Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Great write up Michael! I've never read that one, and I managed to read a host of Crichton books....I wonder why I never got around to it. Sounds more worthy than the film which I agree wholeheartedly on.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Thanks Andy! I hope you get to read the book one day. It has a completely different vibe than the movie - I don't know if you will like or dislike the movie more after reading the book. I definitely hate the movie even more than before. 
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8623
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Forgot to make an entry for this a month or so back.
Black Sunday by Thomas Harris
-I actually did this in reverse where I got the less than stellar Imprint Blu-Ray and then went through the novel on Kindle. I had remembered the novel as different from years ago but this was the first time in decades I'd thumbed through it and there is no question that the movie is a much superior telling of the story. I'll just note some of the key differences between novel and film.
1-The Super Bowl is being played in New Orleans at Tulane Stadium. Obviously the location was going to be switched for the film to try and dovetail with the actual filming at a Super Bowl, hence Miami.
2-Kabakov's partner Moshevsky is *not* killed much earlier in the action of the novel though the assassination ploy used to kill him in the film is present for disposing of another minor character (and from the same set-up of trying to kill a hospital bound Kabakov).
3-Much of the novel's action takes place in New York and on the Jersey shore since that's where the explosives are smuggled in and where the unstable Michael Lander keeps his beach house. The novel in fact drags a good deal because of a lengthy investigative thing taking place in New York and also has Kabakov hooking up with a nurse who is also an old flame of his.
4-Kabakov is too much a cipher and not that interesting a character in the book. Robert Shaw in the film fleshed him out completely with the weary background etc. and made him far more compelling a character.
5-Lander at one point gets a visit from his ex-wife and we learn more about how his marriage broke up. In a plot point that Harris doesn't build on, he has Lander give his wife and children tickets to the game meaning he intends for them to become victims as well, but this ends up being a throwaway point completely.
6-The ending is similar but has a dramatically different finish. The film wisely changed it.
I honestly didn't see anything in the novel that struck me as better than what we saw in the film or was a case of "I wish the film hadn't left this out." Frankly, I was all the more impressed by how Frankenheimer was able to secure cooperation from Goodyear to utilize the blimp (drawing on his connections from "Grand Prix"). The name of the company in the book is a fictional tire company. The only concession Goodyear asked for was to make it clear Lander wasn't a Goodyear employee (as would be the case with a real-life blimp pilot). Getting NFL cooperation was also important too and lends the film an authenticity we'll never see the likes of again in a movie, especially with the scenes shot during Super Bowl X.
Black Sunday by Thomas Harris
-I actually did this in reverse where I got the less than stellar Imprint Blu-Ray and then went through the novel on Kindle. I had remembered the novel as different from years ago but this was the first time in decades I'd thumbed through it and there is no question that the movie is a much superior telling of the story. I'll just note some of the key differences between novel and film.
1-The Super Bowl is being played in New Orleans at Tulane Stadium. Obviously the location was going to be switched for the film to try and dovetail with the actual filming at a Super Bowl, hence Miami.
2-Kabakov's partner Moshevsky is *not* killed much earlier in the action of the novel though the assassination ploy used to kill him in the film is present for disposing of another minor character (and from the same set-up of trying to kill a hospital bound Kabakov).
3-Much of the novel's action takes place in New York and on the Jersey shore since that's where the explosives are smuggled in and where the unstable Michael Lander keeps his beach house. The novel in fact drags a good deal because of a lengthy investigative thing taking place in New York and also has Kabakov hooking up with a nurse who is also an old flame of his.
4-Kabakov is too much a cipher and not that interesting a character in the book. Robert Shaw in the film fleshed him out completely with the weary background etc. and made him far more compelling a character.
5-Lander at one point gets a visit from his ex-wife and we learn more about how his marriage broke up. In a plot point that Harris doesn't build on, he has Lander give his wife and children tickets to the game meaning he intends for them to become victims as well, but this ends up being a throwaway point completely.
6-The ending is similar but has a dramatically different finish. The film wisely changed it.
I honestly didn't see anything in the novel that struck me as better than what we saw in the film or was a case of "I wish the film hadn't left this out." Frankly, I was all the more impressed by how Frankenheimer was able to secure cooperation from Goodyear to utilize the blimp (drawing on his connections from "Grand Prix"). The name of the company in the book is a fictional tire company. The only concession Goodyear asked for was to make it clear Lander wasn't a Goodyear employee (as would be the case with a real-life blimp pilot). Getting NFL cooperation was also important too and lends the film an authenticity we'll never see the likes of again in a movie, especially with the scenes shot during Super Bowl X.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
THE INVISIBLE MAN by HG Wells (1897). In the middle of winter a mysterious stranger heavily clothed and bandaged comes to the town of Iping in search of solitude. He rents a room at the Coach and Horses where he eventually sets up scientific apparatus and carries on with a mysterious experiment; his insistence on solitude and privacy, his arrogantly rude attitude, his short temper, and mysterious, unexplainable doings around town and in the inn cause the townspeople to be on edge. Eventually the stranger pushes the owners of the inn too far, and when they try to evict him they discover (to their astonishment and horror) that he is an Invisible Man (whose name we find out later is Griffin). Griffin (an albino) escapes from the inn and wanders the countryside, searching for a way to get his diaries out of his room in the inn so he can carry on his experiments and become visible again while avoiding the people searching for him. He enlists the aid of a bachelor named Mr. Marvel but is betrayed. He finally happens upon the house of Dr. Kemp, an old college acquaintance, whom he enlists in his plan to not only get his diaries back but to also terrorize the countryside and get revenge on Mr. Marvel and the people chasing after him.
