I guess it depends on how much you really care about the changes. I did it the other way around; saw the film, loved it, then read the novel (and agree with you - it's brilliant). As far as adaptations of novels go, it's reasonably faithful; yes lots of characters get chopped out and their lines get reassigned, the miners barely get a mention in the film and General Peach and the cavalry none at all; and the endings of various characters are quite different ... but the film was well done, I think and I rate it highly in its own right. I hated the 'Bourne' films for what they did to the book - they were nothing like it at all. Warlock isn't that bad. The film and the book have a lot in common - plot, characters and themes; it's just all gone into in a great deal more detail in the book which isn't possible on screen, otherwise it'd be a mini-series. Not that that would have been a bad thing...
Blaisdell is dark and not blond, but when reading the book I could see Fonda; it was a good fit for character if not looks. Same for Gannon; I'm rather biased as I love Richard Widmark but I thought he played the conflicted, mistrusted Deputy very well. Kate/Lily is a lot nastier in the book and Jessie a lot tougher. Morgan isn't too far out, despite his club foot. And Abe has a moustache :-)
reply
share