Watch The Sound and the Fury For Free

So much average

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This is "based on" William Faulkner's classic novel, The Sound and The Fury. If you were wondering how they managed to get the nifty incomprehensible narrative onto the big screen...they didn't, instead opting for all the clichés of the Steamy South.Of the two Quentins in the novel, the filmmakers decided to do away with male Quentin and instead focus on Caddy's illegitimate daughter. This did not upset me as much as it does some fans of the novel- all Quentin really does is lust after his sister. The scene in which the incestuous desire is most apparent is transposed to the big scene, except it's girl Quentin (Joanne Woodward) being forced to say her sleazy travelling circus artist's name by her "uncle" Jason (Yul Brynner).In this film, the novel is re-done as Quentin's coming-of-age. Jason is now adopted rather than being her blood uncle so the writers can have their cake and eat it. Quentin is Jason's only hope to save his adopted family's good name: his adopted sister Caddy (Margaret Leighton)is an ageing nympho; one brother is an alcoholic; and the other one, Benjy, is a mentally-retarded mute. The parents were no good either.It's almost a parody of Southern Literature: nymphos, lushes, incest, lust, and it's quite entertaining on this level. However, the casting choices were poor. Joanne Woodward has a lovely Southern accent but she was pushing thirty when she played seventeen-year-old Quentin, making her look more like an idiotic woman rather than a schoolgirl (although this family are a bunch of misfits). Yul Brynner does not exactly come to mind when you think of a Southern brute but he is suitably brutish and sensual. Jason in the book was hardly sensual but the film-makers need their romance.Margaret Leighton isn't that bad as Caddy. It's not clear why her brothers would be so infatuated with her but she fills the role of decadent mother quite well.Whoever is playing the travelling circus man is risible, as is the person who wrote the dialogue. We get a bunch of clichés, pseudo-meaningful lines and illogical flirtation. It all looks like somebody filmed a dud Tennessee Williams play.If you're looking to punish a student too lazy to read the novel, please show them this film. Unless you desperately need your fix of steamy Southern melodrama, I would return to Tennessee Williams. Poor William Faulkner must have got a bit of a shock when he saw this.

I've been longing to see this Southern Classic since last year. Thanks to YouTube. Actually, I prefer watching the movie version than the original Faulkner novel, which is too confusing and complex. After reading through some of the previous comments, I thought this movie was really as bad as they said.In fact, however, different people have different views. The movie plot is mostly taken from the Jason Compson part, and I was glad that it centers on Miss Quentin rather than her mother, Caddy(I never find her character that attractive from the book)Joanne Woodward was already 28 when she played Miss Quentin, but she was quite convincing as a 16-year-old girl with her short blonde hair and tiny body, mischievous, optimistic and tough at the same time. Maybe you might think that picking handsome, charismatic Yul Brynner as a southern patriarch is kind of weird, but friends, they changed the original Jason character into Cajun French, and having that thick European accent is normal and compelling enough. I must say that Brynner is no doubt a very good actor, especially when he reveals his expressions with his beautiful, intensive brown eyes. The ice-cream eating scene between Brynner and Woodward is really tender when he gazes at her, asking "Can't You?" right after she smilingly says she could not imagine Jason would be in love with someone. Moreover, the kissing part between Jason and Quentin is one of the most underrated passionate romance scene I have ever seen on screen. It is both romantic and hilarious as we watch Quentin hugs Jason back because she is finally infatuated with her tyrannical yet gorgeous non-blood related guardian.Supporting actresses Ethel Waters and Margaret Leighton also gives fabulous and brilliant performances. I find Leighton as classy as ever in the Caddy role. For Faulkner Fans, you may find this movie absurd. On the other hand, you may see this Martin Ritt Film as interesting and enthralling as possible.

The cast was hopelessly out of character from the novel. The characters that were supposed to be sympathetic (Benjy and Caddy) weren't at all. Benjy seemed more like a mute than a severely retarded man. Caddy was overblown and narcissistic, not tragic and beautiful. And who in the world decided on Yul Brynner as Jason? His acting was completely wooden. (and I know it was an attempt to be cold and distant, but he kept the same facial expression the entire movie) Not only that, but what was the point of having him and Caroline not "really" part of the family? Their accents were off-putting, not only that, but Caroline's character in the novel was whining, pitiful, and annoying, not demanding and rude like in the movie. Quentin was supposed to be a slut, a really "bad girl", but she didn't come off like that in the movie. "Howard" was a really unneeded character. He was the combination of Uncle Maury and Quentin (the boy) from the book, but really had no purpose to the movie. And were they trying to make the movie set in 1928 like it was supposed to be? Because it sure looked a lot like 1959 in most parts. I think the best performance was given by Ethel Waters as Dilsey. Oh, and when did Reverend Shegog show up? I see him listed in the characters, but they cut out the whole scene inside the church (probably one of the most moving scenes from the novel) If you're familiar with the novel, "loosely based" is an understatement.

I have long wanted to see this film, knowing that it would be weird. I would think that viewers who have read the novel -- arguably, with Absalom, Absalom, Huck Finn, and Moby Dick, one of the four greatest American novels written -- would be, at the least, perplexed at the handling of this story, which could have, in the hands of a French New Wave director, been made into something that resembled the book. I had thought that Yul Brenner would be cast as Benjy. It gets all the more bizarre. Fascinating look at great literature meets hungry Hollywood. Of course, I may not be fair in that I thought Kubrik's take on The Shining was excellent, while King fans were outraged. Two Stars for its being made.