Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!

[mkaroly]

Paul, I am not sure if I will ever watch it again. I will never say never I guess, but it was so cliche and laughable. There is a plot point concerning the identity of the Wendol in the book that I thought was really cool (and right up Crichton's alley), but the film completely ignored it. The bad guys are just..."typical." Even the Mother of the Wendol, described in the book as "an old creature lurking in the shadows...old to the point of being sexless" (page 166) is portrayed in the movie as a hot young-Goth-Vamp-Barbarian chick you might see in an 80s Duran-Duran video (Hungry Like the Wolf?) updated for a contemporary late-90s audience. Lol...I feel like the book deserved better.

To be honest, when I was watching the film I kept thinking of Peter Jackson's LOTR films, though the first one didn't come out until 2001 I think (and 13th Warrior came out in 1999). Hmmm....

[Paul MacLean]

To be honest, when I was watching the film I kept thinking of Peter Jackson's LOTR films, though the first one didn't come out until 2001 I think (and 13th Warrior came out in 1999). Hmmm....

That's interesting, because around 12-13 years ago I was listening to Goldsmith's 13th Warrior CD one day, and I was struck by how much "The Horns of Hell" seemed the perfect accompaniment for the Helm's Deep sequence. I think what LOTR truly needed was a Goldsmith score -- specifically something that was a cross between The 13th Warrior and Legend.

[AndyDursin]

13TH WARRIOR is a case of a movie being SO worked over in post-production that it's hard to gauge it. There are portions of it that I like, Goldsmith's score is definitely one of the best from the end of his career, and it looks good. The problem is that it wasn't just that the movie was recut and worked over -- even the version Goldsmith scored...was recut! There are tracks even on his album that aren't in the film, and the whole opening of the movie is just SO fragmented...so obviously recut in an attempt to get the film's running time down.

Someone, somewhere should have just said "enough" and left well enough alone, but between Crichton and the studio (who took the film over from McTiernan), it's a watchable diversion that had too many cooks in the kitchen.

[AndyDursin]

I've been doing this so long, I have to Google search my own columns to see if I ran a review of a movie...lol.

Here's my 13TH WARRIOR take from 1999:

We have seen it happen too often in the last few years: a movie is made, and then somewhere along the line the "powers at be" -- be they the studio, test audiences, or producers -- decide that the movie doesn't quite work, and strive to improve it through the magic of refilming, and/or rescoring, and recutting.

Such is the sorry case of THE 13TH WARRIOR (**1/2 of four), which as it currently stands, is a flawed though entertaining Viking epic, filled with thundering action sequences and the kind of old-fashioned adventure we rarely see at the movies anymore. Antonio Banderas stars in this adaptation of Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead" (the film's original title) as an Arab who improbably finds himself assisting a band of Vikings who come to the aid of a small village besieged by an "unseen evil" that strikes in the dark, in the fog, and feasts on the remains of its victims.

Directed (at least during principal photography) by John McTiernan, THE 13TH WARRIOR combines the blood n'guts violence of CONAN THE BARBARIAN with the old-fashioned quest adventure of THE VIKINGS, and comes up with an energetic and at-times thrilling fantasy with several memorable stand- alone sequences. The movie has lavish production design and the look of quality, and yet has so many holes that you feel compelled to give it an "Incomplete" grade instead of a true rating, since it seems that much of the movie was left on the cutting room floor.

Specifically, you know you are in trouble when

1. It seems as if the first half-hour of the film has been condensed into the opening 90 seconds (if you don't pay attention, you'll miss all 60 seconds of the Bagdad scenes and Omar Sharif's introduction, which have been cut into an incomprehensible prologue muttered by Banderas in voice-over narration).

2. Characters completely disappear never to be seen again (such as Banderas's love interest), and others are introduced if they have already played a major part in the film, even though we've hardly seen them before (as in the apparently arrogant leader of the village whom the Vikings have a problem with). These players also disappear, never to be heard from again.

3. You'll have to figure out for yourself what the inner clan workings of the "Eaters of the Dead" are, since the movie never explains who, what, or why the mysterious tribe acts the way they do. Among the many unexplained scenes (a cave meeting with a female tribal member is also shot as if it holds more significance than we're told it does), one particular naked child wanders back near the village fort. Has the child been abducted by the tribe in their method of recruiting new members? Perhaps Diane Verona's character had something to do with explaining what's going on, but we don't see any of that in the final cut. (We are, however, treated by an unbilled cameo by Anne Bancroft, who appears to conveniently explain to our heroes how to kill the tribe's leader).

