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: Re: book is way better than the film.
by pap0618
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.
by Hobblefoot
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.
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 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.
by rabbitmoon
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.
by powermandan
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