Rare instance where the movie is better than the book.

I never read the book, and I "happened" upon this movie one day. I remember hearing so much about it but had no interest. I just happened to watch it on one of the even days of my life ... and I got it.

For the average movie-goer these days, this film would turn out to be nothing. But what I got was a look at a messed-up family. A real disintegrating family withut all the "violence" to prove the point. A dad who worked so much he didn't realize he was working away from his wife, a daughter whose mother/daughter relationship was irrevocably broken, the younger daughter who had no real parenting or discipline or acknowledgement of growing up or having friends, how money may or may not change things, and what is important in life when you are faced with opposition from both sides knowing you must do the right thing.

It plays like an older soap-opera, it can be seen as a 'downer' movie, but I see it as a slice of life. As close to a real pattern than most films if they tried to get on this type of subject matter today. Not pretty perfect people (but set against 'paradise' to some), no big explosions - just lies, greed and death. I found it easy to follow as it plays almost like an improv at many points. No one wants to see that in a film today. Too bad. I'm glad at least one film did...this one.

The only exercise you get is jumping to conclusions! - 1947

I read the book last year, and only just now saw the movie, and I have to differ.

I did really enjoy the movie, don't get me wrong. I even plan to buy it now (rented it tonight).

But I found the book very engaging and oddly the book has more laugh out loud moments than the film. The book also has such a beautiful writing style - simple and elegant - that it's a joy.

Final analysis, I like them both about the same but for different reasons. The book made me laugh more, amid the sadness and drama, and the film had great performances and other things going for it.

I read the book first on Kindle. Late at night. The movie theaters were closed. Couldn't put it down until I'd finished. Saw the movie a few days later. I, too, enjoyed the book way more because of the details and the different look at Hawaiian culture, of which I am a part. But that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie or looking at George Clooney. Wow, he's a looker, I stop to watch it whenever I catch it on TV for the music and Clooney. One of my all time favorite movies.

I read the book first, then saw the movie not long after. There were several things in the book that could've easily been in the movie to make it better, so I have to go with the book being better.

1. The problems Scottie had with talking to her mom while she was in the coma,
2. How Scottie's frenemy Lani had been mean to her at Lani's last birthday party; and Reina's involvement in the psychological bullying of Lani,
3. Joanie/Elizabeth's involvement pushing the Holitzer purchase which would've enriched her boyfriend Brian,
4. The sea urchins spines Scottie hit to hurt herself, and the man-of-wars she swam with and how Matt knew how to take care of her
5. Matt's helping Brian's son swim in the current.

There was also the addition of the introduction to all the cousins who were helping Matt analyze the bids. That wasn't necessary and I don't remember it being in the book.

Just adding those five things would take less than a few minutes but would've added immeasurably to the story, especially the character development. Anybody else miss things from the book?


www.freerice.com