Agreed... It might be the old English Lit undergrad in me, but there's little that I'm more impressed by than an entertaining film adaptation of a book. And it might be an annoying combination of my being a film buff and an attorney, but I'm endlessly impressed and fascinated by all the many little and large decisions made by a good screenwriter and I just love to stop and dissect and ponder all of them. (Which almost always happens inside my head -- because my wife, family and friends are lifelong cool kids who have better things to do.)
Anyway, yeah, I also enjoyed both the book and the film. For me, it brings to mind The Godfather and Jaws -- NOT to say that The Lincoln Lawyer is in their league (book or film versions)! It's just that, for me personally, all three are great examples of things I've enjoyed both reading and watching; and with each film adaptation there were some fascinating and impressive decisions/changes made by the screenwriter.
That said, getting back to The Lincoln Lawyer movie, I'd be interested to read what others think about some of this screenwriter's decisions? For me, one of the bigger "pros" was the way Earl was handled. In fact, as someone who saw the film first, I was genuinely surprised to see the book version written as less than even a secondary character. Not that we learned anything more about Earl in the movie. Or that his role in the plot was enlarged. I honestly can't really describe it, except to say that his treatment in the film just felt more respectful and I very much enjoyed the underlying friendship that was obvious between the film's Haller and Earl, but plainly lacking in the book...
Another "pro" (IMHO), is the film's adaptation of the Lorna character. She's only slightly more noteworthy than Earl in the book, despite being Haller's second wife. Her main purpose in the book seems to be to help convey how much Haller still loves his first wife, Maggie. Since that's well conveyed through through chemistry and good acting from Tomei and McConaughey, Lorna could be written as simply the assistant.
I don't really have any "cons," per se -- but there were several changes or omissions made for the screenplay where I think it would have been great if they could have found a way to stay truer to the book... (I'd be glad to detail some examples, if asked -- but this post is already too long as it is!)
Quid novi? Vidistine nuper imagines moventes bonas?
reply
share
aGuiltySoul
12 years ago
I agree about Earl. It's the comaraderie between him and Haller in the film that makes Earl seem more prominent. The book lacks that sense of relationship. And it's a fine addition.
We never know that Laura is his ex wife in the film, and it's an unnecessary detail. So the deletion is perfectly acceptable.
My biggest regret is the way the film changed the relationship between Roulet and his mother. In the book he is clearly dominant, shushes her with just a look which no one else is capable of doing. It's why I have my pet theory that he was the one who raped her. And that she was indeed attacked. But it certainly could have also arisen from the way she feels he is god's gift, immune from the rules of society and decency, and therefore a superior human being.
I too enjoyed both the film and the book very much. For all that the book has more sub plot and character development, the film added a real sense of drama which enlivened the characters. There's nothing like watching good actors' do their job. I was also delighted by the sound track.
One last thing, I much prefer the ending between Haller and Roulet as it is played out in the book. I guess the film makers felt that the audience would want a more definitive end for Roulet.
P.S. If someone could just tell me why McConnaughey kept his Texas accent for Haller, I would be grateful. Even in the film he talks about growing up in LA. It grated, frankly, and was just a hint of laziness on MM's part. I forgive, however, for an otherwise well done role.
“It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” RIP Roger Ebert
reply
share
skeck805
10 years ago
Wait. I got the sense Laura was his ex wife in the film..... ? Was it just me that thought that then lol. Because I got that impression.
I didn't like the ending between Haller and Roulet in the book. I felt the film was much better.
I suppose he kept his Texas accent because it's not a big deal. I didn't even hear him say he was from LA in the film so I didn' even notice. It's something that really isnt a big deal and made no impact for me on the film. People try to compare books and movies too much. There's no reason for that.
reply
share
aGuiltySoul
10 years ago
I agree, that there is over emphasis on book vs. film. I guess I'm motivated by the same thing that motivates others, there were things in the book that would have been SO EASY to incorporate into the film, like the way Roulet treats his mother, that is just not done. Changed the tone of the film and of the character.
The secretary, Lorna, is also the ex wife, but the film had no reason to reveal that. Once again, it's in the book, but in this case not necessary.
You didn't hear him say he's from LA? This film is entirely set in LA and actually filmed there too which is rather a rarity nowadays. Haller talks about getting the gun that is stolen from him from his father who had defended the famous LA hoodlum Micky Cohen. He is obviously a born and bred Angleno. Once you notice that McConaughey continues to speak in his Texas accent as Haller, you can't unhear it. It was really lazy acting, which is my biggest bone of contention with McConaughey throughout his career. He plasters himself over his character rather than inhabiting them. But that's another thread on another board.
It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert
reply
share