Wells’ book is a quick read and very “male” oriented in that there is no love story/interest. Its focus is solely on Griffin – he is a self-absorbed, arrogant figure whose complete and tireless obsession with his scientific work/discovery (not to mention his use of strychnine on himself) has driven him to madness. The science of invisibility in Wells’ book focuses on optics, reflection and refraction, and pigmentation. Wells writes in an enthusiastic manner where science is concerned, making the moments where Griffin explains his discovery and journey as an invisible man to Kemp very interesting. The arc of the story is well told – the first part of the book is all about the mystery of it all; the middle section is the science fiction, and the final part of the book contains the horror as Kemp and the surrounding countryside are terrorized by Griffin as he attempts to begin his Reign of Terror. His death is actually kind of moving despite everything that came before, which surprised me a bit. The Epilogue has a nice twist to it; it is not something you would necessarily expect. All in all, this book remains a fun and engaging read even though it is almost 125 years old and definitely a product of its time.
In 1933 James Whale directed THE INVISIBLE MAN starring Claude Rains as Griffin. Wells supposedly approved the script that ended up being used for the film, and for the most part this film adaptation is respectful of and faithful to the book. There are several differences between the two though: first, a romantic subplot not found in the book was added to heighten the drama and to add a sympathetic/tragic dimension to Griffin’s character. In the movie he is in love with Flora (Gloria Stuart), the daughter of his employer Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers). Second, in the film Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan), also under the employ of Dr. Cranley, is in competition for Flora’s love, and he comes across as an extremely weak and impotent character who ends up dying at Griffin's hands. In Wells’ novel Kemp is very rational, scientific, and heroic/brave…a much stronger character who survives Griffin's Reign of Terror. Third, for the movie Dr. Kemp is the amalgamation of both Mr. Marvel and the Dr. Kemp of the book. Fourth, in the film Griffin’s invisibility and growing madness is caused by a drug called Monocaine. Fifth, the middle section of the book (where Griffin explains in detail his experiments and adventures as an invisible man to Dr. Kemp) is pretty much excised so we never learn of Griffin’s first days as an invisible man or much of his backstory/experiences. Finally, as a result of the romantic subplot, the ending of the film is radically different from the book ending. In the film Griffin is smoked out of a barn he was sleeping in and fatally wounded by police gunshots. In his hospital bed he re-materializes and confesses to Flora at the bedside that he has learned his lesson (no such thing comes out of the mouth of the book’s Griffin when he finally dies).
As far as the film itself, I must confess that the Invisible Man is my least favorite Universal monster. However, I liked that the film did not stray too far away from the story arc of the book (excepting the romantic subplot) even though changes were made to make the film more exciting. Claude Rains’ voice was really good for this role – I love the unique sound of his voice and how well he used it depending on the needs of the scene; Whale was wise to cast him in the role. Not seeing Griffin’s face until the very last shot of the film was also a neat dramatic choice. Whale infused his film with many unique looking and colorful characters (including Una O’Connor whose loud cries do get annoying) which add to one’s enjoyment of the film. I did find Dr. Cranley to be stiff as a board and was annoyed by how pathetic Kemp’s character was. The romantic subplot (and Gloria Stuart for that matter) was kind of goofy. At times I felt that the impact of some of the moments which should have perhaps been more horrifying come across as too comedic or campy, such as the scene where Rains is skipping down the road singing a tune. The movie never lets you get too horrified, scared, or unsettled (unlike, for example, FRANKENSTEIN), so it is lighter than the book. I did find Griffin’s death to be moving – what is it with Whale and burning buildings? I respect the film a great deal; it pays respect to the spirit and story of Wells’ book while adding its own little flourishes.
Up next: The Sea Wolf (Jack London)/The Sea Wolf (1941) with Edward G. Robinson and Ida Lupino OR If I Die Before I Wake (Sherwood King)/The Lady from Shanghai (1947) with Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth. Can't decide which to do first.
Wells’ book is a quick read and very “male” oriented in that there is no love story/interest. Its focus is solely on Griffin – he is a self-absorbed, arrogant figure whose complete and tireless obsession with his scientific work/discovery (not to mention his use of strychnine on himself) has driven him to madness. The science of invisibility in Wells’ book focuses on optics, reflection and refraction, and pigmentation. Wells writes in an enthusiastic manner where science is concerned, making the moments where Griffin explains his discovery and journey as an invisible man to Kemp very interesting. The arc of the story is well told – the first part of the book is all about the mystery of it all; the middle section is the science fiction, and the final part of the book contains the horror as Kemp and the surrounding countryside are terrorized by Griffin as he attempts to begin his Reign of Terror. His death is actually kind of moving despite everything that came before, which surprised me a bit. The Epilogue has a nice twist to it; it is not something you would necessarily expect. All in all, this book remains a fun and engaging read even though it is almost 125 years old and definitely a product of its time.
In 1933 James Whale directed THE INVISIBLE MAN starring Claude Rains as Griffin. Wells supposedly approved the script that ended up being used for the film, and for the most part this film adaptation is respectful of and faithful to the book. There are several differences between the two though: first, a romantic subplot not found in the book was added to heighten the drama and to add a sympathetic/tragic dimension to Griffin’s character. In the movie he is in love with Flora (Gloria Stuart), the daughter of his employer Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers). Second, in the film Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan), also under the employ of Dr. Cranley, is in competition for Flora’s love, and he comes across as an extremely weak and impotent character who ends up dying at Griffin's hands. In Wells’ novel Kemp is very rational, scientific, and heroic/brave…a much stronger character who survives Griffin's Reign of Terror. Third, for the movie Dr. Kemp is the amalgamation of both Mr. Marvel and the Dr. Kemp of the book. Fourth, in the film Griffin’s invisibility and growing madness is caused by a drug called Monocaine. Fifth, the middle section of the book (where Griffin explains in detail his experiments and adventures as an invisible man to Dr. Kemp) is pretty much excised so we never learn of Griffin’s first days as an invisible man or much of his backstory/experiences. Finally, as a result of the romantic subplot, the ending of the film is radically different from the book ending. In the film Griffin is smoked out of a barn he was sleeping in and fatally wounded by police gunshots. In his hospital bed he re-materializes and confesses to Flora at the bedside that he has learned his lesson (no such thing comes out of the mouth of the book’s Griffin when he finally dies).
