Conference bookie::movies

    Hal Hollbrook play the boss/recruiter. The police psychitrist from 
    Basic Instincts I think plays the wife. I have seen lots of movie ads but 
    no real information on the movie.
                          Jeff Peters 

    I am reading this right now and can't put it down.  It's a quick read,
    so at least I'm not up 'til 3 or 4 in the morning!  Started it Sunday,
    I'm on p271 now (out of 501).
    
    If you don't like lawyers, this is your book!
    
    I'm also very interested in the casting.  I don't see Demi Moore as
    the wife though - not statuesque enough!!  What's the name of that new
    young supermodel - Niki Taylor?  She could be the wife!
    
    I see Bob Hoskins as DeVasher, and Loni Anderson as Tammy.
    
    NAZZ

    The woman playing the wife is Jeanne Tripplehorn (as mentioned before,
    the psychologist in "Basic Instinct").  
    
    
    kim

    Re. -1 and others,
    
    I'm not quite sure, since I only saw herin the one film, but won't
    Jeanne Tripplehorn look too old for Tom Cruise? She looked OK with
    Michael Douglas, and he's YEARS older than Tom who looks too young for
    his own age, anyway. Also, the wife is supposed to be drop dead
    gourgeous and Jeanne isn't that good looking (IMHO).
    
    In thinking about it, I think Gene Hackman might be cast as DeVasher. 
    I hop Loni Anderson isn't in it, her looks are right for the part, but
    she can't act her way out of the proverbial paper bag.
    
    This is the part I hate about movies made out of books you love, other
    than Tom and maybe Gene, I probably won't like anyone they cast. Hal
    Holbrook isn't my choice for Oliver, is that who he's playing? I keep 
    seeing Richard Dysart (I know, he'd be too identified with LA Law), or 
    maybe even Leslie Nielsen (how's that for breaking his typecasting?)
    
    Oh well, I guess I'd better see the movie ........
    
    
    Marilyn
    
    

    I read the book and didn't think the wife was "drop dead gorgeous" as
    described; pretty, but not beautiful.  I think Jeanne Tripplehorn is an
    odd choice, too, but I don't think she looks younger than Tom Cruise. 
    I thought her role with Michael Douglas was mismatched because HE
    looked so OLD!  (Why DO they have him in all the sexually graphic
    movies, anyway??  Ugh!)
    
    I also thought the book was highly overrated and now I'm mad that I
    ordered "The Client" from a book club ... oh, well.
    
    Leslie

    FWIW, A time to Kill, Grisham's first book, is much better than the
    Firm (better written anyway and that's what counts).
    
    
    kim

    Jeanne Tripplehorn was just in a movie (The Night We Didn't Meet, or
    something like that) where she played Matthew Broderick's girlfriend. 
    If she can play opposite Matthew Broderick with his babyface, she ought
    to be able to play opposite Tom Cruise!
    
    I think she looks young enough.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .5
    
    With regards to the wife being drop-dead gourgeous, there are several 
    scenes in the book, especially in restaurants, where Mitch is talking
    (to himself) about how his wife (what WAS her name, Abby?) always turns 
    heads. To me, some one like that has to be d-d g.....
    
    
    Marilyn

  >>  FWIW, A time to Kill, Grisham's first book, is much better than the
  >>  Firm (better written anyway and that's what counts).

	Interesting.  I'm reading _The Firm_ now, and was with a couple
	of my avid-reader friends last weekend, who said the same thing.
	Have to check that one out next...

    re: -.8
    
    I've seen lots of people who turned people's heads who weren't DDG!!!
    
    I admit the book said she was very pretty, but not DDG.

    
    Well, I saw it last nigh. I didn't like it for the most part. I think
    if you haven't read the book, or if you read it long ago and didn't
    retain any details, your chances of liking it are far more than those 
    who enjoyed and remember the book in great detail.
    
    As I thought, Jeanne Triplehorn didn't look the way I thought she
    should, they didn't even try to make her look pretty. She did a good
    acting job, as did most of the people, but the story was changed too
    much, and not for the better.
    
    It was way too long, it really could've been cut about 30 minutes if
    they hadn't changed the way the story goes, in my opinion they only
    made it more convoluted and it required the extra time to make it work.
    
