Books (1 subject)

Recently read a novel called "The Ruins" by Scott Smith.

This has to be THE most boring work of fiction I have ever read. 

Supposedly a horror story,  I really, really struggled to get through it. 

And I like reading !! 

But not this one !

So it was a remarkable coincidence (if you believe and trust in such things:- if not then put it down to fate, or The Cosmic Joker) that the very day after I finally struggled to the end of the book, the BBC showed the film of it. I was curious to see if the film was as boring as the book. Or more horrifying. Or less. Scott Smith wrote his own screenplay for the movie and he did a reasonable job of condensing the story into a feature length film.

Leaving out the sex bits of course. Which were nothing to do with the story anyway, really.  (So why write them in the book ??)

But, without giving away either the end of the book or the end of the film, suffice it to say that, in keeping with Hollywood's (and probably America's) demands that every film has a happy ending, therefore giving rise to the erroneous assumption  that "life" will also have a happy end, Smith changed the end of the story to provide cinema-goers with a gasp of relief in the final scene, as things turned out much better in the film than in the book. 

The end of the book was better !!

And in one of those glaring, full-frontal continuity errors that make you wince, or in my case, say "Oh, bollocks!" a jeep facing nose-in to the jungle near the start of the film, was nicely positioned nose-out at the end as an actor struggled to escape with only seconds to spare. 

As the owner/driver of the jeep was severely dead, who turned the jeep round ??

Do film makers really think that audiences won't spot these mistakes?  It was Carter Smith's first feature film as a director. So, he should either go back to film school, or at the very least, choose a new continuity person next time!