-yup, a gutted, or more accurately, lobotomised version of the book. So many compromises have been made to get this richly textured novel onto the screen that where the book interwove the stories in a fascinating counterpoint, convincing in voice and detail, the film is simply a bog-standard romance between good-looking actors with some pretty victorian stuff tacked on.<br /><br />You have wonder about the wisdom of even attempting to convert a book which is powerful tribute to the power of words and language and turning into a would-be powerful tribute to Gwyneth Paltrow. To paraphrase the famous quote, making a movie about words and language is something like a dancing about architecture.<br /><br />The second largest flaw is that Aaron Eckhart is woefully miscast, leaving a character floundering in a story where he no longer makes any sense. I'm not sure if he normally delivers his lines in such a clunkingly flat way, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not against adding American elements to a story to make it work commercial - it worked very well in High Fidelity, for example, but Roland's transatlantic transposition leaves all the other characters constantly having to react to his incongruous American-ness - he simply doesn't fit into the character in the novel.<br /><br />In addition, several *important* characters have been removed, leaving gaps in the narrative - obvious ones - Roland's previous girlfriend for example. Roland explains his singledom as he is simply "off relationships", but never gives any kind of convincing back story to the motivation for this. Strange gaps like this make the main characters seem one-dimensional and adrift in a plot that has to rattle through events which are barely explained by what we see on the screen.<br /><br />I have to admit, I was bored rigid and couldn't wait for the film to finish. I can't see how anyone could take much out of such an obviously compromised film, unless they're a Merchant-Ivory fanatic and love any old nonsense with Victorian frills.