News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: absolute power  (Read 3941 times)
joe kid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


my mistake...4 coffins!!!


View Profile Email
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:07:14 PM »

ill be watching this clint classic tonight,another fav of mine
great movie,and cast,gene hackman,another fav actor of mine,very seldom in a bad movie
good performances from,ed harris,laura linney,judy harris,scot glen,dennis haysbert,e.g.marshall
top notch thriller this,another great movie produced and directed by clint eastwood. O0 :)

any one else on here like this film :)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 06:20:43 PM by joe kid » Logged

you said when a man with a 45,meets a man with a rifle,the man with the pistol,will be a dead man,lets see if thats true.go ahead load up and shoot!!!
Hemlock
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2652



View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2011, 12:54:42 PM »

Should`ve been better film with a bunch of talents like Eastwood,Linney,Hackman,Harris,Glenn and so on but I find it a bit mediocre.
However it`s entertaining enough and I´ve been planing to give it another go in the near future  :)
Logged
The Schofield Kid
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 25017


All on account of pulling a trigger.


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2013, 03:32:47 PM »

I did read the book, but it was back in 1996, when I was only 13 years old or so, so forgive me if my memory is a bit sketchy. I do remember some things, and honestly, the book was completely different than the movie. If we're asking ourselves whether this followed the book, it didn't. I'm a bit at a loss as to major differences because the whole movie was a major difference. The only similarity between the film and the source material was the fact that a woman was killed by the President, and a cover up ensued. That's about it. The rest of the story was completely different.

Clint Eastwood and screenwriter William Goldman completely deconstructed and destroyed the story as it was written in the book. It still made an effective film, but it wasn't a faithful adaptation of the novel at all. You could have given it a completely different name. It really didn't bear barely any resemblance to the original story.

Some MAJOR differences that I could point out specifically are that for starters, Luther Whitney wasn't the main character. Luther as written in the book died halfway through, and a young lawyer named Jack Graham solved the mystery of the murder along with Seth Frank. Were these changes necessary? Obviously they were if Clint Eastwood was to remain the main character. Nobody would accept a movie version where Clint Eastwood died halfway through, and played a much smaller role than in the movie. Kate and Jack Graham were in a relationship, and if I remember correctly, I don't think Kate was related to Luther at all, but I could be wrong on that. I do remember that the whole father-daughter subplot was completely absent from the book, and that definitely was a strength in the movie that the book didn't have. I'm glad that was added in there, because it's probably the strongest element of the film, and resonated with a lot of people who saw the film. Other characters were deleted as well.

If I remember correctly, Walter Sullivan was assassinated by agents of the President. President Richmond didn't commit suicide, but was arrested and there was an epilogue discussing the possibilities of what would happen to him whether or not he'd get the death penalty. I think the character was pretty confident that he'd never get the death penalty. The book, as far as I can remember, was far more sexually explicit than the film, and I remember wondering how Clint was going to handle that, and I was glad to see that it had been severely toned down. There were a couple more sexual related scenes than the first one in the film, and in particular, that scene was severely toned down if I remember correctly. The Chief of Staff's character was also more important to the book than the movie, and if I remember correctly, she slept with both the President and Secret Service Agent Tim Collins, who also had a larger role in the book than in the film. She was far more manipulative in the book as well, and her character was more developed and less one dimensional.

There was also a lot more development as to how Luther picked the Sullivan household, what he secure records, or the combination to the safe, how he did all of the research that was required. If I remember correctly, one of the main things he did was get a job at a carpet cleaning company, and from that, he was able to be inside the house, look the place around, try to find a way to break the security, etc. It was far more interesting to see how he arrived at the spectacular break in, but I suppose there wasn't a lot of room for that in the movie. People probably didn't have a lot of patience for all that, and wanted to get close to the action.

This was probably one of the worst adaptations of a book that I've ever seen. If I was David Baldacci, I think I'd be outraged at the film version.

I don't think I'm being overly harsh here, either. The film beared almost no resemblance to the book. Please, I know some other members have read the book, and I invite you to please comment, because I read the book at such a young age, and it was a long time ago, and my memory of it isn't the clearest. I've tried to remember some of the things though. I hope I've been of some help.