    Some spoilers follow:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Spoilers:
    
    
    I don't like the way they changed it so that Mitch ends up telling Abby
    about the affair, I suppose that was a way of showing what a nice guy
    he really was, then, after doing that, they had to have Avery come on
    to Abby so that she would have a reason for going to the Cayman
    Islands. In the book, I'm not sure how much they knew each other,
    certainly not enough for him to know where she worked.
    
    The brother bothered me, he was a good actor, but couldn't they find 
    someone who looked a *little* like Tom? 
    
    In the new Hollywood way, they also made the FBI look just as bad as 
    the "bad guys". They never intended to double-cross Mitch in the book.
    
    Lastly, what a disappointment at the way they are able to close the
    Firm. Overbilling?! In the book, even though it ran out of steam at the
    end, Mitch and Abby end up running from everyone, but here they tie it
    up so nicely, he gets the mob to realize they can't kill him, the FBI
    gets what they want, and he is free to go be a lawyer somewhere else. 

    I saw The Firm Wednesday last night, and I must say -- it was a 
    RIVETING 2 hours and 42 minutes. I didn't budge from my seat at all -- 
    squirmed a little, but didn't budge. Very suspenseful and intense.  
    Since I rarely read fiction, and _never_ read a book before its movie, 
    I had nothing to compare it to/against.
    
    I thought the three main performances -- Tom Cruise, Gene Hackman, and
    Jeanne Tripplehorn -- were all Oscar-worthy. It's a definite must-see,
    and a repeat-see for me. Gary Busey was perfectly cast as a private
    investigator, and Holly Hunter as his secretary was also very good.
    
    9.5/10
    
    Catherine
    

    
    	Not really a spoiler, but just in case...
    
    
    
    	Anyone notice that, as the Cruise character was printing computer
    files out on a LaserWriter, one could distinctly hear a line printer?
    
    								Les

    Having completed the book less than a month before I saw the movie,
    I closely watched for changes.  There were parts of the movie that 
    were lifted verbatim from the book; there were other parts that were
    dramatically changed.  The two most severe changes were to the ending
    and what happened with the copying of files in the Caymans.  I'll put
    my comments after the obligatory spoiler.
    
    
    First, the good news:  I actually liked the ending.  The overbilling
    bit was maybe somewhat hokey, but it worked for me, especially in
    regard to how it got Mitch out from under the Mob's ... er, ... ah, 
    attention. ;-)   I was thrilled to see one of my favorite actors, Paul
    Sorvino, as one of the two guys from Chicago.  They certainly did NOT
    look like happy campers when they got off the plane in Memphis!!!  I
    roared out loud when I first saw their expressions!
    
    Now the bad news:  I hated Mitch telling his wife about the fling on
    the beach, but I guess in the screenwriter's eyes it legitimized her
    going to the Caymans to be with Tolar.  To me that made absolutely no
    sense!  Tolar would NOT go to the school, she would not follow him to
    do what she did.  The book handled this whole scene much better.
    
    Two minor nits:  the coincidence of the wife and kids on Mud Island was
    too much to be believed.  I missed the Florida coast of the book. 
    Also, I never got the feeling for how much The Firm overworked Mitch,
    which formed the basis for the entire story.  They should have made
    that more clear in the movie.
    
    NAZZ

    
    When you go see the movie, "The Firm", listen for this song, M-O-N-E-Y.
    It was on the "Pontiac" album that Lyle did back in 1987, but it got 
    dusted off and used in the soundtrack.  Some of the lyrics are shown below:
    
    
    "She's got emerald eyes.
     She's got ruby lips.
     She's got diamonds on her mind.
     If you want that girl, 
     Son, what you need is
     Some M
          O
          N
          E 
          Y!"
     
    
    By Lyle Lovett
    
    
    
    Bill
    

    
    I didn't read the book, so I guess I'll enjoy the movie.
    
    Dave
    
    

    I didn't read the book before I saw the movie. I really liked
    it and felt I kept up with all the details. I just stared
    reading the book last night and I think I'll enjoy that as well.
    
    I loved Gene Hackman!  
    
    Jodi- 

    I didn't read the book, and I did enjoy the movie.  I thought the
    thriller aspects of the film were okay, but I also liked the humor and
    I especially liked the interplay and motivations of the various
    characters.

