1/5 Very disappointing adaptation of a true classic
  by John Wetterholt (Crystal Lake, IL USA)
This film adaptation of John Knowles' classic coming-of-age novel is extremely disappointing, to the point of being downright awful.

The central question of the book--was Gene responsible in any way for the accident in which Finny fell out of the tree and broke his leg--was left tantalizingly unanswered in the book. John Knowles meant to do that. The reader is thus left to scour the novel for ideas with which to develop an answer. After 30 years and more than that many readings, I have a sense of what I believe happened...and an awareness that not everyone agrees with me.

This film leaves no doubt as to what the director thinks happened. The famous "jounce" that caused Finny to fall from the tree appears premeditated, and his last conversation with Gene before his death includes his conclusion, "You really did it, didn't you?" That sentence is nowhere in the novel and is highly prejudicial to its interpretation. The filmmakers made up their minds, and spared no effort in clobbering us viewers over the head with their interpretation. Wrong wrong wrong...one of the inviting qualities of the novel is that Knowles deliberately left it up to the reader to decide whether or not Gene bears responsibility. He took his own answer to the grave and thus heightened his masterpiece's appeal by making the reader THINK. This film did not do that, and suffers because of it.

I also had a hard time believeing that Gene and Finny were "best friends" in this adaptation. It started off on the wrong foot by portraying Gene as a new student at the Devon School at the time of the 1942 summer session, instead of a continuing student, as he was in the book. Their friendship thus lacked any depth and plausibility. If you accept that Gene bore the requisite animosity toward Finny to cause the accident, how he have possibly developed that tension in just a few short weeks?

The portrayal of Finny must be one of the most difficult assignments for an actor and Toby Moore did a passable job, but he still didn't nail it. He was no further off the mark than John Heyl was in the 1972 adaptation, but neither was he any closer. Of all the main characters, I think Brinker Hadley seemed the truest to his print counterpart, but Gene seemed paper-thin, and Leper Lepellier was a caricature (the portrayal of Leper in the 1972 film was much closer to the spirit of the character in the novel).

And then there's the final "reconciliation" scene in the infirmary the day before Finny died. Flat, unemotional, no spirit. Along with Finny's blatantly unnecessary assertion that Gene "really did it," this pivotal scene was perhaps the most disappointing part of the entire film. In the book, you really get a sense that Gene and Finny have had a meeting of the minds are spiritually united. In this film, there is no such sense of closure.

The definitive filming of "A Separate Peace" has yet to be produced.

4/5 Remains True To The Essence Of The Story
  by Rob Astor (Jackson, Michigan USA)
First of all, be sure to read the John Knowles book first. It always helps to do so before watching a film adaptation of a classic story. As for the movie itself, most of it remains true to the novel. Considering it was shot around 2003, the teleplay remains truer to patriotism as opposed to the written version. (Listen to the stories of your grandfathers and uncles. Who would dare speak out against fighting in World War II? Or the conflicts in the present day Middle East?) A few of the circumstances were altered because to reflect this aspect, but, nothing so drastic that the root of the story is changed. The movie is well acted and paced. Every scene pertaining to the main plot is included. I highly recommend "A Separate Peace" to anyone who's in doubt.

2/5 A bit on the lame side
  by Bradley F. Smith (Miami Beach, FL)
This is one of those movies where the book is so much better. It's a coming of age tale, in a more innocent vein than, say, "The Catcher in the Rye." It gets a bit sacharine here and there, not to mention slightly homoerotic. Not a waste, but not a real winner, either.

2/5 OK Moview
  by R. Banc
I used this movie for a high school English class. The students thought the acting was really bad, but I was happy that it stayed true to the story.

2/5 Okay, but not terrific-wow!
  by A. Ethen
This follows the John Knowles novel pretty closely, but it was one of the slowest videos since my high school history class documentaries. If you haven't read the novel, you won't enjoy this movie.