User reviews

Many years after graduating college in New Hampshire in 1942, a nostalgic man revisits the campus of his alma mater in the off-season and reminisces about his roommate, a gregarious and reckless lad who goaded his friends into living for the day, breaking the rules and--most especially--jumping out of a tall tree into the lake below. Overlooked film version of John Knowles' semi-autobiographical novel (which, in turn, was expanded from his short story "Phineas") has a deeply personal feel even on the screen. While Knowles denied any homoerotic undercurrents in the text, those who do sense an attraction between the roommates, played here by John Heyl and Parker Stevenson, are bound to be the film's biggest admirers (when the novel is discussed in schools, it is said that homosexuality is never brought up in class, yet that hasn't stopped some schools from banning the book). There's a lovely simplicity--and, conversely, an unspoken complexity--in the friendship between the young men, which screenwriter Fred Segal cautiously, carefully tiptoes through (which is better than being tiptoed around). Director Larry Peerce works well with his actors, most of them non-professionals, and shows a keen, stylish eye for the period (surprising, since Peerce at this point had not shown much sensitivity). Not a hit with audiences, the picture grossed just under $1M at the US box office and was promptly forgotten, but it has a special sort of gleam. **1/2 from ****

The movie A Separate Peace takes place at the actual school that is believed to be portrayed as Devon so everything that went on in the book was envisioned happening at the school that this movie was filmed at. This movie really try's to cover most of the important events that happen in the book unlike any other movie I have seen that has been based off a book this one has the most information from the book put into the movie. Some things in the movie have been changed like when Finny broke the world record for swimming it was switched to Finny breaking the world record to Pole Vaulting. One thing that is a little different that is a good and bad thing is that they used ordinary people who went to school at the school of where this film was filmed and they were the ones who acted in this movie. It makes it so it grabs the age and the personality of these kids more but then it also made the movie a lot cheesier because they don't have the acting skills of the pros. This movie was actually pretty good I would recommend it if you are looking to watch the movie of the book you enjoyed so much.

As with many film adaptations, fans of the book can't but feel that they've been slightly cheated by the movie. The 1972 adaptation's faithfulness to the book can be commended, but it comes at a heavy price. The movie is so faithful that it was filmed at the boarding school, "Phillips Exeter Academy," that John Knowles attended and drew inspiration for the book from. The movie goes as far as to fill the cast, with the exception of Gene, with students and alumni who participated in the Academy's drama club. The actors' lack of experience shines throughout the movie and viewers are left with the notion to laugh. Lines, taken from the book, are delivered blandly and lack any emotion.

On positive thing that the movie brings to the table is the setting, being filmed at the boarding school where the book was "set" everything seems right. When they introduce the tree, you can't help but wonder if the novel's story is closer to non-fiction rather than fiction.

The movie makes an attempt to convey the symbolism found in the book, but without Gene's constant narration a viewer who hasn't read the book would find it very hard to grasp.

Although the movie makes an earnest attempt at greatness, the inexperienced cast, and low budget get in the way to frequently.

The many negative comments on this elegant tale of the rites of adolescent angst insisted I watch again to see what they are talking about. These are teenagers so their actions aren't obliged to make sense. The pregnant pauses and alleged poor acting is awkward emotional teenage behavior mildly obscured because they're bright, articulate kids with lots of rivalries - but there is more going on here.

No one has even mentioned the emotional range of the very powerful snow-shoveling scene – euphoria to unutterable sadness, screaming to silence: terrified kids. While the war is symbolic for the emotional swings of the children throughout the film it is very much less important as an influence.

Thematically what no reviewer seems to see here is the love story which foments the jealous, insecure, blind, ignorant ‘savage underneath', illogical urge to strike out. When you don't know what else to do somebody's going to get hurt: these are scared, hormonal, vulnerable, lonely, forty's boys and coming out just isn't done.

Worse still - it may be unrequited love - even though ‘it's just you and me buddy', and ‘I'm good for you' and the beach is where ‘you don't just come with anybody' and Finny's got himself and Gene undressed down to their underwear every chance he gets. Confusion reigns supreme afterward in the dorm when Gene - hasn't ‘been the same since the beach' - and he's ‘worried about something' unrevealed. And again later when he's wearing Finny's clothes and then again when he's stuttering on the phone.

Consider the reaction – devastation – when Finny thinks Gene might enlist and the ode to friendship that is the Winter Carnival where Gene wins all the gold - after training for ‘the Olympics'. These boys are experiencing feelings which are strong and bubbling over all the time and they have no experience to cope with them.

The confession deals marvelously with the ethical problem of the selfish, sociopathic moment – the stupid impulse – the temporary insanity, when everything was changed forever, but in tears stops just short of Gene telling Finny he loves him. Then again in the hospital - a confession and forgiveness, but no relief from what the lad cannot express: there is no unraveling, no spilling his guts and no moment of truth.

Years later, all the ‘fear and anger returned' - there is no peace, ever.

