And although I like the book I am not fanatical about it.
The casting is bizarre! I assumed that Willis would be playing Kramer!
The rest of the movie is also awful, but more intangibly so.
[deleted]
so so so bad. to be honest i didnt even love the book. this might be the worst movie adaptation ever though. the book was 1000x times better than this trash.
shareI agree, if not the worst adaption, it's certainly close to the top. the casting was terrible as well. Alan King was the only actor that even faintly resembled the character in the book.
shareI agree, if not the worst adaption, it's certainly close to the top. the casting was terrible as well. Alan King was the only actor that even faintly resembled the character in the book.
This film was a complete and utter disaster, from the bizarre casting, to the madcap comedy scenes. Truly awful.
I have some bad film memories from 1990. "Bonfire of the Vanities", "Godfather III", "Robocop II". What a year.
I have some bad film memories from 1990. "Bonfire of the Vanities", "Godfather III", "Robocop II". What a year.
Seeing the movie won't ruin your experience of reading the book. You'll just be stunned at all the bad decisions the film-makers made, and also at how Tom Hanks's career was able to rebound from such a disaster.
share
I think the Problem was Hanks (except for Griffith who was completely awful)...while became a great actor since, this was not one of his best. Might have been directorial or studio decisions, but Hanks was way too likable....In the book he was truly morally ambiguous and arrogant..Hank was still playing Josh Baskin ('Big')
I think the studio wanted to keep Hank's rep as a 'nice guy' and that decision made the character believeable. We needed to dislike Sherman a bit for his callowness and arrogance for the movie to work. We needed to see his backbone grow to have the ending hit like it should have.
De Palma has said he should have cast John Lithgow as Sherman McCoy. I can't help wondering how great a movie this could have been with that one choice. Lithgow is a fearless actor that can do Arrogant (check '3rd Rock From the Sun' or even Footloose"). All other things the same, Lithgow would have made the movie good...though few would have went to see it ...
"It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you." -Neil Young
Sorry ...made the character no believable
"It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you." -Neil Young
The book was great and they film makers had their work cut out to adapt it. De Palma as always shoots a wonderfully looking film but the adaptation could had been better.
Its that man again!!
I agree.i can't believe how horrible and laughable the adaptation is, it is one of the worst book to films I have ever seen
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4604197/
They totally butchered it. I'm 1/2 an hour in and they missed absolutely everything of substance whilst somehow managing to ape the book in the loosest possible sense. Just....wow... I actually think I might give up on this crud.
natural police...
Funny you say this because it reminds me of a scenario from "The Player" (Robt. Altman), where Bonnie is sent to New York to secure the rights to Tom Wolff's latest.
The point is that "The Player" is largely about how (and why) Hollywood takes big steaming dumps on whatever source material it touches.
So it's sort of clever that it names this particular name (Wolff) in this context; you shouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that the producers'll chicken out for a few more bucks. "Fatal Attraction" is also touched upon as a flick that got railroaded for the sake of the box office.
If you haven't seen "The Player" yet, do.
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield