The book is ten times better then the movie, they turned it into a hollywood blockbuster like they always do. the only thing the same is pretty much the character names. first off george clarke in the book is white and hes racist towards black people. if they would of actuallly followed the book and not of used steven segal as the main actor it could of actually been a good movie!
shareI might just do that. Thanks for the heads up ;)
shareIn all seriousness, one of the reasons why adaptations of existing material ends up becoming questionable is due to Too Many Cooks Spoiling The Broth in the form of producers, director, actors, and even assorted crewmembers contributing their ideas on how to "fix" a perfectly workable script.
shareOriginal poster here is dead on. The movie has absolutely nothing in common with the novel, aside from the character names, the fact the lead has a pick-up truck and the overall "corrupt cop" environment. The plot, tone and characterizations are COMPLETELY different from the film. While it may be an okay Seagal flick, it's not even remotely like the book.
The book is a realistic, often darkly-funny, character study about a broken-down cop who finds personal redemption when he is reassigned to the worst station in his department. When he butts-up against corrupt cops, he finds his salvation in turning the tables on them. It's got a sort of MASH meets SERPICO vibe to it, with really well-drawn characters some that some big-name actors could've really sunk their teeth into.
The sad thing is, I actually read a draft of EXIT WOUNDS before it got re-developed into the Seagal version and it was really good -- much closer to the book in tone and plot. The movie that actually got made is completely different, and has nothing to do with the original book or some of the earlier screeplay drafts.
Not to bag on the movie, which is an ok, middle-of-the-road action flick, but it was interesting to see how a movie can start life as one thing, but end up becoming something else entirely.