"The Razor's Edge" is a story about loss, gain and a man's soulful search for enlightning and the truth and beauty of life during the early
days of the 20th century. It's the story of Larry Darell (Bill Murray, trying some dramatic chops for the first time), a WWI veteran who after a
traumatic event decides to abandon a future marriage with a wealthy girl (Catherine Hicks) and a potential lucrative job working with his best
mate (James Keach) in order to find a meaning to his life. He ventures around the world, working on hard labors, and also gets some valuable lessons
on the mountains of Tibet. But he always keep coming back to his friends, ex-girlfriend and falls in love with Sophie (Theresa Russell), a problematic
drunk with a tragic past, but someone whom Larry had some feelings before their difficult lives.
The treatment given to the classic novel by W. Somerset Maugham didn't translate all that well in this particular version (the 1946 film is amazing, and much to my surprise, very faithful) as it goes for excessive melodrama and a sense of humor that shouldn't been there at all. John Byrum's film, co-written with Murray, knows how to connect audiences with Larry as he is charming, eloquent and there's an almost innocence to this apparently lost man who needs to find some life significance after surviving the brutality of war and later on dealing with a prospect life like any other man had in the roaring twenties: a tedious job that pays, wife and kids, the guiding book of an apparent successful life. He wants more, though doesn't know exactly what it is but he keeps on trying, maybe he'll get "it" some day. The problem of Murray's Larry is the clownish acts, as if trying to conquer the viewer and not the characters he's interacting with.
But like many other films with such powerful themes, it's one of the cases where audiences either get the ideas of it all, with some form of embracing what it's trying to show or connect with its spiritual themes, or it's a total rejection of everything. I liked it, but it's one of those cases where I had to "brace myself for impact" as there are problems with the acting and the story presentation which condensates a lot of things (Maugham's character is inexistent and most of his moments were given to Larry), and added a few things that should be left for the viewer to imagine (the war battleground). But annoys the most are the girls in Larry's life, as the little charm they should have is non-existent and their acting didn't help. Denholm Elliott is always a class act to watch, and his Elliott Templeton is a little amusing to watch (I'd like to see Murray playing this character on a remake, he'd be perfect).
The book was a pleasure to read and it's a nice suggestion to anyone who couldn't understand the film. It's an okay film despite its complications.
It treated fairly with the existentialism of its leading character opposed with the other characters and their little lives. The glamourous art-direction, the great use of locations as opposed with the fabricated soundstages of 1946 version are all splendourous, alligned with the over-the-top and slightly effective score by Jack Nitzsche, one rally feels as if living between 1910's and 1930's. There's great values to show, learn and maybe live by but one can easily feel that there's something missing, some complexity that could be better developed. 6/10.
The treatment given to the classic novel by W. Somerset Maugham didn't translate all that well in this particular version (the 1946 film is amazing, and much to my surprise, very faithful) as it goes for excessive melodrama and a sense of humor that shouldn't been there at all. John Byrum's film, co-written with Murray, knows how to connect audiences with Larry as he is charming, eloquent and there's an almost innocence to this apparently lost man who needs to find some life significance after surviving the brutality of war and later on dealing with a prospect life like any other man had in the roaring twenties: a tedious job that pays, wife and kids, the guiding book of an apparent successful life. He wants more, though doesn't know exactly what it is but he keeps on trying, maybe he'll get "it" some day. The problem of Murray's Larry is the clownish acts, as if trying to conquer the viewer and not the characters he's interacting with.
But like many other films with such powerful themes, it's one of the cases where audiences either get the ideas of it all, with some form of embracing what it's trying to show or connect with its spiritual themes, or it's a total rejection of everything. I liked it, but it's one of those cases where I had to "brace myself for impact" as there are problems with the acting and the story presentation which condensates a lot of things (Maugham's character is inexistent and most of his moments were given to Larry), and added a few things that should be left for the viewer to imagine (the war battleground). But annoys the most are the girls in Larry's life, as the little charm they should have is non-existent and their acting didn't help. Denholm Elliott is always a class act to watch, and his Elliott Templeton is a little amusing to watch (I'd like to see Murray playing this character on a remake, he'd be perfect).
The book was a pleasure to read and it's a nice suggestion to anyone who couldn't understand the film. It's an okay film despite its complications.
It treated fairly with the existentialism of its leading character opposed with the other characters and their little lives. The glamourous art-direction, the great use of locations as opposed with the fabricated soundstages of 1946 version are all splendourous, alligned with the over-the-top and slightly effective score by Jack Nitzsche, one rally feels as if living between 1910's and 1930's. There's great values to show, learn and maybe live by but one can easily feel that there's something missing, some complexity that could be better developed. 6/10.