As far as the film itself, I must confess that the Invisible Man is my least favorite Universal monster. However, I liked that the film did not stray too far away from the story arc of the book (excepting the romantic subplot) even though changes were made to make the film more exciting. Claude Rains’ voice was really good for this role – I love the unique sound of his voice and how well he used it depending on the needs of the scene; Whale was wise to cast him in the role. Not seeing Griffin’s face until the very last shot of the film was also a neat dramatic choice. Whale infused his film with many unique looking and colorful characters (including Una O’Connor whose loud cries do get annoying) which add to one’s enjoyment of the film. I did find Dr. Cranley to be stiff as a board and was annoyed by how pathetic Kemp’s character was. The romantic subplot (and Gloria Stuart for that matter) was kind of goofy. At times I felt that the impact of some of the moments which should have perhaps been more horrifying come across as too comedic or campy, such as the scene where Rains is skipping down the road singing a tune. The movie never lets you get too horrified, scared, or unsettled (unlike, for example, FRANKENSTEIN), so it is lighter than the book. I did find Griffin’s death to be moving – what is it with Whale and burning buildings? I respect the film a great deal; it pays respect to the spirit and story of Wells’ book while adding its own little flourishes.
Up next: The Sea Wolf (Jack London)/The Sea Wolf (1941) with Edward G. Robinson and Ida Lupino OR If I Die Before I Wake (Sherwood King)/The Lady from Shanghai (1947) with Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth. Can't decide which to do first.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34278
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Great to see this thread revived Michael, I love reading your reviews!
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Thanks Andy!
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I re-read this novel for the first time in many years a few months back as well. I had remembered the book being better than it actually is. Still, for a first novel it is not at all bad and obviously Harris went on to better things. I agree that the Frankenheimer film is an improvement overall but there were still things that I think the novel did better. A quick example of this is the interior head space of Lander. The book really comes alive during the sections where we learn what is going on inside his head. Dern's performance really lines up with it as well. Perhaps Harris picked up on this as well, as his subsequently work would feature much more of this.Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:53 pm Forgot to make an entry for this a month or so back.
Black Sunday by Thomas Harris
I don't need to read the book again, but will no doubt return to the film. I also picked up the Imprint edition and have it on the pile to watch.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8623
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
The Memory Of Eva Ryker by Donald Stanwood
-This 1978 novel was made into a three hour TV-movie produced by Irwin Allen in 1980 and starred Natalie Wood in her last completed role before her death (as she hadn't finished her work for "Brainstorm"). The novel had to undergo some critical structural changes to become a TV-movie that once you look past them still remained as faithful an adaptation as one could have expected.
-The novel opens in 1941, one week before Pearl Harbor. Rookie Honolulu cop Norman Hall is suddenly stopped by a middle-aged woman named Alice Klein whose car has gone off the road with her husband Albert inside. She's screaming her husband was murdered and mentions along the way in her incoherence how they had survived the Titanic sinking as newlyweds. Later that evening, when Hall goes to her Honolulu hotel for a follow-up interview, he is horrified when he finds Alice's badly mutilated and dismembered body inside a garment bag that he flees screaming in terror, which brings his career as a cop to an end for his unprofessionalism.
-Skip ahead 20 years later to 1962. Hall is now a successful author living in Europe with his second wife Janice. Reclusive billionaire William Ryker is bankrolling an expedition to find the Titanic and salvage artifacts from it, and Norman is hired by a magazine owned by one of Ryker's firms to do a feature story. It soon becomes clear that the dying Ryker has other reasons for wanting to investigate. His wife Claire and six year old daughter Eva had been aboard. Claire had died in the sinking along with a bodyguard, while Eva had been found in a traumatized state and had spent much of the subsequent decades institutionalized and her memories of what happened that night blotted out.
-Hall's investigation ultimately brings his own past back into the story as he realizes that Albert and Alice Klein had a connection to the Eva and Clare Ryker on the Titanic during the voyage. A visit to a surviving steward in Australia suddenly ends when the steward is gunned down. A mysterious film recovered from the wreck in its original container is suddenly suppressed by Ryker. And Hall's attempts to get something out of the fifty-six year old Eva are soon revealing more details of a story that involves smuggling, kidnapping and murder from the time......and ultimately that things were not what they seemed in 1941 as well. Hall must dodge some attempts on his life as well as try to get Eva subjected to treatment in order for the truth to finally come out and for some lingering issues of the past to be given their long overdue closure
-In adapting the novel for even a lengthy TV-movie, some critical changes had to be made. First, the Titanic aspect of the story was discarded. Instead, the film opens in 1961 in Honolulu with the book's opening faithfully adapted only the Kleins have become the Thompsons. The ship that Eva and Clare were on becomes the fictional "Queen Anne" which is torpedoed and sank by a German U-Boat in 1939 just as WW2 breaks out. After the opening scene, events jump ahead ten years to 1970 for the rest of the film's action (though everyone is dressed like this is 1980!). Hall is still a writer but is single and because the events took place thirty years ago, this allows Eva Ryker to be the beautiful late 30s Natalie Wood rather than the near-60 character of the novel (and also means that a budding romance can develop between the two). Natalie also plays Clare Ryker for flashback scenes to the sinking which were filmed aboard the Queen Mary while "sinking" footage borrowed from "The Last Voyage" as this is not a special FX film at all. These structural changes aside, the TV movie becomes a faithful recreation of the main plot of the novel with the same premise: finding out Eva's suppressed memories of what happened and learning the real truth about the "Thompsons." At times though, the TV movie has to get very talky and expository to describe scenes from the novel that here take place off-camera and unless one has just read the novel as I had before watching this (From a YT download of it's original 1980 CBS broadcast) a lot of it will be confusing. The end result was perhaps a bit overly long and as a TV movie a bit cheap on the production side, but it does sport a good cast with Robert Foxworth as Hall, Ralph Bellamy as William Ryker, Roddy McDowall as a steward and finally there is Natalie looking lovely and reminding us of how tragic her death just a year later would be. And in fact there is some ominous foreshadowing of that since in one scene we see a hysterical Eva after a traumatic repressed memory is revealed, run out screaming and trying to drown herself in the ocean and later in the flashback we have to see the body of Natalie as Clare Ryker floating dead inside a flooded cabin.