4. Plot holes abound through the film, such as: why do the Eaters primarily attack in hundreds of numbers, yet when the Vikings first meet them, there only a dozen of them?

5. Music cues don't seem to fit certain sequences, and the ending seems to have no connection with the rest of the film.

THE 13TH WARRIOR's behind the scenes story has been well-documented (eighteen months on the shelf, countless re-edits), and somewhere amongst all of the post-production problems likely are the answers to the film's troubles.

Although he didn't write the script, Michael Crichton produced the film and after John McTiernan turned in his first version of the movie, Crichton promptly took over control, overseeing a mass of changes to the picture which delayed its original Easter 1998 release date to a series of other dates (Thanksgiving '98, Christmas '98, January '99, etc.) it never met until last weekend.

While some new material was apparently added, it seems as if what Crichton primarily did was hack away at McTiernan's original version. I'd love to see McTiernan's original cut, which I assume includes all of the character development and background information on the various tribes featured in the film, most of which had to have been relegated to the cutting room floor. After all, you don't typically open a movie with a helter-skelter first five minutes which seems as if it encompasses enough narrative material for a film onto itself.

Crichton also brought Jerry Goldsmith in to write a new score for the movie, replacing Graeme Revell's more "ethnic," less Hollywood-like original soundtrack. Goldsmith's rousing orchestral score, while having been criticized by many reviewers for its bombastic tendencies, is actually one of Jerry's better efforts in the last few years, but even though Goldsmith re-scored Crichton's first version of the film, he apparently didn't re-score the movie again once Crichton removed even more footage over the last few months.

If you listen to the soundtrack album, you'll notice that many of the album's opening tracks only appear in fragments. While some re-recording was done in L.A. (at least according to the film credits), it doesn't seem as if Jerry had enough time to completely go in and overhaul his music to fit the final version that Crichton turned in.

Of course, all of this leads to the feeling one is left with at the end of THE 13TH WARRIOR: that Crichton should have left well enough alone with the production of McTiernan's film. Having been in the editing room for the duration that this movie was in likely robbed the producers of their objectivity in cutting together this severely compromised released version of THE 13TH WARRIOR, and it's a shame since there are moments in the movie which work splendidly: the glare of the Eaters' torches as they thunder across the mist-ridden plains, on their way to attack the villagers; the raw intensity of the battle scenes; and the entire story itself, which seems like a natural candidate for a great, classic adventure story.

Unfortunately, the released 13TH WARRIOR misses greatnesses by a fairly wide margin. The sad thing is that it perhaps wasn't so much the movie itself that was the problem, but the insiders in the editing room who thought they knew better in hacking the film to death, much in the same manner that Crichton's Eaters slaughter the innocents in a film whose best moments are likely the ones that we still haven't seen.

[mkaroly]

Love the archival review!!

Agreed - it would be interesting to have seen McTiernan's original film before Crichton got in there and tinkered with it. I did not realize how much the film had been re-edited when I watched it.

[mkaroly]

JAWS by Peter Benchley (1974). Benchley’s first novel concerns the small beach resort town of Amity. It is visited by a predatory Great White shark whose presence threatens the very life of the town which financially depends greatly on its summer trade. The novel itself is less about the shark and more about how this small community deals with the presence of it. It is about how the shark’s presence affects relationships within the community, brings issues to the surface, exposes the dark underside of Amity, and “stirs the waters” of small town community life. Amity itself has class divisions within itself between the permanent residents and the rich upper-class summer residents (upon whose money the permanent residents depend). Martin Brody (the town’s chief of police) is married to Ellen, a wealthy socialite who married down. She is currently unhappy in her marriage and is tempted to cheat on her spouse when young Matt Hopper comes to town, an upper-class ichthyologist who has ties to her past. Larry Vaughn, the city’s mayor, fights hard to keep the beaches open when Brody wants them closed due to public safety issues. Vaughn has his own dirty secret and reasons for wanting the beaches open. Brody is the centerpiece around which all these relationships revolve, including the triumvirate of himself, Hooper, and crusty fisherman Quint as the three of them try to rid the town of the Great White Shark threat.

