Contains Spoilers Well I had seen the Power of One when I was quite little and I remember really enjoying it. Now a few years later, I have read the book and I was extremley disappointed with the changes they made in the movie. First off Peekay has no love interest. Also his mother does not die and Peekay does not stand for Peter something something or whatever it was. In the book it has a special meaning and the film failed to highlight this. He also does not gain the scholarship to Oxford. The film failed to portray Peekay they way the book intended him to be. Since peekay was around 6 he has dreamed of being the welterweight champion of the world. The film totaly missed this out. It missed out alot of the things that happened to him during his upbringing which molded his charcter. Of course the film could not include all of these but I felt they missed out a few of the important ones.

However, I did give this film a 8 out of 10. If we take away the book, the film is great. The actors are superb and it moves along at a good speed. Dorff and Freeman are excellent.

Caution-Minor Spoilers ahead: John Avildsen could be considered the most interesting director of his generation if only for the huge range of quality among his films and the fact these differences seem to have little correlation with his level of experience. His best films include Joe (one of his first efforts), Rocky (several years later), and this film (late in his career). Mixed in between these high points are some moderate successes (Lean on Me and Save the Tiger) and some total dogs (Neighbors, The Karate Kid, WW and the Dixie Dance Kings, and Rocky V). It is hard to believe that it was same person, you either have to credit Avildsen with the 'courage' to take on even the most hopeless of scripts or with such financial desperation that he had to take anything that came his way.

With Avildsen the 'courage' angle (willing to attempt something without fear of failure and able to bounce back after failure) is the more likely, since courage is the recurring theme of most of his films: the solitary individual pitted against the oppressive and dehumanizing forces of the 'status quo'.

This is certainly true of 'The Power of One'. Bryce Courteney's book had that same theme and the film adaptation preserved it. Critics of the adaptation (and lovers of the book) complain that this is about the only thing that Avildsen preserved. While they are technically correct, their complaints are rather silly because the book(s) were basically un-filmable (at least commercially) and film is a different medium making comparison illogical anyway. While all adaptations contain many elements of a story, there will be omissions and changes-particularly with a novel like Courteney's. Those who complain that this adaptation was incomplete and inaccurate probably complained that 'Clueless' was an inaccurate adaptation of Jane Austin's 'Emma'. The point is that a movie is a movie and a book is a book. Actually this film was a blending of Courteney's story with Stephen Covey's 'The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People' with the main character having to move from dependence to independence (private victory) before he can become effectively interdependent (public victory) and influence others. As someone said earlier, 'The Power Of One', despite ending with a statement proposing a bland union of absolute conviction, is not expansive but rather interior in its meaning. And this is indeed the paradox of art, when experiencing something the details are rapidly subsumed (as in subjective).

This is a more political story than the novel but the political elements are superficial and simplistic. And the premise of a white boy leading a whole race of people to their salvation is a bit over the top, an unnecessary and forced way of extending Courteney's individual inner power to a collective unity. But such is the nature of film, where pacing considerations and time constraints make reliance on stereotypes necessary to economically convey a message. And in a sweeping historical story like this there is no way to provide a great deal of depth to the characters. But Avildsen does a good job with his main character, a consistent style of frequent reaction shots of PK remind the viewer that the film is entirely his point-of-view and his impressions as he grows up. The solitary individual pitted against an oppressive power structure, his 'power of one' being an ability to experience personal tragedy/inhumanity and yet retain his humanness, as a child he learns to not let fear restrict the experience of living.

What makes the film good is that while Avildsen's political message is heavy-handed and stereotyped, he makes good use of the time this buys him for other story elements. Some have asked why Fay Masterson's 'Maria' character was added to the screenplay (Maria was not in Courteney's novel). This was a special subtle touch by Avildsen. Masterson is as perfect looking as Nicole Kidman but somehow much more real. Two of the best visual scenes in the film revolve around her character. The first is PK's initial glimpse of Maria in the audience at his championship fight (homage to Rocky's search for Adrian in the crowd). It is visually amazing-Masterson has an angelic glow in this shot which makes PK's instant enthrallment and improbable pursuit seem quite believable. And Masterson handles the subtle acting requirements of this difficult role extremely well, representing those Afrikaners who were able to overcome their childhood indoctrination, see their racist institutions for what they were, and work for change. The other key scene is Maria's funeral where Avildsen shows her father's sudden grasp of what a special person she was, and special for the very qualities he tried to suppress in her while she was still alive. This scene could have been clumsy and silly but Avildsen stages it with such subtlety that we accept that her father has been inspired to work for reform. Film is such a powerful medium because when done correctly it can visually tell a story in a few seconds more convincingly than in a hundred pages of text.

Bottom line this is not a perfect movie nor is it an accurate adaptation of the book. It is a very entertaining film more 'inspired' by the book than adapted from it. It has great visuals of the veldt and has wonderful African music. The historical subject is worth telling and the individual themes of justice, hope, and courage offer a very positive message. 7 out of 10

Just to be clear I have not the book this apparently is based on. And I just watched the movie the other day for the first time. Stephen Dorff ... what a great actor. But he is "just" the lead. We also have the current James Bond here ... and Morgan Freeman. But that aside, the movie begins with a bit of an explanation what this will be about. And it is a nice deed ... a nice intro for those unaware of what Apartheid means or the general situation that happened and how it evolved.

It is a good introduction not just into the movie, but also as a sort of lesson for those interested. After that we get our main character and how he grows up ... and what he has to endure and how his life changes .. but also how he affects other peoples lives! It may be a bit too long for some, but it is really powerful in its message nonetheless.