-After Irwin had failed so miserably with his last three big-screen movies, he wisely recognized that going back to TV-movies was a better move on his part.
-This 1978 novel was made into a three hour TV-movie produced by Irwin Allen in 1980 and starred Natalie Wood in her last completed role before her death (as she hadn't finished her work for "Brainstorm"). The novel had to undergo some critical structural changes to become a TV-movie that once you look past them still remained as faithful an adaptation as one could have expected.
-The novel opens in 1941, one week before Pearl Harbor. Rookie Honolulu cop Norman Hall is suddenly stopped by a middle-aged woman named Alice Klein whose car has gone off the road with her husband Albert inside. She's screaming her husband was murdered and mentions along the way in her incoherence how they had survived the Titanic sinking as newlyweds. Later that evening, when Hall goes to her Honolulu hotel for a follow-up interview, he is horrified when he finds Alice's badly mutilated and dismembered body inside a garment bag that he flees screaming in terror, which brings his career as a cop to an end for his unprofessionalism.
-Skip ahead 20 years later to 1962. Hall is now a successful author living in Europe with his second wife Janice. Reclusive billionaire William Ryker is bankrolling an expedition to find the Titanic and salvage artifacts from it, and Norman is hired by a magazine owned by one of Ryker's firms to do a feature story. It soon becomes clear that the dying Ryker has other reasons for wanting to investigate. His wife Claire and six year old daughter Eva had been aboard. Claire had died in the sinking along with a bodyguard, while Eva had been found in a traumatized state and had spent much of the subsequent decades institutionalized and her memories of what happened that night blotted out.
-Hall's investigation ultimately brings his own past back into the story as he realizes that Albert and Alice Klein had a connection to the Eva and Clare Ryker on the Titanic during the voyage. A visit to a surviving steward in Australia suddenly ends when the steward is gunned down. A mysterious film recovered from the wreck in its original container is suddenly suppressed by Ryker. And Hall's attempts to get something out of the fifty-six year old Eva are soon revealing more details of a story that involves smuggling, kidnapping and murder from the time......and ultimately that things were not what they seemed in 1941 as well. Hall must dodge some attempts on his life as well as try to get Eva subjected to treatment in order for the truth to finally come out and for some lingering issues of the past to be given their long overdue closure
-In adapting the novel for even a lengthy TV-movie, some critical changes had to be made. First, the Titanic aspect of the story was discarded. Instead, the film opens in 1961 in Honolulu with the book's opening faithfully adapted only the Kleins have become the Thompsons. The ship that Eva and Clare were on becomes the fictional "Queen Anne" which is torpedoed and sank by a German U-Boat in 1939 just as WW2 breaks out. After the opening scene, events jump ahead ten years to 1970 for the rest of the film's action (though everyone is dressed like this is 1980!). Hall is still a writer but is single and because the events took place thirty years ago, this allows Eva Ryker to be the beautiful late 30s Natalie Wood rather than the near-60 character of the novel (and also means that a budding romance can develop between the two). Natalie also plays Clare Ryker for flashback scenes to the sinking which were filmed aboard the Queen Mary while "sinking" footage borrowed from "The Last Voyage" as this is not a special FX film at all. These structural changes aside, the TV movie becomes a faithful recreation of the main plot of the novel with the same premise: finding out Eva's suppressed memories of what happened and learning the real truth about the "Thompsons." At times though, the TV movie has to get very talky and expository to describe scenes from the novel that here take place off-camera and unless one has just read the novel as I had before watching this (From a YT download of it's original 1980 CBS broadcast) a lot of it will be confusing. The end result was perhaps a bit overly long and as a TV movie a bit cheap on the production side, but it does sport a good cast with Robert Foxworth as Hall, Ralph Bellamy as William Ryker, Roddy McDowall as a steward and finally there is Natalie looking lovely and reminding us of how tragic her death just a year later would be. And in fact there is some ominous foreshadowing of that since in one scene we see a hysterical Eva after a traumatic repressed memory is revealed, run out screaming and trying to drown herself in the ocean and later in the flashback we have to see the body of Natalie as Clare Ryker floating dead inside a flooded cabin.
-After Irwin had failed so miserably with his last three big-screen movies, he wisely recognized that going back to TV-movies was a better move on his part.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8623
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
A Study In Terror
-This is another case where one needs to watch the movie first and then read the book or in this case the novelization. "A Study In Terror" was a 1965 Sherlock Holmes movie starring John Neville (Holmes), Donald Houston (Watson), Anthony Quayle, Frank Finlay and Judi Dench in an early role. 14 years before "Murder By Decree" (which also had Finlay as Inspector Lestrade), this film came up with the conceit of Holmes trying to solve the Jack The Ripper murders. Although not made by Hammer Studios, one can be forgiven for thinking it was a Hammer production since it is loaded with some gory shots for the day and a lot of implied violence as well. The film does serve us a couple red herrings but its fiery climax in which the Ripper is exposed ends with a massive cheat in failing to plausibly explain Holmes's escape from the inferno that kills the guilty party.
