I think it was primarily the casting and the over the top way it was directed. Let's just say Tom Hanks, Melanie Griffith, and Bruce Willis were nowhere near the Sherman, Maria, and Fallow in the novel, I suppose the most appropriately cast was Catrell and Rubinek. Yet, they basically completely disregarded Kramers character in the movie. In the book he was a slimey lech but was well written and you could understand where he was coming from, as you could the DA and the mayor (although the characters in the novel were unsympathetic douchebags they were still amazingly well written and motivated).
It really lies in the casting and the tone. According to de Palma they should have cast Jon Lithgow instead, but honestly im not sure he would have been good either. I cant even really think of who would have been better in the role. It need to be someone who could convincingly play a white collar criminal (even though the crime itself was not white collar). Perhaps Hanks could have done it now but he would have been too old. He needed a very classic, wealthy American look with a dark and negative center. I'm thinking like Glen Close's character in Damages except a guy. He basically needed to be as unlikably likable as Tony Soprano or Walter White or Don Draper (actually now that I think about it Don Draper/Jon Hamm type would have been much better-a much darker tone underneath) . It should have been darker. More like a very black comedy on screen like Happiness or some really other BLEAK black comedy. It didn't have any of the negativity of the book. They tried to sugar coat it and it shouldn't have been done.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4604197/
reply
share