Honestly, I think most of the changes were made to the film because Clint wanted to be the main character, and wouldn't accept a smaller role. Since he was the producer and director of the feature, he made a film that centered around him. I would have to say I would have been disappointed if Clint died halfway through the film, so I can see why he made some of the changes that he did, but at the same time, I think he could have been far more faithful to the book, and could have made less drastic changes than he did. There was no way as written that Clint Eastwood could have remained the star of the film. The drastic changes were made, in my view, because he knew he wanted to make a feature that centered around him. Secondarily, I think William Goldman and Clint Eastwood really wanted to simplify the story, and as it was, it may have been far too complex, so some of the characters were eliminated, motivations were completely changed, Clint turned out to be the most important character in the film version, and things just completley changed from there.   

I agree with AKA,

I just finished reading the book the film was based on and boy! What a shame the screenwriter altered the story so completely. I'll admit the book took a while to get into. I was 100 pages in and thinking, strewth, I still have 450 pages to go but then with the changes from the book to the film, I got interested.

In my opinion the film would have been much better had they stuck closer to the novel. I found the chase for the truth more riveting in the book. The character of Jack Graham isn't even in the film and Sandy Lord is more prominent.

And having Clint die halfway through the film, would have been a shock to his fans but it's the type of gamble Clint usually takes.
Logged

"Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3673



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2013, 02:22:59 PM »

I agree with AKA,

I just finished reading the book the film was based on and boy! What a shame the screenwriter altered the story so completely. I'll admit the book took a while to get into. I was 100 pages in and thinking, strewth, I still have 450 pages to go but then with the changes from the book to the film, I got interested.

In my opinion the film would have been much better had they stuck closer to the novel. I found the chase for the truth more riveting in the book. The character of Jack Graham isn't even in the film and Sandy Lord is more prominent.

And having Clint die halfway through the film, would have been a shock to his fans but it's the type of gamble Clint usually takes.

Hey Schofield! Thanks for weighing in on this. I am impressed that you referenced a post that I wrote ten years ago in your comments! That is pretty awesome! I know KC didn't like the book but I thought it was fantastic when I read it. That was back in 1997 though, so I couldn't tell you why if pressed. I also read William Goldman's account, who was the screenwriter for this film, and he seemed to really have a hard time adapting the film, largely because Eastwood decided that he wanted to be the main star of the film, and Goldman had to make so many changes to make that happen.

I agree that the book was better than the film but I thought in some ways Eastwood and Goldman's version was an improvement, since the most effective part of the film to me was the father/daughter story, and that was completely absent from the story as written. When I first saw the film, I was really upset at all the changes they made to the story, but when I learned to let go of the way that I wanted it to be I came to appreciate the film Eastwood made in a new way. I think that the film kind of fell apart in the end, but I'm not quite sure how I would have ended things differently. I feel like Eastwood playing Luther Whitney wouldn't have been viable without major changes. It isn't just that he dies halfway through the book. It's that he really wasn't a major character in the book. Having a star of Eastwood's caliber portray a character that just didn't have much to do  wouldn't have been accepted by the audience.
Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6769


You gotta be durable...real durable. Most ain't


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2013, 03:26:08 AM »

I havn't read the book but was dissapointed by the film... I havn't seen it in years but I seem to remember thinking it all seemed very rushed towards the end...
Maybe I should give the book a chance..
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
Perry
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1149


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2013, 08:35:46 PM »


The book was far superior. The Eastwood character in the book had a different ending.
Logged
Christopher
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2023, 07:24:05 PM »

I agree with AKA,

I just finished reading the book the film was based on and boy! What a shame the screenwriter altered the story so completely. I'll admit the book took a while to get into. I was 100 pages in and thinking, strewth, I still have 450 pages to go but then with the changes from the book to the film, I got interested.

In my opinion the film would have been much better had they stuck closer to the novel. I found the chase for the truth more riveting in the book. The character of Jack Graham isn't even in the film and Sandy Lord is more prominent.

And having Clint die halfway through the film, would have been a shock to his fans but it's the type of gamble Clint usually takes.
I know the book and movie are older now, but hopefully people don't mind the spoilers. I haven't read the book but was aware of this anyhow. I read somewhere that the assumption was that Clint would play the detective, but then Clint wanted it changed to have Luther be the lead character, and that he would play him.

I just watched Absolute Power for the first time in quite a few years. It's not an all-time favorite but I've always enjoyed it. If anything, it might take a little too much time getting into it.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T