Not sure that Fallow being British or American makes that much difference to the plot, but they probably should have cast a lesser-known actor and not elevated the character to the point where it's almost as much a film about him as it is about Sherman. Having Fallow narrate helps move along the plot, but Willis is off-screen for more than half the film, and given too much focus when he's in it. Other characters - Weiss, Kramer, the judge and the detectives - are given much less time for development compared to their parts in the book, but then it's not an easy task boiling a 600 page, very complex novel down to two hours. In some ways, they might have done as well as could be expected to get across most of the book's major points, but most of the characters, including Sherman, do not come across as vividly as they do in the book, and end up as caricatures. I don't think Hanks was the wrong choice, he just didn't give Sherman enough depth, and I can't see Don Johnson in the role at all. For the two female leads, I would play the popular game of switch 'em - Griffiths as the trophy wife, Catrell as the Southern spitfire?? I thought Griffiths was OK, but Catrell was not so much miscast as given a badly-written character to play. The Judy of the novel may have been weak, but she was not as airheaded as she is made to be in the film, and many of her lines are very unbelievable. Most of the rest of the cast did as well as could be expected.
"I'm-I'm just being honest" - Outkast
reply
share