The Remains of the Day 4K 1993

This is probably the best adaptation of a book I've ever seen! It's a wonderful movie. Very talented. Very good. It's as if a diamond (Ishiguro's book) had found a decent frame. When the thought is certainly perfectly put into practice, and the theory is not inferior to the practice. When the play of actors does not distort the essence of the characters, but complements them. When minor inconsistencies in the story and the book do not spoil the overall idea, but rather filigree to emphasize it. All in all, this is truly the best adaptation...

Can I say that the movie is boring? Does it drag on? In fact, if you read the book, it's clear that the plot is even dynamic for such a novel. Ishiguro writes in an unhurried, measured way, the thoughts spread out there even more carefully. Inner experiences, memories take up much more space than the dynamics of the plot. And the director did not deprive the film of this Japanese-English twist. His attention to minutiae, which depresses moviegoers, is the one major feature that makes the film as realistic as possible. The director managed to double down on the thoughts and experiences that come from reading "The Rest of the Day." In my opinion, it's just amazing. It's actually difficult, and if you've read Ishiguro, you'll know what I'm talking about. Such an "inner" novel is very difficult to translate into images and pictures in a way that doesn't lose the author's specificity of thought.

The most important thing, of course (which it would be unthinkable to leave out when talking about this film) is the performance of Anthony Hopkins. No one doubts his talent. And just to sing the praises, perhaps, would be very banal. But comparing the hero of the book and the hero of Anthony Hopkins, the naked eye will notice that Stevens is more alive. More "human." More real. And those emotions, those feelings that the butler hides from everyone, even from himself, slip through the book so insignificantly that the image of a man unperturbed, closed. Hermit. In the film, Hopkins openly shows these emotions. Openly, though, need to put a quotation, because it is "open" by the standards of the English butler - with his eyes. Pauses. Hand movements. A fleeting glance. But it all becomes clear. Though it may, some will say, overturn the idea of the movie. I do not know. In my opinion, the role is played just flawlessly.

I want to say that without the book, I do not recommend watching the movie. Without the book, a lot of things can be misinterpreted, and watching the movie you won't know the inner Stevens philosophy that made both the book and the movie unique.