Some nice cinematography, some good pop art production design, but overall, a rather mediocre literary adaptation. The script is too convoluted. The whole Nagasawa and Hatsumi storyline, for example, was too perfunctory and should have been dropped. The film makers show the behavior of the characters, but they can't make the emotional logic of their choices legible.

A passionate tragedy about youth, social limits and losses that will not age. I find it interesting to compare it with "In The Mood For Love" - the two are widely different. NW is more colorful: here the brush strokes are more courageous and the sexuality, depression and agony of the characters strikingly exposed, whereas in ITMFL the feelings are hidden in its smoky, extrusively slow motion. But truly exceptional is the soundtrack by Jonny Greenwood: some of the best film music I've heard.

Pretty cinematography, but the film felt impossible to become emotionally invested in. It's a disappointment.

messy narrative. brilliant music, that don't need moving pictures to make an everlasting impression.

Some scenes were too rushed, some scenes were too stretched and others were superfluous. This annihilated the powerful story of Murakami's book. I recommend the book; it's way, way better.

prudish and boring screen romance. if you are an oh so sophisticated teenager you'll love noruwei no mori.

The film runs for over two hours and still only cliffnotes of original story are present. It feels very eerie, dark and cold (big part of it is soundtrack with lots of creepy strings). Cinematography is nice. I didn't like the casting choices. All the characters are underdeveloped. I would recommend reading a book instead.

a mediocre adaptation from a mediocre novel, leaving aside tons of crucial details and story line out of the screen

Too literary, but a good writer can be translated into a good movie... I fall for love of lost things.

Read the book? Then you'll probably enjoy this. Didnt read the book? You probably won't.

TEXTURE! The long-awaited return of one of cinema's greatest sensualists, Norwegian Wood is more conventionally dramatic than Tran's earlier films (most likely due to the literary source material) but otherwise completely in keeping with his visually ravishing, tonally lyrical oeuvre.

loved the book, really liked the movie

Not perfect, but the flaws start to sink into irrelevance when I remember the sheer emotional impact the film had on me, the gorgeous photography and I found this combined with Greenwood's odd, engulfing score to be overwhelming at points, and the chaos of the score contrasts well with all the quiet moments that fill the film, those quiet moments filled with pained glances, gentle caresses, attempts to communicate and the sound of nature as crickets chirp and life goes ever on.

It was cool but missed the point a lot. Without a strong Midori, the movie is way way way creepier and lamer. She had all the best lines in the book. Except for the one on switching partners, and that story gets told, but what the hell, he doesn't even mention it when it happens. Also I don't think the movie would make any sense at ALL like even a little if you haven't read the book.

So do I rate this as a film adaptation of a book I've read and enjoyed or just as a movie? It's tough because if I hadn't read the book, I doubt I'd have been able to make heads or tails of the plot. But having read it, I also find myself nitpicking the screenplay's handling of the source material. What do I do with that? (The book is much better.) It's nowhere near as pretty as the stills had indicated, but Tran was able to create some great scenes from particular parts of the book.

Very nice lighting and cinematography. Some beautiful nature scenes and it was interesting to see a depiction of Tokyo in the 60s. Mixed feelings about the story though. By the end I felt like I finally "got it", but nevertheless didn't feel much connection with the characters throughout. The language barrier probably didn't help. Seemed like a thoughtful, well-made film, and I might get more satisfaction on a second viewing.

I really wanted to love this movie, but I have to go with "like it a lot". I hoped this would be a return to form for Tran. It doesn't reach those heights, but it's good. Ultimately the film's greatest failing as an adaptation is that it doesn't do enough to establish character. But the cast makes the most of it. The Greenwood score is interesting, I also enjoyed the Can-heavy soundtrack. And the cinematography is glorious. The celluloid is painted with warm yellows, cool blues and lush greens.

I'd go as far as to say the cinematography is downright genius, but that's about as far as my enjoyment of the film went. While it's hard to point my finger at anything in particular I didn't like, this just wasn't my kind of film. For its length and pace, it didn't actually feel as long as I'd expect of a film that I must admit bored me, so that's good I guess. Didn't do much for me, YMMV.

I didn't hate this film, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it all. I only lasted 10 minutes as it skimmed over some parts of the book I love and I felt that it could never live up to the greatness of the book, so I took the decision to turn it off. The book is one of my favourites and I just couldn't submit to watching the film version.

"Norwegian Wood" is at times achingly pretty, & Greenwood's musical score is downright brilliant! I've not read the book, & contrary to popular belief it is not in the least bit confusing to anyone approaching the film without knowledge of the novel. But despite the emotional performances, I found something intangibly irritating about the way this movie was structured & edited. Even without reading the book, you can feel Tran desperately trying to squeeze the books contents into under 2 hours.

I'd heard from several people that this would be confusing for someone who hadn't read the book (which I haven't). Well after having watched it, I can report that there's nothing at all confusing or hard to follow about the film; everything's completely clear. I don't doubt that it doesn't explain the book very well, but it stands quite well on its own. That said, Tran doesn't completely avoid that "adapted from a novel" vibe, and I couldn't help the feeling that something was missing.

I love the book. This was too short, another hour to work with and maybe it would have been okay. However, it just plays like a summing up of the main events in the book. I also think anybody who hadn't read the book first would be very confused as to what was actually going on half the time. It was nice to look at for the most part and not entirely pointless, just a little underdone if anything.

13 agustos 11, mel ile fitasta & kitabi okumam gerek.

bu bile cok da iste kitabin hatirina.

I would rate this 65 but Greenwood's incredible music +10's it for me.

Nicely shot, but the story and the script are preposterous.