The novel is, to be honest, very adult, dark, and depressing (unlike the movie, with which most people are familiar). None of the characters are very sympathetic, although Chief Brody, for all his faults, is the most sympathetic of them all. The shark appears infrequently in the novel; maybe this is going way too far, but perhaps the shark and its movements/actions represent in some way the predatory human relationships on the island of Amity. Benchley was clearly more interested in the inter–relationships of his characters than the shark itself, though its arrival is the catalyst for everything that happens on land. The end of the book pays homage to Herman Melville’s MOBY DICK as Quint (Ahab) takes on the Great White Shark (Moby Dick), but I found the novel’s conclusion unsettling – what will become of Larry Vaughn and the town of Amity? What will become of Martin’s relationship with his wife Ellen? How will the town of Amity survive? Has anyone learned anything? How will things change? At times the novel is suspenseful, but it is also sometimes awkward, silly, and rough around the edges (again, it was Benchley’s first novel). It is an interesting read, but not very rewarding.

Steven Spielberg made a film based on the novel called JAWS in 1975, with a screenplay credited to Benchley and Carl Gottlieb. It remains one of the greatest movies Hollywood has ever made. Although it does follow the book generally, the movie is so much more “cinematic” than the book that it becomes its own story. The film changed the tone of the book, from darkness to something hopeful. The film added in humor which was, for the most part, lacking in the book. The film adds a great deal of tension and suspense by focusing more on the shark, and that made the film more entertaining. Spielberg would not have been able to do a straight adaptation of the book as it is not his style, and quite frankly, had anyone tried to do a straight adaptation of the book I imagine the movie would have failed miserably. Spielberg wisely jettisoned the subplots of Ellen’s affair with the totally unlikeable Matt Hooper as well as the subplot concerning the identity of Vaughn’s “backers” in his real estate dealings. The characters in the film are much more likeable and sympathetic. Brody’s marriage is securely intact; Vaughn is still an untrustworthy, selfish politician but he comes off as more misguided than anything else; Hopper is a likeable character who wants to help and comes off as a mini–Quint.

A couple other ways in which the film significantly deviated from the book: the USS Indianapolis story was written for the film and adds dimensionality to Quint’s character. The exploration of Ben Gardner’s boat in the film was much more suspenseful than the book (in the book, neither Brody nor Hendricks go down under the water. Hooper is not there). The exploration of the shark's alimentary canal was also unique to the film. Quint, Hooper, and Brody become a band of brothers, and while Spielberg’s film does focus much more on the shark (which allowed him to film some incredibly great material), JAWS ends up being a story about male bonding and friendship. The acting in it is tremendous, especially from Scheider, Dreyfuss, and Shaw. John Williams’ score is absolutely fantastic, with its menacing theme for the shark at the start to its sea shanty theme for Quint to the subdued and peaceful theme at the end (which evokes both a sense of triumph and loss). I could go on and on, but I will summarize it by saying this: when you add it all up, the film blows the book out of the water and transcends its source material. This is filmmaking at its best, and it is one of the reasons why I am a Spielberg lifer. If I had to pick between the two, the movie is the way to go. The book ended up "inspiring" a re-write into something better.

[Eric Paddon]

Agree completely that the film vastly improved over the novel. Film adaptations always out of necessity are going to have to streamline the source material to a degree and tighten things up and in this case, even from the outset as Benchley admitted in the great 1995 documentary that when he first did a screenplay draft he was told that the Mafia stuff and the Ellen-Hooper thing had to go and that it was going to be straight-on adventure.

A few other interesting cosmetic differences is that the Brodys have three sons, Martin, Jr., Billy and Sean whereas in the film it became two sons, Michael and Sean. Also, in the novel, Brody is an Amity native and established in the community. The film changes this so that he's instead an ex-NY cop who has just moved to Amity the previous year to escape the hassles of the big city (and which also accounts for why he doesn't have the clout to override the established town authority to get the beaches closed).

[mkaroly]

FIRST BLOOD by David Morrell (1972). A young Vietnam vet named Rambo has arrived in the small town of Madison, Kentucky. He has long hair and a beard; he looks like a vagrant. Rambo has been chased out of several towns before arriving in Madison, and he is tired of being pushed around. When local sheriff Will Teasle urges Rambo to leave his city, Rambo resists and it leads to his arrest. In the midst of being forced to shower and shave Rambo snaps and escapes his captors, killing one of the policemen. He escapes to the forests and the mountains, but Teasle (a veteran of the Korean War) is not about to let Rambo get away. He organizes a search party only to discover that Rambo is a Green Beret who will not be captured easily. As the story unfolds, Teasle and Rambo become engaged in a personal “war” that results in many deaths and could result in their own deaths as well.

