It's absolutely true. Many book to movie adaptations neglect the essence of the novel entirely, and that is bad. But people who bitch, in this case, that the movie was bad because it didn't follow the book verbatim are fucking idiots who have no grasp of what cinema is. Outrageous!
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Registered: Nov 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
[possible spoilers for those who haven't seen it]
What exactly wasn't clear there? Do you mean Woodrow's revenge sequence, which then turns out as a hallucination? I think the tragedy of all that is actually stronger if it's first played straight (more or less) and then shown as nothing but a fantasy. It's not like the film doesn't allude to this earlier; in the beginning you see some of the shots from later parts of the film so it's clear it's not going to have a simple linear storyline.
I thought clarity was lacking in how the movie was all over the place when it came to a timeline - flashes of past and future intermingling with present, at times I was uncertain of the timeline. I didn't necessarily see it as reality/hallucination either. Instead, I felt like the movie was displaying 2 potential realities.