    Regarding some of the earlier comments in this topic:

    1) What is all this talk about Jeanne Triplehorn not being attractive? 
    I personally have no complaints.

    Spoiler for the rest:

    
    2) Not having read the book, I wasn't startled by Mitch's decision
    to tell his wife about his indiscretion.  This was because it came
    right after the blackmail attempt.  It seemed to me that the motivation
    for coming clean to his wife was because he felt that he had no choice
    but to circumvent the blackmail threat.  He was clearly desperate and
    apparently felt that it was better to endanger his marriage now than to
    be controlled indefinately by blackmail.
    
    3) Although I didn't read the book, I did infer from the movie that he
    was overworked by the firm.  Maybe the movie didn't stress this point
    as much as the book did, but I still got the point.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    
    Thinking back on the movie, my only complaint was that I didn't
    really have a clue who Kozinski and Hodge (the two associates
    killed early in the film) were.  So it was pretty hard to 
    understand Lamar's state of mind (the springkler and lawn chair
    scene) when Mitch and Abbey came for dinner. 
    
    Jodi-

    Jodi, good point on Kozinski and Hodge.  (I haven't read the book
    either.)
    
    My take on Jeanne Tripplehorn's looks: different in every scene, almost
    distractingly so.  I wouldn't call her unattractive, but depending on
    lighting, angle, and hair style (and hair color was very inconsistent
    throughout) she ran the gamut in the "attractive" range.  IMHO.
    
    Spoiler nits:
    I've seen _The_Firm_ twice (2nd time cheerfully accompanying a friend
    who hadn't seen it), and the first time, when Mitch makes his leap out
    the window and lands on the cotton trailer, I said "Oh come ON.... how
    conVENient."  But on second viewing, the trailer was there every day in
    the same alley (obviously serving the Cotton Building next door).
    
    When Abby decides to leave him, they have their real fight in the
    backyard, with Abby sitting in the swing.  What makes them think the
    backyard isn't bugged?  It apparently *wasn't* bugged, in the movie,
    but it seems to me that The Firm would've had every square inch of the
    property wired.
    
    The "Wong Brothers" Chinese restaurant seems like a book-only inside
    joke.  In the Cambridge apartment scene I didn't notice them talking
    about it... on 2nd viewing I heard Abby say she couldn't remember having
    laughed since the Wong Brothers.  Huh?  When Abby wanted to recreate
    the good old days (watching Star Search), the food was going to be
    pizza.  Where was this Wong Brothers reference that I apparently missed
    twice?
    
    Agreed that Lamar's wife showing up on Mud Island was too much.  Why
    Mud Island?  Just the biggest local tourist trap, so he could get lost
    for a while?  And where did Ray's boat *go*... he has to put in to port
    somewhere, sometime for supplies...
    
    Leslie  

    Loved the movie.  I agree with many of the objections already discussed,
    but felt overall the movie was absorbing and enjoyable.  I'd see it again.
    
    Ray's boat (spoiler):
    
    ... must have gone to the Caymans.  Wasn't it whats-his-name's boat
    that was used to ferry the copied records from Cayman to U.S.A?
    
    Except I wonder how a convicted felon could get a passport on such
    short notice, but what the hey.
    
      John

    
    re: .21
    
    On the Wong Brothers:
    
    Mitch mentions the name of the restaurant in the course of describing
    the dinner he's laid out when Abby comes home, immediately after his
    interview with The Firm.
    
    DFW

    My comments about the movie:
    
    I liked it but found it a little bizzare that for all the playing up of
    Mitch's devotion to his wife in the movie, the only time we see him
    passionately getting it on with someone is with the woman on the beach
    who he helped after a "mock attack".  I know there were some brief
    scenes of him hugging his wife, etc., but no seen with his wife was as
    intense as the beach sex scene.  Wonder what the screen writers were
    trying to tell the audience by arranging things this way?
    
    Another interesting aspect of the movie was hearing Wilfred
    whats-his-name, the guy who played the private-eye in the movie, say
    the f-word once or twice.  I mean after seeing him in the movie ,"Country"
    as Jessica Lange's father, and after seeing him on cereal commercials 
    saying, "It just makes good sense."  He's wholesome to the core, right?
    I just didn't think the man was capable of such language or capable of 
    playing such a bad guy.
    
    The other think I liked about the movie was the ELVIS character.  He
    was great, even though he didn't get much time on screen and very little
    in the way of actual lines.
    