-The novelization that appeared the following year took an interesting twist approach. It appeared in the "Ellery Queen" series of detective novels and was given a modestly faithful adaptation of the film story in the form of a "lost" Watson narrative that has been presented to the famous detective of a later era, Ellery Queen. There are brief interlude chapters along the way as Ellery takes time out to try and determine who sent the manuscript and why and then at the climax we get a twist on the film's ending in that the guilty party of the film turns out NOT to be the Ripper after all but someone else (though this required new plot devices in the book narrative not present in the film such as giving a key character a daughter that didn't exist in the film).
-"A Study In Terror" is not one of the better Holmes movies IMO because its Hammeresque overtones pale before the superior effort of Hammer's own "Hound Of The Baskervilles". Neville comes up short as Holmes IMO although Robert Morley as Mycroft Holmes is the absolute perfect embodiment of the character as Conan Doyle envisioned. The Ellery Queen novelization is worth a read after going through the film to see a different take on the material.
-This is another case where one needs to watch the movie first and then read the book or in this case the novelization. "A Study In Terror" was a 1965 Sherlock Holmes movie starring John Neville (Holmes), Donald Houston (Watson), Anthony Quayle, Frank Finlay and Judi Dench in an early role. 14 years before "Murder By Decree" (which also had Finlay as Inspector Lestrade), this film came up with the conceit of Holmes trying to solve the Jack The Ripper murders. Although not made by Hammer Studios, one can be forgiven for thinking it was a Hammer production since it is loaded with some gory shots for the day and a lot of implied violence as well. The film does serve us a couple red herrings but its fiery climax in which the Ripper is exposed ends with a massive cheat in failing to plausibly explain Holmes's escape from the inferno that kills the guilty party.
-The novelization that appeared the following year took an interesting twist approach. It appeared in the "Ellery Queen" series of detective novels and was given a modestly faithful adaptation of the film story in the form of a "lost" Watson narrative that has been presented to the famous detective of a later era, Ellery Queen. There are brief interlude chapters along the way as Ellery takes time out to try and determine who sent the manuscript and why and then at the climax we get a twist on the film's ending in that the guilty party of the film turns out NOT to be the Ripper after all but someone else (though this required new plot devices in the book narrative not present in the film such as giving a key character a daughter that didn't exist in the film).
-"A Study In Terror" is not one of the better Holmes movies IMO because its Hammeresque overtones pale before the superior effort of Hammer's own "Hound Of The Baskervilles". Neville comes up short as Holmes IMO although Robert Morley as Mycroft Holmes is the absolute perfect embodiment of the character as Conan Doyle envisioned. The Ellery Queen novelization is worth a read after going through the film to see a different take on the material.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I'm curious, what did you think of the score? I believe this was the very first film scored by John Scott.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8623
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
There were times I felt it sounded a bit anachronistic in that it wasn't evoking the era properly. Overall it was serviceable but when it comes to scores for Holmes films I'm a bit more spoiled by my high regard for Rozsa's "Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes."
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Caveat to these reviews: I have only read one Poirot novel, so I am not really familiar with the character. I am basing my opinions on one book and three adaptations. Also, in order to avoid spoilers, I tried my best to talk about aesthetic differences between the different films more than anything else when I did my comparisons. I feel I accomplished my goal of no spoilers, so if you haven't seen any of these movies or read the book I do not believe I gave anything important away.
MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS by Agatha Christie (1934, 265 pages). Belgian detective Hercule Poirot is called back to London to work on a case and has to take the Simplon Orient Express to get there. It is wintertime in Europe and the train is uncharacteristically full at this time in the season. Not long after the train departs on its journey, a wealthy and seemingly unlikeable man named Samuel Edward Ratchett is viciously murdered in his cabin in the middle of the night. The cause of death was twelve stab wounds to his body. With the Orient Express stranded in Yugoslavia due to a snow storm, Poirot is enlisted to solve the case and discover the identity of the murderer before the train continues on its journey (and before the Yugoslavian police get involved).
Having never read an Agatha Christie novel before (I am not one who normally reads ‘Whodunnit?’ novels), I was kind of excited to give this one a try. I am happy to say I loved this book! This is one heck of a novel – quietly thrilling and very much a page turner; it was very difficult for me to put down. The book is divided into three neatly arranged sections: the first part deals with the events leading up to and including the murder; the second part deals with the examination of the evidence (including passenger interviews), and the third part brings the story to its conclusion with the solution. Poirot is an interesting detective – very cerebral and sharp, methodical and cunning, very quiet yet easy to underestimate and therefore very dangerous. There is next to no action in the book at all, though that does not lessen the story’s appeal since the characters are so interesting and infused with personality. The murder itself is chilling and creepy; the motive behind the murder is disturbing and inspired by a true life event which most will pick up on right away. Christie’s writing is fluid and imaginative. She leaves some clues behind as to the murderer’s possible identity and throws in some material that will have you second guessing; she heightens tension by having Poirot interview the passengers once and then, after thinking about it, interviewing them a second time to find out who might not be telling the truth based on his hypotheses. Whether or not you solve the crime by the end, you will likely walk away appreciating the artistry of Christie and thanking her for taking you on such a fun ride. This book is well worth reading, and the end is incredibly moving.
