I read the book the film is based on, and the book lacked character development, depicted the four missionaries as vile, racist, egocentric, and contumelious, the dialogue and inner thoughts for all the characters were unrealistic and exaggerated, the few biblical quotes cited by Peter were not necessarily applicable to the situation or powerful, many paragraphs seemed hastily written and scatalogical - as if the writer was high on drugs, and the entire book lacked vivid descriptions of the rainforest - Peter listed different species of mammals and amphibians, as if he copied-and-pasted a list of mammals and amphibians from a science textbook, but he failed to describe them or the actual rainforest itself. He demoralized all the characters, including Lewis Moon.
This is the first b disliked, in fact I cannot even remember the last time I disliked a work of fiction, the film adaptation suffered from the book's discursiveness and hebetude, and the director miscast three of the missionaries and Lewis Moon; the four looked nothing like nor acted like their counterparts.
Martin was not supposed to be as old as he was depicted and he was supposed to be bulky and red-faced and on the verge of explosion, Leslie was supposed to be drop-dead gorgeous and vain with an atheletic build, and Andy was supposed to be petite and with a beautiful face [Daryl Hannah looks masculine].
And Lewis Moon was 100% Native American, not white, a Native American should have been cast in the role.
reply
share
Zoomorph
14 years ago
Because all movie adaptations have to be the same as the book, amirite?
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~
reply
share