Morrell’s book is a very gripping novel, full of tension and intrigue. The characters of Teasle (the establishment) and Rambo (the returning veteran) are cut from the same cloth. Both are military veterans with medals: Teasle has the Distinguished Service Cross, Rambo has the Congressional Medal of Honor; Teasle is an older version of Rambo as much as Rambo is a younger version of Teasle. Both are stubborn, both push each other, and both have influential “father figures” in their lives (Teasle/Orval and Rambo/Colonel Sam Trautman). Both characters are complex and both are, to an extent, sympathetic characters. The majority of the book alternates between Teasle’s and Rambo’s perspectives as each one hunts the other. The book ends in a violent and moving apocalyptic-like climax. For those familiar with the movie, the book is a fascinating read for its different characterizations, situations, and ending.

The rights to the novel were sold early on, but FIRST BLOOD was not made into a film until the 80s. Sylvester Stallone took on the role of playing John Rambo after so many others had turned it down, and it was a great decision on his part. Whereas the book can be bleak and depressing at times, Stallone and director Ted Kotcheff made a movie that is entertaining and, when it comes right down to it, a moving portrait of a sympathetic character suffering from PTSD (as we would call it). The film follows much of the book but changes the character traits of the participants and situations enough to where it is more like a supplemental to the book which explores a different direction.

For example, the characters of Teasle and Rambo are both very different in the book. Teasle has much more depth in the book as a person: when Rambo comes to town, Teasle is in the midst of a divorce (he wanted kids but his wife left him over it). He treats his police force as if they were kids, and when his father was shot during a hunting accident, Orval stepped in and became his surrogate father. As much as one might want to pull for Rambo while reading the book, Teasle is not the cartoonish, ignorant, arrogant hilljack as he is portrayed in the film. He is a sympathetic character. In the book Rambo is a much darker character; he feels most himself when he is in the fight. He is very smarmy and unlikeable at times; although he is chased and hunted down he is more vengeful and akin to a wild animal than anything else. He even kills something like eighteen people in the book! Still, he too is a sympathetic character despite it all. They both come across as complex, imperfect human beings, but one gets enough characterization to “understand” where both characters are coming from to some extent. Morrell doesn’t really seem to paint one more innocent than the other.

In the film Stallone’s Rambo is a sympathetic character from the very beginning; we find out that he is the last surviving member of his Company (the opening scene of the movie was not in the book). He technically does not kill anyone in the film (though he maims several people). Stallone’s Rambo is clearly the character the audience is meant to pull for. Teasle is a class-A jerk who garners no sympathy from anyone and is clearly the “villain”; as mentioned earlier, he and his police force are very cartoonish. Even Colonel Trautman is a bit cartoonish; Richard Crenna played him a bit over-the-top, and watching the film now his performance is sometimes laughable (his “body bags” line is hilarious). While the cartoonish-ness of the police forces, the National Guard, and Trautman could be considered a flaw, I actually think these choices were really well calculated because by the time the film comes to its climax the viewer is solely focused on Rambo and his final speech, which is a serious moment but also the emotional climax of the film. Among all the cartoonish characters and violence throughout the film the viewer is made to focus on a real human being at the center of it all who is suffering a great deal of PTSD, confusion, anger, and feeling a great sense of loss. The destruction of the town is a visual representation of the inner turmoil within Rambo himself. Rambo is a victim and he has nowhere to turn; he has humanity and is not the animal that the cartoonish cops make him out to be. That speech at the end is what makes this whole film worth watching because it so serious, so real…and Stallone acted the heck out of it and delivered the goods. Originally the filmmakers wanted to follow the plot line of the book, but Stallone’s insistence that the film end the way it did was exactly right. To me the film is much more satisfying than the book, and kudos to Stallone and the makers of this film for a job well done (kudos also to Jerry Goldsmith and his score which has a powerful, memorable main theme that perfectly characterizes John Rambo).

[mkaroly]

DOUBLE INDEMNITY by James M. Cain (1936). Walter Huff, a top of the line insurance agent in California, is out on rounds one day when he decides to stop by a client’s house (Mr. Nirdlinger) in order to attempt to get him to renew his automobile policy. Mr. Nirdlinger is not home, but his wife Phyllis is. He and Phyllis are instantly attracted to each other, and she asks Walter about whether or not he sells accident insurance. She is “concerned” for her husband and wants to take a policy out on him without his knowing it. Walter figures out she wants to kill her husband and get the insurance money, but rather than walking away from Phyllis he decides to help her plan the perfect murder. They decide to kill her husband and make it look like he fell off a train; the insurance company would pay double indemnity (or in this case $50,000) because it was a railway accident. But, as one can imagine, things get complicated, especially when Keyes (the head of the Claims Department), smells a rat once the murder is committed.

