NOT.
It was obvious to anyone that the "funny", comic relief" neighbour would turn out to be the killer.
Definitely not one of Eastwoods best. Apart from that lame "twist", the movie was actually decent. Too bad a typical, cliche Hollywood ending ruined it.
It is a shame that such a bad adaptation ruined things. The book is one of my all time favorites. So when this movie came out, I was looking forward to it. However, none of the details are the same. In the book Buddy has NOTHING to do with the killings. The killer in the book is a bit player in the movie that only has one scene. Won't tell you who because you may want to read the book.
shareAgree with the 2nd poster. Making Buddy the killer was asinine and utterly ruined the movie. The Lincoln Lawyer is a FAR better Connelly adaptation.
This is Eastwood's worst film...
There is one argument for changing an adaptation: to give audiences something new. If the book was already very popular and everyone knows going in who the killer is, why even make the movie? I've always assumed that's why every film adaptation has something different, to keep it fresh. I wouldn't want to see a thriller/whodunnit if the story was already known, I enjoy being surprised.
=========
wait for iiiiit...
I found the whole movie to be kind of boring, and middle of the road, and yes, the twist ending was just the cherry on top. Stupid.
___
http://tinyurl.com/bscd3tw
Yeah it was very obvious.
share