I watched LA Confidential last night because I read the book and was surprised how enjoyable it was. The movie took a lot out for brevity but a lot is lost in what was removed.
The book isn’t good, and it’s a bit long, but it never commits the crime of being boring. The stakes are much higher, and whilst it becomes predictable as you realise all the sub plots are tied together, it’s still a fun read to see it all tie off.
The main thing I was interested in was who they cast as Ed Exley, and our own Guy Pierce does an amazing job. An unexpected pull but he fills the role well. He has the acting chops that if they fleshed out his character more he could have played the transactional coward with the thin veneer of the department golden boy.
Russel Crowe was the other main character, and Simon Baker made an appearance. It’s funny that a movie about LA is full of Australian actors.
I think a screen adaptation needed to be either longer to include everything, or somehow cut out even more to focus on the most interesting part at the end.
I’d give the book maybe 3/5 hobbits and the movie probably 2-2.5/5. It’s crazy the film got marked for preservation by the American Film Association or whatever, there should be a rule against including inferior adaptations of already average source material.
I watched LA Confidential last night because I read the book and was surprised how enjoyable it was. The movie took a lot out for brevity but a lot is lost in what was removed.
The book isn’t good, and it’s a bit long, but it never commits the crime of being boring. The stakes are much higher, and whilst it becomes predictable as you realise all the sub plots are tied together, it’s still a fun read to see it all tie off.
The main thing I was interested in was who they cast as Ed Exley, and our own Guy Pierce does an amazing job. An unexpected pull but he fills the role well. He has the acting chops that if they fleshed out his character more he could have played the transactional coward with the thin veneer of the department golden boy.
Russel Crowe was the other main character, and Simon Baker made an appearance. It’s funny that a movie about LA is full of Australian actors.
I think a screen adaptation needed to be either longer to include everything, or somehow cut out even more to focus on the most interesting part at the end.
I’d give the book maybe 3/5 hobbits and the movie probably 2-2.5/5. It’s crazy the film got marked for preservation by the American Film Association or whatever, there should be a rule against including inferior adaptations of already average source material.
Great soundtrack.
Elroy is definitely an interesting writer and I kinda like his terse writing style
but he is very in your face and that takes getting used to
the movie reminds me of Bonfire of the Vanities, a sweeping saga that tries to do too much , is voyeuristic , yet still very enjoyable