For fun I decided to watch three versions of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS to compare and contrast in a general way. First, Sidney Lumet adapted the book into a film in 1974; Albert Finney portrayed Poirot among an all-star cast that included Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, Michael York, a very attractive Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, Sean Connery, Anthony Perkins, and Martin Balsam among others. Of the three films I viewed for these reviews, this version (clocking in at 127 minutes) is pretty faithful to the novel (all things considered) and has the ending that most closely mirrors the book’s ending of the three films I watched. Finney’s portrayal of Poirot seems to be a little more jovial at times than the Poirot of the book, but regardless I thought that his performance was really strong. Lumet focused on the glamor of the 1930s in his film – the costumes are outstanding, and everything is wonderfully elegant in a romanticized way. Richard Rodney Bennett’s score was quite bouncy and ‘up’ (I laughed as I listened to it, thinking of Bernard Herrmann’s comment, “It was ridiculous; that train was a train of DEATH!”). The motive for murder opens the film and is done exceptionally well – it is so creepy and stylized with the way it presents the newspaper clippings and the photographs.
There are some character name changes in the film (for example, M. Bouc became Bianchi, and Masterman became Beddoes, among others), and I am not sure why but Ingrid Bergman’s Greta Ohlsson is characterized as a strong religious fundamentalist (something that carries through to all adaptations that I watched, though I don’t remember that characterization in the novel). Also, Colonel Arbuthnot’s explanation of the brief conversation Poirot overheard between him and Mary Debenham (the scandal of divorce) was not in the book (but carries over to the David Suchet 2010 version). Anthony Perkins’ MacQueen also has a moment to talk about “mother” in an interrogation sequence; I seriously wonder if Lumet and the screenwriters purposefully put that in as a wink and a nod to Perkins’ most famous role as Norman Bates. The murder of Ratchett is well done, and the ending is moving and uplifting; however, because its focus is on the perpetrator and not on Poirot (aside from one short piece of dialogue where Poirot tells Bianchi that he has to make the report for the police and basically make peace with his conscience), it also captures the pathos of the whole sordid mess best out of all three versions. It is a solid film and ranks as the best of the three I watched.
The 2010 version of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS stars David Suchet as Poirot, probably his most famous character role ever. Clocking in at 96 minutes, this adaptation of Christie’s novel (often shown on PBS) is much more sinister and dark both visually and thematically. It is more intimate than the 1974 version as well. Even the score is darker, having bits and pieces that sound a little bit to me like an homage to Bernard Herrmann. Like the 1974 version of the book, this adaptation retains Greta Ohlsson’s strong religious fundamentalism (making me question if I missed something in the book). The 1974 version linked Ratchett to the Mafia as does this adaptation (the book connects Ratchett to gangsters but I do not remember the Mafia being explicitly spoken of in the narrative), and the blood money of $200,000 becomes part of the motive for murder (not in the book). The murder of Ratchett is well done, but what stands out in this adaptation is the theme of justice and Poirot’s understanding of it as a detective and a Catholic (not in the book). In the opening moments of the 2010 version a woman is stoned in Istanbul for committing adultery (think John 8:1-11, though in the Gospel the woman does not get stoned) witnessed by Poirot, Mary Debenham, and Colonel Arbuthnot. In the middle of the story Mary and Poirot discuss what they saw briefly, and by the end Poirot has to make a decision as to what is ‘just’ – letting the perpetrator go (even though it goes against every fiber of his moral/ethical being) or exposing the truth to the police (his moral/ethical duty but not the ‘just’ thing to do). It is an intense religious (maybe existential?) crisis in which the fate of the perpetrator hangs on his decision…and yet this is not even implied in the book. It may have a theatrical flair to it, and even though it is a powerful climax to the film, I feel that it focuses too much on Poirot and what he is going through/his crisis as opposed to the perpetrator. Thus, although there is poignancy to the ending of this drama, it does not carry the pathos the book’s ending carries (or, for that matter, the 1974 film version’s ending carries). It is different enough from the book to where I cannot say this is the definitive adaptation of Christie’s book. It is, in a way, a disappointing ending that focuses on the wrong thing.
And then there is Kenneth Branagh’s 114 minute adaptation of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS in 2017. Of the three versions I watched, this is by far the dumbest, most silly adaptation of Christie’s novel I have seen. It is insultingly bad (though I have heard that the 2001 TV version is really bad as well). Unlike the other two films above, this one decided it would be an adventure/action comedy rather than an intimate drama. It plays more like a toned down Robert Downey Jr. SHERLOCK HOLMES type movie; it really has nothing going for it. There is more to laugh about and mock in this film than there is to praise. For one, despite having an all-star cast (Michelle Pfeiffer, Penelope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Kenneth Branagh as Poirot, Leslie Odom, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Daisy Ridley), it just doesn’t work. Everyone (including Poirot) comes off as a clownish caricature. From the moment Poirot solves a case at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem by sticking his cane in the wall so when the criminal tries to escape the crowd he would clothesline himself on the cane, I could not take this movie seriously. There are a few action scenes with up-tempo music by Patrick Doyle to (laughably) shake things up a bit; while class distinction plays a role in the book (though quietly), in this film racism is front and center throughout, whether it be the interracial love shared by Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley) and Doctor (not Colonel) Arbuthnot (Leslie Odom) or the racial slurs that appear throughout the film…it all seems so forced. In addition, toward the end when Poirot solves the crime, there is a laughable ‘Last Supper’ moment in which he approaches the tunnel and everyone is arranged in a way that explicitly calls to mind that painting. I almost fell off the couch laughing. Doyle’s piano theme gets brutally repetitive and annoying at the end, and while I will give the film some credit for the Ratchett murder sequence, the ending rips the emotional rug out from underneath the viewer and focuses on Poirot more than the perpetrator (worse than the 2010 version did). This is a horrible, putrid adaptation, one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Yet what do I know…the film made $350+ million at the box office, over six times its budget.
