Auskar Wrote:I read the novel. I didn't think the movie was a disappointment. In fact, I thought it was a pretty good updated and somewhat different version. I thought the movie was great.
The novel was published in 1980 and most ex-spy novels don't tend to stand up well over time. Could you imagine filming the Bourne movies as they were originally written? No.
Spy novels don't age well because the technology moves so quickly and renders the stories obsolete; so many times when you watch old films and the hero's in a sticky predicament you think to yourself "Wouldn't happen these days, he'd just get on his mobile and call the rozzers in!"
so I can definitely accept the film needed to be updated, and changing surface details ie Creasy being ex-CIA instead of ex-Foreign Legion is a little less romantic but at the same time negligible. But changing not only the plot but also the story in fundamental ways is not "somewhat" different, it's
entirely different.
The movie was pretty good, but it
wasn't Man On Fire.
What would happen if the RJ director decides that The Tomb - having been written in the 80s - needs "updating"? What if he pulls a Michael Mann on it, and gets rid of the Rakoshi? :eek: Even if the rest of the film is better than the entire Bourne Trilogy put together, it would still be a disppointment to us lot, wouldn't it?