Damn the book was a lot better.
There were so many things changed or not added in the movie that would have made it a lot better..
-Eileen Wade as the killer of Wade and Slyvia..
-Marlowe was too damn goofy in this..
-the ending what?
Well, can you list (with spoilers) the biggest differences that make the book better? The filmmakers have said that this was (semi-serious) satire first and book adaptation second.
shareHere are some of the changes that bugged me most about the movie.
Terry Lennox and Marlowes friendship was explained more in the book. Lennox was not this sleazy bad guy at the end of the book and he didn't kill his wife. The movie had no mystery and things just happened with no private eye work from Marlowe. Eileen Wade murdered Roger Wade and Lennoxs wife. Eileen Wade in general was wasted in the movie. Marlowe is not that goofy in the book and he does just stand there like an idiot when someone hits him. Marlowe does not kill Lennox at the end of the book. He finds out that Lennox used him and is upset about that.. The over all tone of the movie was way too silly. I don't get how this movie was semi-serious at all. No naked girls doing yoga next to Marlowes house. Marlowe didn't have no damn cat. No weird scene with the bad guys taking off all their clothes? The scenes added to the movie were ridiculous and the scenes taken out would have been a lot better.
I completely agree that Eileen Wade as a character was completely wasted in the movie. And the part of the plot I didn't care for at all was that whole part about her and her writer husband.
It's true that there's definitely a lot of comedy (as I've said, the filmmakers wanted it that way), but cynicism of the world Marllow's in prevails under the skin none the less. There's also several very serious moments - the police treatment, the bottle to the face, the whole character of the writer husband and the ending. Then again, there's some unnecessary padding as well.
Bottom line, I see where you're coming from.