Next up (I hope): If I Die Before I Wake (Sherwood King)/The Lady from Shanghai (1947) with Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth.
MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS by Agatha Christie (1934, 265 pages). Belgian detective Hercule Poirot is called back to London to work on a case and has to take the Simplon Orient Express to get there. It is wintertime in Europe and the train is uncharacteristically full at this time in the season. Not long after the train departs on its journey, a wealthy and seemingly unlikeable man named Samuel Edward Ratchett is viciously murdered in his cabin in the middle of the night. The cause of death was twelve stab wounds to his body. With the Orient Express stranded in Yugoslavia due to a snow storm, Poirot is enlisted to solve the case and discover the identity of the murderer before the train continues on its journey (and before the Yugoslavian police get involved).
Having never read an Agatha Christie novel before (I am not one who normally reads ‘Whodunnit?’ novels), I was kind of excited to give this one a try. I am happy to say I loved this book! This is one heck of a novel – quietly thrilling and very much a page turner; it was very difficult for me to put down. The book is divided into three neatly arranged sections: the first part deals with the events leading up to and including the murder; the second part deals with the examination of the evidence (including passenger interviews), and the third part brings the story to its conclusion with the solution. Poirot is an interesting detective – very cerebral and sharp, methodical and cunning, very quiet yet easy to underestimate and therefore very dangerous. There is next to no action in the book at all, though that does not lessen the story’s appeal since the characters are so interesting and infused with personality. The murder itself is chilling and creepy; the motive behind the murder is disturbing and inspired by a true life event which most will pick up on right away. Christie’s writing is fluid and imaginative. She leaves some clues behind as to the murderer’s possible identity and throws in some material that will have you second guessing; she heightens tension by having Poirot interview the passengers once and then, after thinking about it, interviewing them a second time to find out who might not be telling the truth based on his hypotheses. Whether or not you solve the crime by the end, you will likely walk away appreciating the artistry of Christie and thanking her for taking you on such a fun ride. This book is well worth reading, and the end is incredibly moving.
For fun I decided to watch three versions of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS to compare and contrast in a general way. First, Sidney Lumet adapted the book into a film in 1974; Albert Finney portrayed Poirot among an all-star cast that included Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, Michael York, a very attractive Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, Sean Connery, Anthony Perkins, and Martin Balsam among others. Of the three films I viewed for these reviews, this version (clocking in at 127 minutes) is pretty faithful to the novel (all things considered) and has the ending that most closely mirrors the book’s ending of the three films I watched. Finney’s portrayal of Poirot seems to be a little more jovial at times than the Poirot of the book, but regardless I thought that his performance was really strong. Lumet focused on the glamor of the 1930s in his film – the costumes are outstanding, and everything is wonderfully elegant in a romanticized way. Richard Rodney Bennett’s score was quite bouncy and ‘up’ (I laughed as I listened to it, thinking of Bernard Herrmann’s comment, “It was ridiculous; that train was a train of DEATH!”). The motive for murder opens the film and is done exceptionally well – it is so creepy and stylized with the way it presents the newspaper clippings and the photographs.
There are some character name changes in the film (for example, M. Bouc became Bianchi, and Masterman became Beddoes, among others), and I am not sure why but Ingrid Bergman’s Greta Ohlsson is characterized as a strong religious fundamentalist (something that carries through to all adaptations that I watched, though I don’t remember that characterization in the novel). Also, Colonel Arbuthnot’s explanation of the brief conversation Poirot overheard between him and Mary Debenham (the scandal of divorce) was not in the book (but carries over to the David Suchet 2010 version). Anthony Perkins’ MacQueen also has a moment to talk about “mother” in an interrogation sequence; I seriously wonder if Lumet and the screenwriters purposefully put that in as a wink and a nod to Perkins’ most famous role as Norman Bates. The murder of Ratchett is well done, and the ending is moving and uplifting; however, because its focus is on the perpetrator and not on Poirot (aside from one short piece of dialogue where Poirot tells Bianchi that he has to make the report for the police and basically make peace with his conscience), it also captures the pathos of the whole sordid mess best out of all three versions. It is a solid film and ranks as the best of the three I watched.
The 2010 version of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS stars David Suchet as Poirot, probably his most famous character role ever. Clocking in at 96 minutes, this adaptation of Christie’s novel (often shown on PBS) is much more sinister and dark both visually and thematically. It is more intimate than the 1974 version as well. Even the score is darker, having bits and pieces that sound a little bit to me like an homage to Bernard Herrmann. Like the 1974 version of the book, this adaptation retains Greta Ohlsson’s strong religious fundamentalism (making me question if I missed something in the book). The 1974 version linked Ratchett to the Mafia as does this adaptation (the book connects Ratchett to gangsters but I do not remember the Mafia being explicitly spoken of in the narrative), and the blood money of $200,000 becomes part of the motive for murder (not in the book). The murder of Ratchett is well done, but what stands out in this adaptation is the theme of justice and Poirot’s understanding of it as a detective and a Catholic (not in the book). In the opening moments of the 2010 version a woman is stoned in Istanbul for committing adultery (think John 8:1-11, though in the Gospel the woman does not get stoned) witnessed by Poirot, Mary Debenham, and Colonel Arbuthnot. In the middle of the story Mary and Poirot discuss what they saw briefly, and by the end Poirot has to make a decision as to what is ‘just’ – letting the perpetrator go (even though it goes against every fiber of his moral/ethical being) or exposing the truth to the police (his moral/ethical duty but not the ‘just’ thing to do). It is an intense religious (maybe existential?) crisis in which the fate of the perpetrator hangs on his decision…and yet this is not even implied in the book. It may have a theatrical flair to it, and even though it is a powerful climax to the film, I feel that it focuses too much on Poirot and what he is going through/his crisis as opposed to the perpetrator. Thus, although there is poignancy to the ending of this drama, it does not carry the pathos the book’s ending carries (or, for that matter, the 1974 film version’s ending carries). It is different enough from the book to where I cannot say this is the definitive adaptation of Christie’s book. It is, in a way, a disappointing ending that focuses on the wrong thing.