    
    Bill

    In the book, there were several scenes where Mitch and his wife
    became extremely passionate; in fact, they got it on almost anywhere,
    at any time.  He truly adored her in the book, which made his
    submerging himself in work and the conflicts that occurred between them
    as a result all the more believable.  THe relationship betwen them in
    the book was much more clearly defined.
    
    NAZZ

    I thought they seemed pretty happy in the movie, too, until he started
    staying so late at the office and ignoring her.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    In reading some of the comments on the movie's not detailing the
    overworking of Mitch, something came to mind....
    
    Marilyn
    
    Spoiler follows:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Spoiler:
    
    If I hadn't read the book, the party where they notified Mitch that he 
    had received the second-highest score on the Bar exam would have been
    kind of perplexing. As it was, what I thought they didn't show, was how
    much he had to work and that he only really had 3 days to prepare for
    the Bar. By skipping it, they could have done away with all the "by the
    way, no one from this firm has failed the Bar" comments, which really
    didn't work as well in the movie, for the above reason as in the book.
    
    Re. Mitch telling Abby about the one-night stand. In the book, he is
    also being blackmailed by De Vasher (was that his name?) with the
    pictures, but he does not tell Abby. IMHO, the book portrayed a "real"
    human being, with virtues and flaws alike, not the goody two-shoes 
    Mitch of the movie. The fact that they changed his character,
    necessitated all the other changes that did not "fit" the movie Mitch.
    That's the part I didn't like about the movie. This book was a best
    seller, why is it that movie makers don't respect the maturity of the
    movie-going public enough to show flawed heroes? Only in Clint Eastwood
    movies can you see them, it seems to me.
    
      

    RE:  Note 206.27
    
    > That's the part I didn't like about the movie. This book was a best
    > seller, why is it that movie makers don't respect the maturity of the
    > movie-going public enough to show flawed heroes?
    
    It's taken a while for this to sink in for me, but a 
    best-seller *book* gets only a tiny, tiny fraction
    of the readership that a blockbuster *movie* gets in
    viewership.  The audiences are not disjoint, but the
    the "movie audience" is the one that has to be served.
    
    As I saw all the people lining up for "The Firm", I 
    said, "Wow, maybe `reading' is really on the up-swing
    in America -- look at all these people coming to see
    John Grisham's book."  My wife correctly informed me
    that "all these people" are coming to see a Tom-Cruise-
    movie!
    
    If you can't enjoy both book and movie, give up on one 
    of them, I guess.  :-)
    
    			dick
    

    
    In the book I remember that they would go out for walks an awful lot
    when they wanted to not be heard by the firm.
    
    Also, my personal opinion was that it would be hard to directly 
    bug the backyard.  Maybe the bugs in the house could overhear, but
    they turned the stereo up loudly.

    A hundred thousand copies sold is doing good for a book; a million
    copies sold is outstanding.
    
    One million people going to a (non-artsy) movie is a failure.
    Ten million breaks even; one hundred million makes fortunes.
    
    I've seen estimates that there are only about a million
    "serious" readers in the country.
    
    		-John Bishop

    
    With respects to the book vs. the movie, the fact is that they didn't
    give the "movie" audience the chance to like Mitch flaws and all. As I 
    stated, the only leading actor who consistently (OK, that I can think
    of) protrays flawed heroes is Clint Eastwood, and it hasn't hurt hum
    any.
    
    Maybe it would be hard for Tom Cruise fans to see him play a guy who is
    not perfect, but I think the book Mitch was a much deeper person and 
    one who grew up more than in the movie. 
    
    True, both media are different, but I enjoy both, and so do a lot of
    other people that read. I think a lot of people can enjoy a movie whose 
    characters are not cartoony (meaning all bad or all good). But we
    rarely get a chance to show it.
    
    
    Marilyn

    re .30
    You are confusing copies with dollars. If a movie made 100 million
    dollars only 20 million people paid to see the movie of that
    as much as  30 perecent are multi viewings by individuals.
    The more money the movie makes the higher the percent of 
    repeat viewings
      There is no doubt more people see a movie than read a book
    but the difference in closer to 10 to one than 100 to one.
    