The only way you can compare Larry Peerce's movie version of A Separate Peace to John Knowles book, is in its specific lines. It is almost word for word, and that's one of the only things I can give it. As a lone movie, with no book responsibilities, it is not a horrible film. There are creative shots and the cinematography in some scenes is very passable. For example, the scene in which Leper has been pushed to the ground, and the camera is pulled out to show them being the only color figures on a pure white background, is very powerful. Also, the tree is well represented as a looming giant to whom the film works around. I enjoyed Gene's character, played by Parker Stevenson. He was very believable in playing the part of a confused young man trying to figure out where he is in life and where he needs to go to be fulfilled. On the other hand, I disagree with Peerce's choice for Phineas. John Heyl did Finny little justice in his lack of presenting the legendary boy as a super hero of high school adolescence. All together, this movie is five stars out of ten. Most of the points are lost on the acting. A better cast would make this a much better movie.

When I read this book some years ago it was because I was forced to read it in English class in High School. I grew up in the town where the book and movie were set, Exeter New Hampshire. Seeing the film brought back memories of my childhood in Exeter and all the visits I made to Phillips Exeter Academy, otherwise known as Devon in the book. The character development is much better in the book, but the movie does do the book some justice. This movie is a must-not miss and should always been shown to a child growing up.

A Separate Peace was a very popular and critically acclaimed book that helped illustrate the many things that war, competition, and evil do to the people that live in the world. With the loss of innocence, comes the knowledge of evil and perhaps then the knowledge of how to defeat it comes then as well. But with this knowledge, you do lose your innocence, and when that happens, the natural malice that lurks in the heart of every human being can arise and destroy the hopes of any person. The ultimate fight is the one of battling this darkness, to dry and bring about the return of goodness. A Separate Peace shows us what happens when innocence is lost, and when evil reigns in the heart of man. There are many, many symbolic and thematic elements to A Separate Peace. The movie I thought did a good job of showing these, and really just following the book. Personally, I didn't really like this movie at all, and would suggest that anyone thinking about watching the movie avoid it, but you have been warned.

P.S. The book isn't that great either.

Ok, I read the book too, but that was in - oh say- 1964 and I forgot it all. But the movie worked for me on its own merits. First of all, how many movies today are all about groups of 17 year old guys. Gone are the all-male schools and seminaries of the past. So it's a nice window onto a vanished (mostly, I think) subculture. Naturally someone in our own decade is going to read "homosexuality" into the relationships, but there was, in fact, a time when Finney could say to Gene "in this teenage period of your life, the best person to come to the beach with is your best pal, and we believed him. The cinematography was beautiful, even lyrical. I think the character of Finney was very well portrayed by John Heyl and wonder what ever happened to him. We know what happened to Parker Stevenson (he married Kirstie Alley). All in all, a succesful evocation of a time and place, whether or not it measured up to the themes and meanings of the book (which I note Leonard Matlin called "overrated" anyway.

All the actors in this film portrayed the characters very well. For the most part the film follows the novel, despite a few important facts left out. I only gave this film a 3, because, like the book, I find it very boring and it has no solid concrete plot.

The 1972 film version of John Knowles modern masterpiece is a class act for the reason that Paramount Pictures went to Phillips Exeter Academy and filmed it on location with all student actors from Exeter with the exception of Parker Stevenson whom attended The Brooks School. Though the acting is a little amateurish,so what,it should be, for it is the drama society of the school and alumni putting on a Paramount Film!

John Heyl,a former Exeter Student, was eighteen and son of the school's doctor. John Heyl does a great job as Finny at the age sixteen,seventeen that Finny would have been in the novel. This was also Parker Stevenson, at eighteen, his first film and in my view his best role as Gene.

It is a good adaptation of the book but I would strongly suggest that you read the novel first for the tensions of love, hate,jealously, denial, sexual undertone, and regret are pale compared to John Knowles' writing.

It is a love story with war looming closer to the boys of The Devon Academy. The viewer decides if this love is emotional and / or physical. What else could motivate ones "Best Pal" and roommate to do such a violent act as to attempt to maim him hence excorise him (Finny) from Genes life i.e. emotions so deep that Gene could not deal with at sixteen.

I have recently viewed Showtime's 2004 version which was filmed at a college in Canada and has actors that are in there late twenties playing the parts of teenagers. No sorry - Veto! John Heyl will always be Finny and Parker Stevenson will always be Gene. The 1972 film version shot at Exeter is the true "Preppy Classic".

A Separate Peace, Based on the novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles its aspects that keep it true but overall it is way to different from the novel. I feel that the actors chosen for the parts seem to fit what I imagined the characters from the book would look and act like; they also spoke in a considerably less modern tone which helped keep the idea that this took place in the nineteen forties believable. This aspect was the only part that had any quality to it, the movie deviated way to far off course of the novel, it changed scene s that it later made the plot make less sense and I could not think of a logical reason for the change. It did not reduce time or help show the symbolism at all. On that note this film didn't bring out the symbolism the book had very well. Since the symbolism didn't come out to well it just seemed random and sporadic with a weak plot. Ultimately this film could have used a lot of work, I would rate it a four out of ten.