And then there is Kenneth Branagh’s 114 minute adaptation of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS in 2017. Of the three versions I watched, this is by far the dumbest, most silly adaptation of Christie’s novel I have seen. It is insultingly bad (though I have heard that the 2001 TV version is really bad as well). Unlike the other two films above, this one decided it would be an adventure/action comedy rather than an intimate drama. It plays more like a toned down Robert Downey Jr. SHERLOCK HOLMES type movie; it really has nothing going for it. There is more to laugh about and mock in this film than there is to praise. For one, despite having an all-star cast (Michelle Pfeiffer, Penelope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Kenneth Branagh as Poirot, Leslie Odom, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Daisy Ridley), it just doesn’t work. Everyone (including Poirot) comes off as a clownish caricature. From the moment Poirot solves a case at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem by sticking his cane in the wall so when the criminal tries to escape the crowd he would clothesline himself on the cane, I could not take this movie seriously. There are a few action scenes with up-tempo music by Patrick Doyle to (laughably) shake things up a bit; while class distinction plays a role in the book (though quietly), in this film racism is front and center throughout, whether it be the interracial love shared by Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley) and Doctor (not Colonel) Arbuthnot (Leslie Odom) or the racial slurs that appear throughout the film…it all seems so forced. In addition, toward the end when Poirot solves the crime, there is a laughable ‘Last Supper’ moment in which he approaches the tunnel and everyone is arranged in a way that explicitly calls to mind that painting. I almost fell off the couch laughing. Doyle’s piano theme gets brutally repetitive and annoying at the end, and while I will give the film some credit for the Ratchett murder sequence, the ending rips the emotional rug out from underneath the viewer and focuses on Poirot more than the perpetrator (worse than the 2010 version did). This is a horrible, putrid adaptation, one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Yet what do I know…the film made $350+ million at the box office, over six times its budget.
Next up (I hope): If I Die Before I Wake (Sherwood King)/The Lady from Shanghai (1947) with Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth.
Last edited by mkaroly on Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8623
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
"Murder On The Orient Express" is probably Christie's most famous novel alongside of "And Then There Were None". Both have had more adaptations than any other Christie property, not just in film and TV, but "Murder" also produced a BBC radio adaptation that was the most faithful to the book there's ever been (John Moffat who appears briefly in the 1974 film as the Brit officer Poirot meets in Istanbul credibly played Poirot while the ensemble also had Desmond "Q" Llewelyan in the John Gielgud part). Suchet also did the voice of Poirot for a computer game version that is a more traditional adaptation of the story than the 2010 one he ultimately did (albeit with one extra unexpected twist at the finale for the benefit of those who were already familiar with the property).
I think the 74 film remains the best of the three you saw, even though I think Finney's performance looks too eccentric as the years go by. At the time, his was probably the best Poirot performance there had been considering that the only other actor who had tackled it on the big screen was Tony Randall! But once Suchet started playing the role that broke the mold completely I felt. There's also one other flaw in the 74 film in terms of a critical change from the book. In the book it is established that Ratchett "beat the rap" in terms of escaping justice, but the film establishes that Ratchett merely escaped justice for his past crime and was never tried. That is a not insignificant distinction in light of what ultimately happens because in the former scenario you have an element of the system letting the innocent down that is technically not present in the 74 script.
The less said about the Branagh one the better and trust me you do NOT want to see the 2001 TV-movie version set in contemporary times starring Alfred Molina as Poirot.
I think the 74 film remains the best of the three you saw, even though I think Finney's performance looks too eccentric as the years go by. At the time, his was probably the best Poirot performance there had been considering that the only other actor who had tackled it on the big screen was Tony Randall! But once Suchet started playing the role that broke the mold completely I felt. There's also one other flaw in the 74 film in terms of a critical change from the book. In the book it is established that Ratchett "beat the rap" in terms of escaping justice, but the film establishes that Ratchett merely escaped justice for his past crime and was never tried. That is a not insignificant distinction in light of what ultimately happens because in the former scenario you have an element of the system letting the innocent down that is technically not present in the 74 script.
The less said about the Branagh one the better and trust me you do NOT want to see the 2001 TV-movie version set in contemporary times starring Alfred Molina as Poirot.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Yikes...I don't know how I missed that change from the book in the 1974 movie! I guess I was paying attention to other things...I have to add that RRB's score is superb for what he was trying to accomplish. And of all the portrayals of Poirot I watched, Suchet's came closest to what I imagined Poiror would be like from reading the book (despite the fact that I felt Finney's performance was strong).
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
If you're looking for other Agatha Christie book recommendations, I read Death on the Nile earlier this year as part of a book club. (Haven't seen the 70s movie). It has an unusually long set-up but is a quick read and very enjoyable. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is also excellent. The less you read about that one the better.
For a modern take on Christie's style, read Anthony Horowitz's Magpie Murders. He's the guy who created the TV show Foyle's War and has written several detective novels. As above with Roger Ackroyd, the less you know about Magpie the better. I believe it is currently being filmed for Britbox.
For a modern take on Christie's style, read Anthony Horowitz's Magpie Murders. He's the guy who created the TV show Foyle's War and has written several detective novels. As above with Roger Ackroyd, the less you know about Magpie the better. I believe it is currently being filmed for Britbox.