    Also you movie numbers are off a major film cost between 20 and 50
    million dollar and block buster run up to 100 million dollars.
    A movie needs to make twice it's cost in gross earnings to
    break even usually(actors share, directors share, advertising, 
    movie theathers share). Any movie that make 100 dollars is a sucess
    Jurasic Park needs to make 160 million dollars to break even and
    over 200 million to consider a success. 
               Jeff Peters   
    

    Thanks for the varied responses to my nits in .21...
    
    And with regard to flawed heroes,
    That beach indiscretion may have been *set up* by the Firm, but Mitch
    certainly didn't have to rise to the occasion.  And he could have
    'fessed up to Abby earlier than he chose to.  So I don't call Mitch a 
    pristine character....
    
    On (not) bugging the backyard, I guess I figure that even back as far
    as James-Bond-movie technology, *anything* could be bugged reliably.  I
    know they overrode the indoor mikes with stereo volume; just wondering
    why they weren't paranoid out back.
    
    And I guess I believe that, given enough time, the FBI can find a fugitive 
    anywhere (it would take, what, 10 minutes to guess the Caymans?) and figure
    out a way either to entice them into fair-game territory, or bend the law 
    enough to get them behind bars again.
    
    I loved the silly line about the 2 quarter horses....
    
    Leslie

    re .43, "bend the law"
    
    The US Supreme Court has already held that American law enforcement
    officials can sieze a person in a foreign country and bring them
    back for trial, etc., _no_matter_what_the_legal_situation_is_in_the
    foreign_country_!
    
    We've done this in countries which have no extradition treaty, and
    those that do ("would take too long; might not work" was the excuse);
    we've done this when the alleged offense was not a crime in the country
    concerned; we've done this to American citizens and to non-citizens.
    We've even siezed the head of state of a foreign country (Panama).
    
    So no place is safe.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Saw it, liked it.  By and large, better than the book, altho I didn't
    like the cop out ending in the movie.  (Didn't like the version in the
    book either, but you can't win 'em all).
    
    What I liked:
    
    Wilfred Brimley saying f***.  :)
    
    Mitch being a much more likable person in the movie.
    
    Gene Hackman.
    
    David Straithairn.
    
    Holly Hunter.
    
    Ed Harris.
    
    A considerable amount of the plot changes from the book to make the
    movie more suspenseful/flow better/etc.
    
    
    What I didn't like:
    
    The ending.  Too pat.
    
    The turning of Tarrance into a vertible ass (I liked him and felt
    considerably more sorry for him in the novel).
    
    The leaving out of what I thought were important facets of Mitch's
    tenure at the law firm: studying for the bar under such great pressures
    and limited time, the massive hours he put in, etc.  It looked like in
    the movie he just parked his butt there for a day or two and baddabing!
    suddenly he was embroiled in a mess.
    
    Overall:
    
    Not bad, really.  Better than to be expected.
    
    *** (a full .50 for Wilfred Brimley NOT acting like your grumpy old
    grandpa :)
    
    kim

    
    Finally went and paid my money (actually got in free, since the ticket
    person is a good friend of my daughter) and I liked the movie. 
    
    Enjoyed all the actors, especially Gene H. one of my favorites.
    
    I didn't think it was a great film, just entertaining and suspenseful.
    So I would give it 3 out of 4 stars. I enjoyed "In the Line of Fire
    more. And am planning on see the "Fugitive" this weekend.
    
    Dave
    
    

    Wilfred Brimley as a bad guy was great! After seeing that movie, my
    wife said "I'll never eat a bowl of hot oatmeal again!" Heck, after
    reading the book, I feel paranoid coming to work after hours, even with
    my badge :-}
    
    splr
    
    
    Where did they go in the boat? They cruised the more primitive islands
    in the Caribbean. After all, they were loaded with cash: almost 
    a million in the movie; and in the book, Mitch made a little wire
    transfer from one of the Morolto Family's accounts to push his balance
    to $10 million. After all, they had marked him for death already, so he
    couldn't do anything to make it worse.
    
    In this they had the help of the guy who owned a dive shop in the
    Cayman Islands. His son had been killed in the "diving accident" which
    killed two lawyers working for the Bendini firm, so he was willing to
    be helpful. He hooked them up with a guy named George who stole $10
    million twenty years before; since then George had been sailing around
    the islands. One of the poignant things about the book was that Mitch
    asked him whether he ever stopped looking over his shoulder, and George
    said that he still thinks about it from time to time.
    
