Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Channel 4 11pm tonight.
Screen version of Irvine Welsh's 1998 novel of the same name. I thought this was one of Welsh's best books, on a par with "Marabou Stork Nightmares" and better than "Trainspotting". I haven't seen this film before and will be interested to see how they handle the difficult nature of the writing style.
Screen version of Irvine Welsh's 1998 novel of the same name. I thought this was one of Welsh's best books, on a par with "Marabou Stork Nightmares" and better than "Trainspotting". I haven't seen this film before and will be interested to see how they handle the difficult nature of the writing style.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
|
By:
Good film but the book is so good the film isnt ever going to get near it.
|
|
By:
decent film
|
|
By:
I'm out after 15 minutes. Seems to be trying too hard, or maybe I'm just getting a bit old for films like this.
Trainspotting was excellent but not sure I'll enjoy the follow up? |
|
By:
In the book is he the murderer ?
|
|
By:
Enough! Horrible, vile, disgusting sihte.
|
|
By:
A well named film then
 |
|
By:
no p**fs in the masons or is it no catholics?
|
|
By:
should've got Robert Carlyle to play the lead.
|
|
By:
Same rules apply
 |
|
By:
Saville was a mason so plenty wrong uns
|
|
By:
http://www.charliefoulkes.co.uk/truth/savile.html
Frank Bruno with Saville and Sutcliffe  |
|
By:
Only one 'l' in Savile
Don't go mixing him up with anyone else. |
|
By:
Thanks for correcting
|
|
By:
Only one 'l' in Culvin as well, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Oh hell, I wish I hadn't watched it now. Doesn't do justice to the book at all and over sensationalises certain aspects of it. It's just a confusing mess with lots of distortions and would make little sense at all if I hadn't read the book first.
Definite thumbs down  |
|
By:
TheChaser
TheChaser 11 Dec 16 23:24 Joined: 23 May 12 | Topic/replies: 36,442 | Blogger: TheChaser's blog In the book is he the murderer ? Spoiler alert to anyone who wants to read the book. The chaser, in the opening scene it is hinted that the murderer is a woman who finds the victim (who is black, not Japanese) already injured from a gang attack and finishes him off with a hammer. Presumably, they changed this in the film because of the non-pc nature of the subsequent language. It is later revealed, as in the film, that Bruce cross-dresses, taking on the persona of his wife and in this mode, carried out the murder. There is a motive for this, so ambiguous in the film that you would not have been able to spot it. Lots of changes in the film and what is a 5 to 10 hour read condensed down to 90 minutes. |
|
By:
kenny mann
kenny mann 11 Dec 16 23:54 Joined: 29 Apr 10 | Topic/replies: 34,431 | Blogger: kenny mann's blog Enough! Horrible, vile, disgusting sihte. My apologies for flagging this up Kenny  |
|
By:
It's cos his ex is going with a darkie innit
So is he supposed to have finished of the Chinese dude at the start in the Film? I never knew he was the killer until i read about the book |
|
By:
Yes, that's right, only it wasn't a Chinese dude he finished off in the book.
The film didn't make it clear why he was demoted either. Inspector Toale realised that Robertson had committed the racist murder but they fitted up the gang of thugs instead. There is much more in the book that the film glossed over or doesn't even try to tackle as it completely focusses on the sordid aspects. You could say it loses the plot . |
|
By:
I watched the film last year or so and thought it was good but then i read a bit about the book and realised it said his colleagues covered for him as the killer.
So if i had read the book beforehand i would have been thinking what's going on here. |
|
By:
In the film are we supposed to know he killed the chinese guy as i don't think i noticed
So in the book he kills the black guy due to his ex being with a back guy who we see in the supermarket near the end but they switched it to the japanese/chinese dude in the film. |
|
By:
I thought the book was very well written but not for the faint hearted. If you liked the film then you will enjoy the book as it's so much better.
|
|
By:
In the film are we supposed to know he killed the chinese guy as i don't think i noticed
They only showed him approaching the Chinese guy who was on the floor in a pool of blood so you are led to believe that he died as a result of the mugging. This is completely at odds with the book. The part about his younger brother being asphyxiated under the coal pile wasn't explained either and this is a key part of his character development which I won't detail in case you read the book but it's also linked in with the ending, the irony of which was missed out of the film too. I can't see how Irvine Welsh would have been happy with this apart from receiving the royalties. |
|
By:
I thought there was more to it with his brother when i seen it and i agree i'm surprised Welsh would be happy to leave out some of the most important parts.
|
|
By:
The book focuses on the psychology and motivation of the characters causing them to interact in the way they do. This is interspersed with graphic detail but makes a coherent whole. The film just focussed on the sex and violence brushing out anything else.
It reminds me in some ways of "Clockwork Orange" and as I've only seen that film, perhaps I ought to read Burgess's novel too. |
|
By:
maybe wouldve been better to have it in a 'life on mars' tv series typd format. Opposed to squashing everything in a missing things out within 90 minutes.
|
|
By:
The author wants to try and write something with a bit of proper violence innit. I think he's stuck between wanting to be 'Cubby' Selby Jnr or Walt Disney..
He's also stuck in a House Music - Ecstasy time warp.. |
|
By:
*type
|
|
By:
My apologies for flagging this up Kenny
That's ok Foinavon. We can't all have cultured interest in film like wot I have. |
|
By:
What's that Kenny Pakistanis getting beaten up in the streets
|
|
By:
Because at the start a coloured fella get's killed are you now interested
 |
|
By:
Bloody Pakistani thread. You've got a good memory.
|
|
By:
Agree that the film skipped important parts of the book (hard to know how they would have tackled a talking tapeworm though) - best thing about the film was James McAvoy for me, never thought he would come close to playing the role but he did really well with it
|
|
By:
The talking tapeworm was an innovative device for placing a voice in the mind providing flashbacks to Bruce's childhood. The film included a bit of that in the flashback to the death of the younger brother Dave. The full significance of Dave wasn't explained at all in the film so not enough time was given to the little voice in my opinion.
|
|
By:
What did you think of the book Father Maguire?
|
|
By:
Is the film watchable (ie will I understand it) without having read the book?
|
|
By:
Yes AKA i never read the book and followed it
If no book read then you won't know what is missing You will probably know more about it than me with the mason side of it |
|
By:
Ah right so that brick laying course will finally prove worthwhile.
|