Bobby and Carol’s daughter had us both sobbing, not to mention young Bobby riding that bike through the tall trees. ::sniff::
Still, not nearly so good as the book. The thing I liked most about the movie was the carry over. The book had the amazing ability to have the old characters reappear like friends that you haven’t seen in forever, and the movie too. When the FedEx guy said “Robert Garfield” I said out loud “It’s Bobby!” I was genuinely excited to see him, how wierd is that.
The movie just doesn’t work so well on its own, but it makes a nice present for those who love the book. It’s all worth it for the aforementioned scene between Bobby and Carol’s daughter, though.
I agree with most of the posts so far. I found it diverting, but in the end thought it was an excellent example of a film in which the parts fall far short of the sum. The premis had a lot of potential, and from what others have said on this thread, King’s novel sounds good too. Hopkins does his usual great work. We don’t see enough of Morse, but he’s really good too. Hope Davis is competent, but the weak link. Even the kids are good. In addition, the cinematography was great.
(probably unnecessary spoiler space…)
Unfortunately, there seemed to be little common ground among the various subplots. Thus, when scene in which the little girl is hurt is juxtaposed with the return of the mother after having been attacked, the combination seems to detract from the scenes’ respective impacts.
I think some of this is also because of problems with the characterization of the mother. It seemed to me that the director was deliberately keeping us uncertain about whether the mother was having an affair with her boss. This combined with some sloppy acting, and with the point Wumpus makes, makes the mother a less sympathetic character. As a result, her subsequent betrayal of Hopkins is par for the course and doesn’t carry any significance.
Also, the nostalgia seemed one dimensional. A good nostalgic movie can make viewers really nostalgic for a time they never knew by using details most people can relate to. In this movie the nostalgia was all yellow filters and oldies.