    I thought this ending was great because, as a weekend sailor, I have
    always dreamed of cruising for a season or a few years. Mitch told
    Tarrance in the book that the Mob never forgets, and that no matter
    where in the US or even overseas that he went, they would eventually
    track him down. When I read that, I thought about the people I've read
    about who live aboard their boats. They sail for weeks or months from
    one port to another in the Pacific or Caribbean, and during that time
    *nobody( knows where they are! So I enjoyed it when Mitch decided to
    escape in excactly that way.
    
    I preferred the book, but must admit that the movie impressed me in a
    couple ways. Mitch *did* find an interesting middle ground that would
    bring down the firm, keep the FBI happy, and prevent the Mob from
    killing him. And since he really loved the law, it was important that
    he find a way not to be disbarred. There were some good points about
    doing the ethical thing, like preserving client confidentiality no
    matter who the client is. We joke so often about lawyers that it was
    refreshing to be reminded that they do have their ethics. Some of 'em,
    anyway. :-)
    \				Jim

    
    Great movie!  
    
    We watched it Sundaynight.. my hubby and I are allwasy in bed (asleep)
    buy 10:00 the latest.. we started to watch the Firm at 9:00ish..we
    thought we'd shut it off and come back to it later..WRONG!
    
    We didn't move from our seats... we were rivited and enjoyed
    every moment of it!!!  We didn't get to sleep until 1:00!  We
    still had so much hydrelian(sp) pumping through our bodies to
    go sleep.
    
    We have not made it up that late in years...
    
    Great Movie
    
    lkp

    I finally read the book, which made for interesting comparison.  The
    book is essentially all plot; the movie added a little depth, but not
    much, to the characters.
    
    The ending was significantly different.  I think the ending in the book
    wasn't really "cinematic" -- too complicated and drawn out. 
    Unfortunately, I think the movie's ending was a little too much
    cinematic cliche.  At least it was neat to see two different solutions
    to the problem.

  I saw this movie on tape last week and I liked it a lot. Nothing heavy but
good entertainment that kept me on the edge of my seat.

  **** of 5,

  I agree with those who say that ...

SPOILER


  ... telling his wife was the smart thing to do because she would have been
a lot more ticked off if she had seen the pictures 1st. In the movie she asked
him why he told her and he said something about not being able to live without
her knowing but that was obviously B.S.

  It's a stretch to think that the Mob would just let them drive off into the
sunset, particularly to Boston, but it was, after all, a movie.

  Someone said the F.B.I. always gets their man/woman. Tell that to Katherin
Powers. She managed to hide out for a couple decades in Oregon. They had no
idea where she was.

  George

    
    We watched this last night :-
    
    SPOILER
    
    I felt the incident on the beach was totally out of character. I
    couldn't imagine Cruise's character leaping on this girl on the beach 
    after turning down the woman in the bar (who we presume he'd been
    talking with for a while). It was just plain wrong...if he'd spent the
    evening with the woman in the bar and then ended up sleeping with her,
    I'd have bought that...maybe.
    
    Also, the overbilling seemed crazy! Here was a company with mob
    connections making a few bucks on diddling customers on their bills?
    If it had been an oversight on one or two customer's accounts, I may
    have believed that, but a general policy? No...didn't fly...
    
    A pity really, because overall I quite enjoyed the film. Cruise was OK,
    the wife I didn't like, she seemed to wallow in self inflicted
    suffering, which didn't fit with her initial doubts, and her role at the 
    end didn't fit with either! Holly Hunter was great (a small part, but 
    her character shone out), as was Hackman (but I usually like him - his
    character was possibly the best - crooked, but decent, sort of.).
    
    Only other complaint is that I agree the film was a little too long.
    The should've cut 30 minutes, but it seems these days that all
    'serious' films are over 2 hours. 
      
    Mark

    
    After reading the book, I finally seen the flick.
    
    spoiler
    
    
     I did not like the movie at all. There were way too many changes made.
    I understand that it is difficult to adapt most aspects of a book into
    a movie, but the entire ending was changed. I think that they should've
    kept the ending as it is in the book. It would be more exciting to the
    movie goer and keep the people that are sticklers for accuracy (like
    me) happy.
    
    Dave