I was disappointed to say the least. About 80% of the book takes place inside the head of Bruce Robertson and although I did think James McAvoy did a good job there is too many thoughts going through Bruce's head to portray on a face. Also a huge huge part of the book is about a talking tapeworm , this is emulated with some crazy doctor hallucination but not well and quite confusingly.
shareI preferred the film second viewing and now I really rate it, to the point where I think you would struggle to beat mcavoy as bruce. there were lots of little subtle winks to the camera and other knowing nods which helped portray stuff that was explained more fully in the book, but it worked imo
i'm 15 and i know sharks don't growl,share
I watched the film before reading the book. I did really enjoy the film but now it never will quite be complete. I miss really being inside Robbo's head. I think the film did the best job possible though, I can't imagine a film version being any better and I actually liked what they did with the doctor it made sense and sort of allowed us to get into his head (and I would hate to see a talking tapeworm on screen that would look rediculous). The film could never be as good as the book but I still like the film and feel it did the best job it possibly could. And you can't deny McAvoy is Bruce Robertson. What did you think of the changed ending?
shareI hated the movie, and it was one of my favorite books.
My problem was it was simply not "filthy" enough --- Bruce Robertson in the book is not some sleek, dashing McAvoy, he's a middle-aged fatass swine (despite being a tweeker and a tapeworm host), the best walking definition of an unwashed glutton there is.
The tapeworm was also completely *beep* up and then there's the ending---one of the most absolutely disturbing passages I've ever read (a guy killing himself in front of his kid whilst simultaneously *beep* out a tapeworm) gets reduced to "oopsie de chair bwoke"
Well the book focused more on his mental deterioration and largely ignored the physical stuff. I like the fact that he looked quite slick it's how I imagine him in the book, He must have something going for him he does actually manage to get a few girls to sleep with him. I do agree that it wasn't filthy enough it would've been nice to see him sink as low as he did in the book, and I think they chickened out by not having him be the one who killed the victim. I did quite like the ending of the film, it teased the audience with the idea of redemption before snatching it away from us, though the book ending certainly suited the style of the book, tha was messed up, especially in front of his daughter. Overall I think the film captured th spirit of the book as well as a film can, I can't imagine Filth being made much better in film. Though the book is far superior and I'm halfway through my third re-read
shareA few people have mentioned the 'fatass' angle and I always find it a bit strange. It's mentioned in the book that even though he eats quite frequently he struggles to put on any weight and despite it having been a while since my last read of it, I'm sure there's something mentioned about struggling to keep his pants up. McAvoy is also hardly sleek or dashing in this film, he manages to look almost greasy and very worn out! Would have loved to have seen the original ending put to film, but I suppose that's a frequent problem with adaptations.
shareAlthough in the book Bruce is indeed middle aged, I'm pretty sure he's not fat (it's been a while since I read it). After all, he does have a tapeworm, which some people nowadays have implanted on purpose, in order to allow them to lose weight.
I was blown away by McAvoy's performance of Bruce. I was skeptical initially due to his age and although much younger than the written character, he appears older than he is in the film due to his lifestyle and his portrayal of mental instability. They also adjusted his daughter's age to suit, and overall the character interpretation was very convincing.
The film isn't perfect. As another poster said they did indeed chicken out by not having Bruce murder the main victim, which is one of the most detailed graphic depictions of murder I've ever read (and why did they change the victim from black to Japanese?). I was also disappointed at the diluted ending, especially considering the lack of pulled punches with the rest of the film.
But overall, I really enjoyed it and thought they did a great job.
Filth is one of my favourite books too, and I've just gotten around to watching the film. My initial feelings are similar to yours. Robbo just isn't 'bad' enough in the film, and he's also not nearly so much fun. The descriptive passages and inner thoughts of the character in the book - his little observations - are hysterically funny, completely brutal and scathing, but in the film they're reduced to quick-fire cutaway scenes of his colleagues being made to look daft to briefly summarize how he feels about them. The humour in the film felt bland and simplified, like they'd failed to translate it at all. In the novel, Robbo's complete hatred towards everything except himself, and his ability to mentally articulate those feelings in such a harsh way meant that you couldn't help but cheer him on; similar to Patrick Bateman in American Psycho, he's so cruel that he becomes a bizarre kind of hero. The film has a little bit of this, but here he's not nearly as snide and withering as in the book.
That the director decided to write out the tapeworm and have the doctor fantasy scene instead was reasonable enough I suppose, but since the doctor isn't introduced terribly well, and his significance is never explained, those scenes just come across as goofy (for lack of a better word). In the book Robbo's history is explored in much more depth (the death of his brother, his step-father's rages, his mother's pitying attitude towards him, the identity of his real father) but the film only briefly touches on these important plot points which ultimately serve to make the reader feel sorry for Robbo. Instead we get the last minute redemption scene with the videotape to Bladesy, which isn't in the book, and really feels pointless.
The ending also doesn't work. In the book the ending is genuinely tragic and horrifying, but the film encourages us to giggle at the whole situation. The books itself is very, very funny, but the ending (or at least the last page) is not.
James McAvoy did do a good job in the role, and his scene with Amanda on the stairs where he breaks down was very well handled, but the film really felt uneven and played it way too safe. A better film would have captured the humour more accurately, and given the character more depth.
---
He left a note. He left a simple little note that said, "I've gone out the window."
I didn't get the feeling that his video was redemptive at all. He apologizes, sure. But it's hardly a very meaningful apology. He knows his friend looks up to him and tries to emulate him, and it seemed to me that he was saying, hey don't be like me. I could be way off tho.
The film's biggest issue to me was that it didn't seem to be able to decide what sort of tone it wanted. First few minutes I was laughing my head off, then there were times I was left thinking wtf, but for not the right reasons.
I thought the filmmakers did the best job possible with the first-person literary material. I missed the tapeworm-angle as well, but this was nonetheless a great interpretation.
share