Comment

Feb 18, 2019DASTardlyGal rated this title 4.5 out of 5 stars
I read the book and really enjoyed it. Saw that there was a movie to it, so, decided to check it out. I thought it was a very good movie, but, I have so many questions about why the screenplay writers or adapters decided to go the way they did with the movie, since, I found all the added tension, character changing around, character hateful personalities, did nothing to add to it. If they thought all that was going to add something to the film, in my humble opinion, it failed. The questions I would ask the person/s who wrote the screen play: The widow, Brenda, was a brunette, from the contempt some of the family members had for her, would probably describe her mousy at best, AND, she worked at a tea house as a waitress. Ok, so, why did you find Christina Hendricks to play her, and change the character to be a voluptuous red headed, Las Vegas show girl dancer and American??? Strange. Very strange. The oldest brother, married to the scientist, their apartment was white, white, white, and blank and antiseptic, yet, the set decorators made it a nice place, that was warm and inviting. And, speaking of the oldest brother, in the book, he's a goofy, clumsy guy, very affable and nice, and yet, for some reason that I can't figure out, because it added nothing to the story, the screenwriters made him a rude, stuck up, pompous git who didn't have time for anything and anyone because he was too important, except for his wife. And then, we have, Magda. NOW, in the book, she's the titian, flaming redheaded actress, and they have Gillian Anderson playing her with a black wig. Why? Her red hair was mentioned plenty of times in the book. Another thing, they made Sophia stuck up and angry with Charles because he spied on her during the war. In the book, they were in love and both of them decided to wait until after the war was over to see if they really were in love, and they didn't depart on bad terms, like they did in the movie. What did that little "device" add to the screenplay to make them adversarial? Again, nothing. I guess I can live with the fact that in the movie, Charles is a private detective instead of a police officer and that his father died in the movie, but, is alive in the book. I can live with those little things, but, I question, what did it do to enhance the story line? Nothing that I could find. I found Eustace over the top obnoxious in the movie. Maybe I just didn't get that from the book, he was a rebel, sure, but, the movie made him out to be so over the top, I couldn't help think that kid was a future criminal and convict. Other than those questions and perhaps others that I can't think of now, but, probably will think of later on after I push the send button, I found the movie enjoyable, because, it helped with the visualization of what I had read. Of course, they could never find a house to even remotely resemble what the house in the book looked like in the book, I found what the director and location director found was pretty cool and how they did whatever cinematic magic they did to enhance it. Other than all those nagging things, I did enjoy the movie, and even though I had read the book and was surprised at the ending, it was still surprising to see who the murderer really was, and the end was heartbreaking. I would recommend the movie, but, just realize, the movie has a more hostile feel to it than the book did, and that's because the screenplay writers chose to make everyone hateful and uncooperative, whereas in the book, the majority of the characters aren't. I didn't mean to, but, gave it four and a half stars, I really meant to give it four stars. Sorry. I might check it out again just for the heck of it some time down the line.