Cain’s book is gritty, twisted, sensual, morbid, and disturbing. It is a very short novel (my copy is only 115 pages long), but Cain packs a lot into the story. The narrative moves quickly; Walter is easily seduced and so quickly offers to help Phyllis. The book is disturbing in its portrayal of the ruthlessness of Walter and Phyllis. As the story progresses one can feel the walls closing in on Walter; things take a really twisted turn when Walter falls in love with Lola (Phyllis’ step-daughter), who herself is tangled up with a guy named Nino who himself has a link to Phyllis and Mr. Nirdlinger’s first wife. For those familiar with the film, the novel ends in a radically different way than the movie. The book’s ending is completely unexpected and disturbing; on the one hand it just seems so unbelievable and unrealistic, yet there is something weirdly artistic about it since the ending points back to a very short and significant piece of dialogue Phyllis shared with Walter earlier in the story. This is a brutally fun read; as twisted as it is I had a blast with it.

Billy Wilder directed the film version of DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944), and it has earned its status as a classic. The performances are all praiseworthy; Barbara Stanwick’s portrayal of Phyllis is much more chilling and scary than the book’s characterization of Phyllis (she especially used her eyes throughout the movie very dramatically). Edward G. Robinson’s portrayal of Keyes was one of his best performances; he adds a great deal of life and animation to the character from the book. MacMurray’s performance is good as well; he (like Stanwick) had to do a lot of acting with his facial expressions, and he delivers the goods. The film version of the novel is faithful to a great deal of the book, but the beginning and ending are radically different (see below). Miklos Rozsa’s score is good, especially his main theme which sounds to me like a musical representation of an impending fate/doom creeping up on Walter and Phyllis, signifying that their scheme and their relationship were destined to fail from the start.

There are many subtle differences between the book and the film. For example, Walter Huff is changed to Walter Neff; Nirdlinger is changed to Dietrichson (great move; the name Dietrichson is so much more rhythmical sounding). Some of the characters are somewhat different; in the film Nino is portrayed as more of a dropout tough-guy whereas I did not get that sense of his character in the book. Phyllis’ husband is portrayed as being quite short-tempered and abusive in the film, though not so much in the book. The deep animosity Keyes had toward Norton in the book is not really there in the film. I felt even Phyllis has more life, control, and strength of character in the film than in the book. Wilder certainly made the film version of the book more dramatic and cinematic. By opening the film with Walter speeding away from Phyllis’ home and then dictating his confession to Keyes in the office (not in the book) Wilder tells the story as a flashback which I thought was pretty cool. There are also moments in the film that are not in the book where Wilder and the screenwriters used dialogue or themes from the book in order to advance the plot and create suspense that I thought were really well done. For example:

-Keyes at Walter’s apartment while Phyllis stands behind the door;
-Phyllis and Walter meeting at the grocery store in parts of the film, especially their last meeting;
-Keyes interviewing the witness on the train in his office with Walter present;
-Keyes and Norton interviewing Phyllis in their office with Walter present.

The movie also jettisons the “love angle” of Walter’s and Lola’s relationship from the book; in the film Walter goes out with Lola in order to keep her quiet on what she suspected about Phyllis. The film also gets rid of that key piece of dialogue early in the story (on page 18 of my copy of the book) in which Phyllis confesses something about her perspective of things surrounding “death.” That is a very significant piece of dialogue; the rest of her actions and dialogue can be interpreted through that one brief speech, so it is a major character-defining moment. Perhaps the filmmakers felt it gave too much away (or was too morbid and shocking) and so decided not to include it.

The ending of the book is radically different from the movie. I hesitate to say too much because I was absolutely floored when I read it – I absolutely would have never guessed this ending even if I had tried. All I will say is this: Walter decides to kill Phyllis by rolling her car off a cliff/hill; what happens from there on…well, I won’t spoil it for you (read the book!). That speech of Phyllis’ I mentioned earlier becomes crystal clear by the time the book ends, and although it is unrealistic I found it interestingly “artistic” and bizarre. I will mention that the ending of the film is so much more moving in a sad and touching way, for Keyes has been betrayed by someone who was as close as a brother to him. Walter has made a terrible mistake, and he will pay for it in many ways (including the damage he has done to his relationship with Keyes). MacMurray’s and Robinson’s performances are so strong at the end (and the ending itself is so strong) that it keeps me coming back for multiple viewings. The film very definitely honors the book while at the same time making its own statement that stands alongside the book as a great accomplishment in its own right. This is a case where watching the movie and reading the book are well worth your time.

