I went to see it too and I really liked it. I think it is definitely Penn's most accessible film, meaning of the films he has directed the one that would appeal to the widest audience. Going in to a film where I've read the book I can't help but look at how the story was adapted for the screen. From that aspect it was mainly what I expected. It obviously made the most sense to focus on McCandless, drop all of Krakauer's personal tales, and find the best way to tell the story of Chris making his journey to Alaska. The main problem with telling that story to me would have been how to create a good flow and keep it interesting and I think that the perfect way to do that was to begin with Chris in Alaska and tell the story in flashbacks. I just thought that there was a perfect logic to doing it that way because it would work as a device to pull the viewer deeper into the McCandless character. I thought about the fact that Chris would be lonely up there in the wild and it made sense to me that the flashbacks would almost work as Chris looking back at how he got there. I also think it served as the most logical way to adapt Krakauer's book because in the book you only get these short tales of sections of his journey and Krakauer did a good job dealing with this problem by cutting back and forth from his own stories to McCandless. So really Krakauer gives away the structure and Penn went with it and did a great job of capturing the book I think. So in terms of adapting the book to the screen I think Penn nails the whole feeling with his film. Basically what I'm saying, as a fan of the book, is that I think other fans of the book will like this film.

So in that way I got what I expected but there were plenty of things I did not expect. Don't worry if you have not seen the film yet, I won't give anything away because I hate reviews that do that. I did not expect there to be as large a focus on the family aspect of the story and family really does permeate this story and oozes out from all of the cracks right through to the end. I'm obviously not the only one that noticed this as it is one of the first things that Ed said about the film as well. In a way, I think this aspect of the film says a lot more about Penn than it does about McCandless. There is an obvious family aspect to the story of Chris McCandless and a family tragedy at its heart but I think while it was there in Krakauer's book, it is the heartbeat of Penn's film. Now that comment is probably going to make some people reading this nervous but not to worry we are talking about Sean Penn here and he is not the kind of director that's going to pour on the treacle. He is a father though and a guy that has traveled to places around the globe where tragedy is part of the daily routine and I think that has to have an effect on a person. One of the things Penn uses as a tool to tell the story is having the character of Chris's sister narrate parts of the story. I will admit this was one part of the film I was not crazy about. Not because the narration is bad, in fact it is really well written and well done, but because from my point of view it drains the story of a little of its beauty and a lot of its mystery. Now here's the thing, I am not saying that narration is a mistake, in fact when I read the Boston Globe review of the film after seeing it the reviewer felt that the sister's narration was a welcome and much needed aspect of the film. I think to people who have not read the book or people who feel they want to know more about McCandless, maybe to try and wrestle more with the reasons he did what he did, they will like this narration and find it important. So for the film it probably works great, but for me, and this is probably one of my own flaws, when telling this kind of story the not knowing is more intriguing to me than the knowing. I'll refer to Rilke here:

"Things aren't all so tangible and sayable as people would usually have us believe; most experiences are unsayable, they happen in a space that no word has ever entered, and more unsayable than all other things are works of art, those mysterious existences, whose life endures beside our own small, transitory life." - Rainer Maria Rilke

I don't know if McCandless read Rilke but I think he would have liked him.

So, that's all I'll say about the story at this point. The rest that I'll tell you is that as you would expect Penn pulls amazing performances out of his actors. I guess when you are acting for Sean Penn, a person considered one of the great actors of this time, you must feel as if all you can give him is everything you've got because the cast is uniformly fantastic. The young actor that plays McCandless is so good I can't imagine anybody else playing the part. His name is Emile Hirsh and I don't think I've ever seen him before but you will remember him in this role. The other guy that I have to mention and did not expect to see is Hal Holbrook and he is just stunning in this. I think his performance was my favorite in this and it blew me away seeing him. Penn drew a great performance out of Charles Bronson in The Indian Runner and he gives Holbrook the same kind of chance to shine here and he is so good even if this film was terrible I would tell you to go and see it just to see Hal Holbrook do his thing.

The film flat out looks beautiful and you will long to be on a mountain, or in a forest, or sitting by a lake after you see it. Penn obviously got a huge assist on this one from his DP and really don't wait for the DVD on this one because you will enjoy seeing this film on a big ol' movie screen. Now the thing everybody seems to wonder about before seeing this film is what perspective does Penn take on McCandless and I'll let you see it and find out for yourself but I did not think he romanticized him. In fact I think he did a good job on staying pretty objective about McCandless and his motivations. If people leave the theatre thinking McCandless was some kind of hero I'd be kind of stunned. In Alaska I guess people see him mainly as one more idiot that wandered unprepared out into a harsh wilderness and killed himself. The truth is he was that but the truth is also that's not all he was. I think that's the part of the McCandless story that makes it attractive, that you can find what you will in it and find something about yourself maybe. That's what draws people in. To me that is one of the things that makes a great story, that the story has room for you to lose yourself in it, find yourself in it, and make your own discoveries along the way. The story of Chris McCandless certainly has all of that.

I am glad I read the book first and I would tell people to do that before seeing the film because I think it gives you the chance to discover different things and maybe more things than the film does. The last thing I'll say is that I hope Penn plans on directing more films. In all honesty, I think that Penn delivers the goods every time as a director and you know you are going to get a very satisfying film. The four films he has directed, to me anyway, tower over any of the films he has acted in over that same time frame. I'm not saying Penn is not a great actor, he is, but he is not as lucky as the actors that get him for a director. I think a lot of directors don't really even know what to do with Penn and he ends up doing good work in films I don't want to see again. I thought one of Penn's best acting jobs came early in his career when he did The Falcon and the Snowman. He is amazing in that. I also thought he was amazing in Carlito's Way but overall I thought it was a lousy film I would not waste my time ever watching again. Bottom line here is with Into the Wild he has delivered another good film I look forward to seeing again. Maybe he should act in something he directs...