Do you know people who say books are better than films? Well, with this one, they hit the nail on the head. I have to question both the intent of the movie, as well the reasons for which it was shot. Homo Faber is a book which engrosses us in character analysis and it's done in such a matter, that a conventional film could never cover it fully.
And that's what this is, a conventional film. Walter Faber is way "underdeveloped", his relationships with the people around him are somewhat chaotically put together and in the attempt of emphasizing some of his traits, there are moments in which the film becomes uneven. I can but be disappointed by this work, because it feels fake; everything does: the actors, the circumstances, the "existential questions".
A book which is elevated by style and substance can't be the starting point of a movie, unless the film itself aims in achieving the same uniqueness.
And that's what this is, a conventional film. Walter Faber is way "underdeveloped", his relationships with the people around him are somewhat chaotically put together and in the attempt of emphasizing some of his traits, there are moments in which the film becomes uneven. I can but be disappointed by this work, because it feels fake; everything does: the actors, the circumstances, the "existential questions".
A book which is elevated by style and substance can't be the starting point of a movie, unless the film itself aims in achieving the same uniqueness.