Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Everything about this film adaptation of Jon Krakauer's non-fiction book, Into the Wild is great. Beginning with the always appealling lure of one's willful departure into the wilderness, the director as well as the screenplay writer was , the selection of actors was good, and the soundtrack, peaking with Eddie Vebber's "Hard Sun", is amazing. For more details, check the IMDB page on .

However, the story about is quite controversial. Whether you've seen the movie without being aware it's based on the real person's adventures, before the reading of the book or after, it's hard not to create some opinion about the person it depicts. So, any thoughts, doubts, and revelations regarding the movie, which means also the findings of innacuracies in comparison with the original source (not only the book when we're at it), are welcome. The book itself, should be discussed in its own thread.

...

Watched the movie and it's really great..Emile Hirsch's best performance ever..and Penn is always great, even as director/writer...

I've seen the movie too - definitely agree :) it was really great, I was thinking about it for days after watching :) Now, that was three years ago, which means after the reading of the book, I definitely intend to see it again, but I remember being a bit disappointed after reading a couple of articles about real McCandless. Not so sure now what was it, but no doubt I'll figure it out and tell you later to get your opinions ;)

An update on the thread and my previous posts -- seen the movie again last night. Still deem it very beautiful, the scenography was stunning, music great and acting superb, so nothing changed regarding that.

Now after I've read the book, 's performance disturbed me even more, because it added more strength to the words I've read. Krakauer was good, but nothing can match such a visual reference to the pain that boy endured. I was really shocked with the bear scene by the bus!

Regarding the previous comments, I must correct myself, in a way I do not desire anymore to check again all those articles, not now after I've read the book. Somehow think the book was sufficient enough. And the movie did really take a few liberties with the original story. Maybe Penn did exaggerate some things (view spoiler)[for an example, about Walt McCandless - I do not remember nowhere in the book that he abandoned the children from the previous marriage, maybe I am mistaken (hide spoiler)] too much, what do you think? And, I think the conclusion was too simplified -- Krakauer wasn't really decisive about the cause of McCandless's death, and I incline to agree with him (view spoiler)[that mold on seeds killed him, not potato seeds, because he wouldn't survive that long if that was the cause of his death, because he ate them long before that poisoning occurred, but certainly I am no expert, I just accept the writer's reasoning (hide spoiler)]. Anyway, I think it would be better that Penn didn't show that explicitly. (view spoiler)[ I refer on that Chris's browsing of the pages - considering what we have read about him in the book, I doubt he hadn't till then known that manual by heart, that scene somehow undermined his intelligence (hide spoiler)]. I don't know. What do you think?

Never mind my rant. Regardless those things that bugged me - which, had the movie been a pure fiction, wouldn't matter at all - I was entranced by the narration and completely charmed by the way Hirsch and other actors portrayed the people in the movie. In short, my rating is 9/10.

Regarding your first spoiler question, Zeljka, yes, the book did go into detail regarding (view spoiler)[Walt McCandless' previous marriage and that he was still legally married to his first wife, with whom he had something like five children, the last of which was born a couple of years AFTER he had started his relationship with Billie, Chris' mother. The relationship was worked out and resolved as best as possible after that but the details were never explained to the children which was part of Chris' anger. It was actually his older half-brother, Sam, who was first notified when his remains were found. Walt did, however, continue to pay child support for all of his children. What I do not like in the film, that I did not feel conveyed in the book, was Walt depicted as as being violent and abusive. I gathered that he was probably somewhat controlling, but not nearly to the extent in the film. Was this done for Hollywood "interest" as if the real story wasn't compelling enough? I think it's far more interesting (and disturbing) that a kid from a fairly "normal" family, with any kids issues with his parents, still managed to take this path (hide spoiler)].

Krakauer's description of the cause of death in the book was very thorough, going through every possible scenario and then explaining what he thought fit everything to the best. I haven't seen this ending scene in the movie yet, but I imagine it's similar (view spoiler)[that it wasn't mold on the seeds, but was the seeds themselves, which nowhere in any plant book of the time had been identified as poisonous, so there would have been no way for McCandless to know. (hide spoiler)]

Ok, having finished it my thoughts are:

**May contain spoilers**

Well-cast. For a lot of the film it was easy to forget that it was actors portraying all of this and not the real people. They were so effortless, didn't come across as over-acted and were just natural (except, of course, for Kristen Stewart, who is the same melodramatic character with no facial expressions in every film she's in).

Great music. The score carried it in a gentle way, not overbearing, but made it sweet and sad enough that you enjoy the adventure, but never quite forget how it's going to end.

Creepy ending. Sorry, but the image of his eyes open in the bus is burned in my brain and really creeped me out. It wasn't bad, just very odd (especially watching it right before bed).

Appropriate description of death. It would have been too complicated to explain in detail all the stuff Krakauer put into the book, but the way they showed him mixing up the seeds was enough explanation for the film, in my opinion. It could have happened that way and was very similar to what Krakauer determined happened, so it worked for me. The random bear at the end? Obviously not in the book, but it did a great deal to show the completely weakened state McCandless was in, that all he could do was stand there and hope the bear didn't attack him. It's not like he could have defended himself anyway.

Final thoughts: I don't know what I would rate the film. I feel like because I read the book immediately before, that I knew the story very well, so I didn't really have to think about who all of these characters were. I wonder if I would have liked it if I hadn't known anything about it before? It's not something I'd watch again, and while it was pretty accurate to the story and the pacing wasn't too bad, I just don't think I would have been into it had I not read the book. Maybe three stars?