Quote:
Was wondering if it was like the book.
Very much so, yes. In reading the books, there's a certain tone, rhythm, and pacing that you hope the movie will capture. I think they succeeded. The movie's tone perfectly matches the book, I think, and it has the same sort of haphazard/scatterbrained kind of pacing and plotting. I find that interesting, because that's what some of the reviewers were faulting it for, and now that I see the film, I see it was done that way in order to be faithful to Douglas.
In some ways the movie even surpassed the book. For example, there are scenes in the movie where certain things happened and a good reason was given for the thing that happened. Sometimes, in the book, Douglas just says "this thing happens" and leaves it at that.
An example is at the beginning when Ford comes up to Arthur lying in front of the bulldozer. In the book, Ford merely talks to the construction foreman and convinces him to hold off on the demolition temporarily. In the movie, it's much more logical: Ford gives the entire construction crew beer to drink, thus making Arthur feel comfortable with walking away from the house. I think the movie version was a) much more logical and believable, b) much more visually impactful, and c) funnier.
The movie is full of examples like that. There are a lot of places where it was "show me, don't tell me", something I knew would be needed if they ever wanted this to be a true Hollywood film. They did a good job of that, making sure that we saw something happen as opposed to watching people talk cleverly about it.
Previous Topic
Index
