Monday, March 28, 2016

rabbitmoon. A Simple plan 1998. IMDb. 29 Mar 2016.

book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since November 2010
I wouldn’t call the film bad, all things considered it’s an above average crime saga, but nothing spectacular. Still, the book fleshes out the characters a lot better. Sarah makes more sense & is more 3 dimensional, she doesn’t come off as just jarring as she is [in the film]. Yes, she’s still calculating, but it works better. Same thing with Jacob. His oddities are mixed with his moments of clarity and insight in a much more focused manner. The movie just seemed rushed, and a bit void of depth & emotion by comparison.

Re: book is way better than the film.
by gottb4
IMDb member since June 2011
Almost every book is better than the movie.
Re: Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since September 2005
The scene where he goes to the liquor store to get the money back and kills the huge clerk....Would have been an awesome scene.
Re: Re: Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since February 2010
The book was *not* better than the movie. The whole idea of this sort of moral-slide kind of drama is that you have to like the characters before they get in over their heads, and there isn’t a single likable character in the book other than the sheriff.
Contrast to the Ruins, where the characters in the book aren’t really unlikable at first, and even when they act badly you can understand it’s due to the stress of the situation. But in ASP, if at least Hank isn’t a good guy to begin with, the whole thing fails to work. And he is not a good guy in the book.

Re: book is way better than the film.
by jnatch
IMDb member since January 2000
the screenplay was written by the books author. You do realize that if everything in a book is put in a film that film would be about 4 hours. Saying things are missing from a film that were in the book and concluding that makes the book better is to say nothing. You’re simply pointing out the differences in two mediums.

Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since November 2005
Two different mediums of storytelling. It’s impossible to flesh out characters on the screen the way you can in a book. Conversely, it’s impossible to relate action and violence in a book as well as you can in a movie. Each medium has its strengths, and I think it’s a testament to it being a great central story that both book and movie work so well on their own levels.
BTW, the author of the book adapted the screenplay for the film, so you can’t get much more authentic than that. [Stupid.]

Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since June 2001
Boring thread. Let’s move on.


Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since March 2012
Couldn’t agree more. The book is a knock-it-out-of-the-park masterpiece, the movie just so-so. I know it was Scott Smith, the book’s author, who wrote the adaptation, but some of the changes he introduced weakened the book’s very strong central message.
Re: Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since August 2005
I’m glad someone gets it, in terms of understanding why the book is better, rather than most of the other tools on this thread.
The changes completely weaken the story and its themes.

Book - Hank shoots Jacob in the same scene as Lou, Nancy, and Sonny (Sonny also omitted from the film). Jacob is in intensive care with low survival odds - Hank is hoping he dies so he won’t talk.
Film - Jacob doesn’t get shot at that huge murderous centerpoint scene. Instead he goes with Hank and the FBI guy, and asks to be shot. Why is this a stupid change? Because It’s out of character for Jabob to just randomly turn suicidal because he’s “tired”. It’s out of character for him to put Hank in the situation where he’ll be forever guilty and traumatised by having shot his brother. It just doesn’t ring true, at all. It destroys the theme of the book whereby there is no end to Hank wanting to protect himself from “getting caught”. The cause-and-effect nature of how everything spirals out of control.

Book - Hank decides against going to the woods with Carl and the Vernon, borrows a gun to put down Mary Beth (who he’s looking after because Jacob was shot), later learns that Carl was shot in the woods and then Vernon shot by a state-trooper.
Film - Hank (and Jacob) go into the woods for a weak show-down with Vernon. I can see why there was pressure for a more Hollywood climax, but it changes Hank’s character completely into wanting to protect Carl. This is then undone though by shooting Jacob at his request. I can see why they wanted the character to be more likeable for audiences, but really, it would have been far more interesting to stick to the book’s integrity. Bad central characters were around and soon became very popular (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Fargo, etc).

Book - Hank buys a $3000 grand piano (which Sarah can’t play but wants, they make love on it), and also a $32000 condo in Florida that he later learns was a scam and he was ripped off. It leaves them with $1000 after they burn the money, so he’s left more-or-less at rock bottom.

Book - Sarah spends a $100 bill at a liquor store by the airport. Hank drives out with Jacob’s ski-mask and machete, gets into a tussle with the huge tillguy trying to rob back the $100. Wine bottles smash everywhere, Hank eventually slices into the guys neck and artery, killing him. Posh older woman knocks on window for a bottle of wine, he lets her in too, decides he has to kill her. They get into a weird dialogue where he explains all his actions, as if looking for some final validation from a stranger, then kills her anyway. Goes home to burn the clothes, then the money.

I was looking forward to the climax scene to see how they shot it, and was sad it was left out. For me, it changes the whole story - how people don’t really know themselves until they have to respond to situations. In the book, Hank starts off moral, controlled, eventually becoming a kind of serial killer to protect himself. He brutally kills innocents just to save himself. He’s able to justify it all in his mind because the ease at which the events happen condition him into an altered state of reality. He’s also influenced by an anger at his parents for abandoning them in suicide, and sibling jealousy that his mother seemed to have a closer relationship with Jacob. In the film, he’s more just trapped in a few unfortunate moments. He stays a “good guy”, which changes the film into one of a more random happening. A “bit of a kerfuffle”. This is why I found the film pretty dull and boring, it just didn’t have much to say about anything and preferred to just exist in It’s own vaccuum.
I have no idea why the film is 7.5. It’s severely lacking in any kind of distinction (except perhaps for BBT’s performance), and likely just riding on the coat tails of Fargo. Raimi’s direction was pretty lacklustre, almost TV movie-ish, [Accurate.] so many opportunities to give the atmosphere and direction some “bite” and edge were completely overlooked.

Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since February 2012
I do agree that the book was far better. I did like the movie though.
I bet that most people that call this a masterpiece or one of the year’s best have never even read the book.

Re: book is way better than the film.
IMDb member since December 2011
I’ve read the book and watched the movie and the book is not far better than the movie. I’d say they are both great!
The book is more intense, and some posters are right, there just ain’t likable characters in the book. Jacob’s character in the book is MUCH improved when put to film, and he’s not nearly as important to the plot in the book.
I just don’t see why people are on here saying the movie isn’t a great film. Why people would come to a thread to spend time complaining about a movie that they didn’t like that much. Makes no sense to me that some people spend their time doing this.
Well, I just goes to show that “greatness” is more subjective than we think!

No comments:

Post a Comment