"A Separate Peace," in novel form, is a nicely paced story filled with deep, sometimes complex metaphors and symbols. It is not for the reader who prefers the path of least resistance; the majority of enjoyment in reading the book is in the process of decoding the story. But that's what book-to-film renditions are for, right? "A Separate Peace," in movie form, is not such a far cry from the book as far as storyline goes. Instead, it follows the key points of the story while ignoring additional details that would create depth within the novel. In essence, streamlining the content of the novel. Much like in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" adaptation, "A Separate Peace" is short, sweet, and to the point.

Being from the early 70's, this movie should not be expected to have the "best" visuals. For what it is, the cinematography does a fantastic job of illustrating what was conjured into my mind as I read the book. As does the acting, which is remarkable- actual Devon (the school in which the story is set) students and faculty were casted for leading and supporting roles in the movie.

I personally found this movie both entertaining and well adapted in relation to the novel. I'd say that it is definitely worth watching for anybody who has read, is currently reading, or plans to read "A Separate Peace".

This may be the all time worst movie ever made--I ignore anything by Ed Wood as all his work is sui generis (and also quite humorous) This move totally misses the book, adds scenes not found in the book, and could not even find the proper tree at Exeter--awful! The only one I liked was Ed Echols as Ludsbury

Not sure why paramount chose to film this, anyway, as it is a psychological novel full of "interiors"--on a lesser level like trying to film stuff by Woolfe or Kafka (that takes an Orson Welles and Larry Peerce did not measure up).

Nice shots of the Academy and the town, and the tea party is somewhat realistic--the scene in the church with the choir is the worst of many bad scenes--just awful

this movie is shown once a decade on cable channels which have run out of MASH reruns--don't bother

don't watch it

The novel A SEPARATE PEACE is one of the benchmarks of American adolescent literature, second only to CATCHER IN THE RYE in terms of an accurate portrayal of 20th century young adult angst. The novel is a complex, ambivalent portrayal of friendship between two dissimalar friends at a stuffy New England boys' school during the opening years of WWII. The film version captures to a great extent the feel of the era and the New England setting, yet fails to really convey the conflicted feelings of Gene, the narrator in the book. The all-important scene in the tree is rendered in a murky manner; one not famililar with the book would be confused as to what had happened. And the confrontation scene in Phinney's house is poorly staged and interpreted. It's interesting to note that, with the exception of Parker Stevenson, none of these actors seem to have made good in their respective careers. Begs for a quality remake.

This ranks as one of the worst films ever made, and. like "Plan Nine from Outer Space", is often very comical because it is so bad.

I did like Edward Echols as the English teacher--very representative of a certain new England type.

John Knowles's novel A Separate Peace is one of my favorite books of all time. I think there is a depth to the characters that is nothing short of genius. I recently purchased the film version, eagerly waiting until the package arrived. I was immediately disappointed with the film. The characters were bland, and on a superficial level, just plain ugly. The film went by in a totally boring fashion that really let me down. The film stuck with the content of the book pretty well, but didn't seem to stress the right things in the right way. Finny and Gene just didn't live up to the creations in the book. I just wish that there would be another version of this film made in the 90's starring some actors that could bring a little more depth to the roles. I think even the guys on Dawson's Creek would have been a vast improvement on this take on a classic book. Imagine, James Van Der Beek could play Finny; Ryan Phillippe could play Gene; Nicholas Brendon could be Leper. If that sounds a little too Hollywood for you, maybe you need to check out this film and see that ANYTHING would be an improvement.

The filmmaker did not focus on the importance of the tree that Finny, Gene, and the rest of the suicide society jumped out of during the summer at Devon. Although the movie was poorly made and done with horrible acting, the film fails to recognize the significance of Finny's accident with the tree and how it changed Finny's and Gene's lives forever. The scene should have been made more dramatically and intensely as it was a major turning point in the novel. Even the theme of "losing innocence" is not really addressed towards either character. Although, they both do admit something private about the accident, but again, both scenes were poorly done. Another aspect that was completely ignored by the filmmakers was that of Gene's inner turmoil. Throughout the novel the readers can feel Gene's emotions and conflict within him: we were actually inside his head. Instead, in the movie, all we see is a quiet Gene getting himself into trouble and bursting out with anger and violence. Other important parts of the novel that are not mentioned are Gene's imaginary rivalry with Finny, the enlistment into WWII, Finny's athleticism, and the major differences between the summer and winter sessions at Devon.

I went to a boarding school and this was the greatest book I ever read about boarding schools. However this movie is very weak version of the book. I wish they would make it again with a better cast. It just doesn't capture the magic of Knowles' writing.