If anyone knows anything about the book, how faithful the film is to it, what the characters are like, what it is called etc. I would be v. v. grateful to know about it.
Thanx ppl
My my, hey hey,
Rock and roll is here to stay,
It's better to burn out, than to fade away,
My my, hey hey.
i read the book and then saw the movie. Its very faithful to the book, except ina few cases. in the book fowler has some type of disease that he wants to get rid of. rumor has it that if you sleep with a virgin the disease will go away. so when fowler goes to sleep with a 12 yr old girl, peirce and agar go and snatch the key from him. it nearly the same scene in teh movie, excpt with miriam. and no police come. but, you can see why they didn't put it int he movie.
share They ruined the ending in the movie as well. In the book it was Agar who turned Pierce in. Barlow was the one who picked him up outside the courthouse and drove away, not Agar.
I also thought having Miriam as the "lady of the night" ruined the movie. Not half an hour later she was on the train ride with fowler. I hated how they played that off.
Oh and remember at the train station (in the book) when the kid runs into the office and breaks the window so he can gain access later that evening? Well they changed that around. In the movie the kid runs into the office followed by agar who just opens the key locker and makes the wax keys. Somehow were just supposed to believe that all the people in the office wouldnt notice just because some brat is running around. In the book Pierce was way to careful to do something so dumb. If he was real he would be offended.
Anyway the movie is over 26 years old now. Watch it if you want. The original poster (hi!) posted 4 months ago so if they havent seen it yet they probably wont. If you have please tell me what you thought and any other differences you can think of.
(Hi!) i have seen the film now and read the book. I thought it was very true to the book, except for the part of Miriam was made a lot bigger. I thought it ruined the ending a bit, but it might not have made as good a film if they had Agar turn him in. I thought Wayne Sleep was very good, as were Sean Connery and Donald Suntherland. I thought Pierce seemed a more likeable character in the film, but that might just be Connery's influence on it.
Daniel Deronda - best period drama ever made.
It is a good book (which I read before seeing the film) but Crichton's faulty geography (and railway history, but don't get me started on that...........) detracts from the plot for those who are familar with the places mentioned in the story. For example, he puts Ostend in France, and Greenwich a day's journey from London, instead of the 15 minutes it actually is.
It has been mentioned that the story is worthy of Charles Dickens: interestingly, it was on a Folkestone boat train that Dickens had the railway accident from which he never fully recovered
Since it was directed by the author, it comes as little surprise that the main differences that are notable are simplifications for the sake of film audiences, and of course the removal of the 12 year-old prostitute, to prevent nausea/banning.
shareI watched the movie first (in the beginning of the 80:s) and read the book in the summer of 1997. The book was awsome and the movie was very true to the book. Well written, witty and very funny. Lots of old nicknames used to describe different kind of thieves, burglars, hustlers and so on.
Actually, the book is one of the most entertaining I have ever read. The movie is just great. Absolutely one of my top favourites.