Did not do justice to the book

So very right, kritz. Most films are rarely absolutely true to the book.

The Eagle, Tunes of Glory and Brokeback Mountain were very true to the original novels but I am as sure as can be that 95% of mainstream films do diverge, for a multitude of reasons, from what the authors wrote. I never enter a cinema expecting the finished work to follow the book. It hasn't, yet, ruined a film for me!

>>Eh, I thought it was a great film. Does it really matter if it does justice to the book or not?

It does in this case because that contrived confrontation completely derails (sorry) the film at the point it had been pretty engrossing. Even if I hadn't had pre-knowledge of the real story I would have still thought "bet it hadn't really gone down that way." You can tell if something doesn't ring true.

Films revolving around correspondence between two people have worked cinematically before. The makers should have trusted their audience more or not bothered if they truly believed there was insufficient incident post-war.

I would have ended it with Lomax meeting his nemesis for the first time in the gully. But only seeing him from a distance from Kidman's perspective. Kidman was good but the film never recovers.

Having just finished the book, I'm at an absolute loss as to why the film was SO far removed from the book. I enjoyed the movie, but it was so far removed that the names should have been completely changed so it didn't reflect the book. Outram Road Jail was completely missed out, Lomax's friends, Skarsgaard and what he does, how Lomax finds out about the interpreter and what they do, where everything happens at Kanchanaburi... People don't read books but rely on films to explain history. They believe the tripe that is Braveheart and Lomax even makes reference to the toe curlingly appaling travesty that is Bridge Over The River Kwai. I reckon that unless it's done right, then the names should be changed because I hate to see factual people distorted with wildly inaccurate movies. Had Lomax's character had a fictitious name then fine. Like Saving Private Ryan. Total fiction with a base upon fact about Fritz Niland. Had the movie been called Saving Private Niland though, it would have been horribly and absolutely historically inaccurate. When we KNOW a fictitious movie is based on a factual event, then we can all rush out and find out what really happened, but to mix fact and fiction together only gives a horrible distortion, one where fact cannot be differentiated from fiction. Oh, and American paratroopers at the end...!? WTF?? Whose dumb idea was that? First off they should have been British and even then, read the book and you'll see how it was in reality. My advice? See the movie then read the book, and like Hunt For The Red October, you won't be so disappointed. And I know Red October is fiction, but the book is SO much better and the film utter rubbish in comparison.

The movie misrepresented the Japanese officer. Even during the torture scenes he was reluctant and held on to the british officer's hand in an attempt to comfort him.

I suggest that anyone who wants to know the truth should read the book.

Why would anyone expect a semi-fictionalized film constructed to both entertain and inform to necessarily do justice to an autobiographical book. The film makers are on a hiding to nothing in many readers' minds, if they don't make a documentary. However we all know documentaries rarely catch the bigger audiences.🐭