[Paul MacLean]

Thanks for the in-depth rundowns, MK.

I have only seen part of Double Indemnity, on TV years ago when I was a kid. I recall finding it odd that the nice, all-American dad from My Three Sons was having an illicit affair and helping a woman to murder her husband!

I have never read the David Morrell's book First Blood; the differences you cite between his book and the film are interesting. Maybe it's just me, but I never found Richard Crenna's performance to be over-the-top or unintentionally humorous. If anything it struck me as understated. In any case, I think it is certainly a good thing that Kirk Douglas dropped out of the film (as his presence would probably have thrown-off the dramatic balance of the movie)

Oh, and curiously, David Morrell went on to write the novelization for Rambo: First Blood Part II (even though it was based on a script he had nothing to do with).

[Eric Paddon]

I don't know if I'll have time to check out the book but the nature of the different ending does intrigue me. I have seen "Double Indemnity" many times and it is a classic. I admit, in general I am not the biggest fan of the whole "noir" genre but Double Indemnity to me is just such a cut above the standard fare. MacMurray's charming caddishness would serve him well again in "The Apartment" and Stanwyck is terrific as well.

If you appreciate "Double Indemnity" then AVOID the ill-considered 1973 TV-remake with Richard Crenna and Samantha Eggar which is included as a bonus in the DVD/Blu-Ray sets. Lee J. Cobb is a worthy successor to Edward G. Robinson but everything else about the film is just wrong, not the least of which how anachronistic the plot becomes in the setting of 1970s LA (by this point, train travel was near extinct so trying to retain that gimmick came off as beyond forced).

[AndyDursin]

To me the film is much more satisfying than the book, and kudos to Stallone and the makers of this film for a job well done (kudos also to Jerry Goldsmith and his score which has a powerful, memorable main theme that perfectly characterizes John Rambo).

Morrell's commentary on FIRST BLOOD is one of the most interesting and enlightening commentaries I've ever heard. Well worth a few listens if anyone hasn't checked it out! Great write-up Michael.

[Monterey Jack]

Oh, and curiously, David Morrell went on to write the novelization for Rambo: First Blood Part II (even though it was based on a script he had nothing to do with).

Reminds me of how John Gardner succeeded Ian Fleming as the regular author of the James Bond novels in the 80s, and when he came around to writing the novelization of Licence To Kill in 1989, since his books were in the same continuity as the Fleming ones, and since the scene in LTK where Felix Leiter was mauled by a shark was lifted from Fleming's novel Live & Let Die, Gardner had to write that it was the SECOND time Leiter had been mauled by a shark!

[mkaroly]

Thanks guys!

Paul, my thoughts on Trautman in the film come as a result of reading the book's characterization of him. In my mind the book Trautman was more serious, or maybe more stately in how I imagined (heard) him generally delivering his dialogue in the book. If I have seen a movie multiple times, I try really hard to filter out the film performance so I can read the book characters freshly. It is hard to do because sometimes (as with THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR) the film characters are just too ingrained in my mind. Anyway, that is all part of the fun of reading and processing books and then seeing someone else's adaptation of the same book you just read. This had been a really fun adventure for me!

Eric, if you ever do decide to read Double Indemnity, I'd love to hear what you think. For all I know I might be the only one who thought the ending was weirdly artistic in its own way...lol...the thrill of the book is that I didn't see it coming, and when I finished I immediately remembered that key piece of dialogue earlier in the story which then made me think about the ending, Phyllis' character (as well as Walter's), and the darker arc of the story as a whole. The book's ending is memorable for how unexpected it was, but the film's ending is just flat out moving, almost to the point where I cry. Big difference.

[jkholm]

Can we make requests for this thread? Has anyone read the book Telefon by Walter Wager? I watched the movie the other night and was wondering how it compares to the book. The movie is very good, a neat little thriller about a KGB agent (Charles Bronson) sent to the U.S> to stop a fellow agent (Donald Pleasance) from activating sleeper spies by means of a post hypnotic suggestion.