Although it deals with love and loss, it actually had a thriller aspect attached to it. But unfortunately, no one really would have understood that because the film was soooooo poorly done. Just a tip to those directors that are about to make another film from his novels... DON'T CHANGE THINGS, especially when the audience who hasn't read the book, they won't get it! Just a tip...
Now on to the actual film. Alright, the casting of Josh Duhamel was probably not the best choice. I mean do not get me wrong he is like a Channing Tatum-- really pretty, but maybe not so much a "great actor." But if we are giving points for attractiveness, the director nailed this one on the head. Having read the novel, I wouldn't have casted him. I think that I would have wanted to try someone like Chris Pine or Jensen Ackles. They can actually make the movie look good. Sorry Josh, I guess I just see you as another pretty face, but that does get you somewhere in Hollywood. And now onto Julianne Hough...hmmmm....I mean I get the whole "lets introduce a new up-coming actress to the scene," but really....Hough? Hmm... Ok I get it once again.. she's pretty, but can she actually act? Seriously? Rachel McAdams could play this part better sleeping on the job. It's called TALENT! And she ain't got it. Hopefully she will be able to wow me one day.. unfortunately, I don't see an Oscar Nomination in her future. Thanks for trying. If I was casting for this part, I think that I would want to try someone like Elizabeth Olsen. She wowed me with her performance in 'Silent House.' She is very talented and I feel that she is going to do great things in the acting world. So, I guess my point is... bad choices for the main characters...
Now on to the actual film. There one main reason why I did not like this film and that has to do with the fact that the storyline had changed. And for anyone who actually read the book, you were probably the only ones who actually knew what was going on....
For example,
1. At the beginning of the movie, "Katie" was running to the bus stop. She purchases her ticket and a cop is running after her. She gets away. The audience has NO IDEA what is going on. They don't even know who this guy is. He likes to drink a lot of water.. and he sends out a wanted poster because she is a murderer. And you don't find out much about her background until halfway through the movie. I think you might have lost the audiences attention. This is not a Christopher Nolan film.. where the audience is going to think one thing.. and at the end go "wow, I never saw that coming!" Sooo maybe don't leave the audience in the dark, especially since the novel actually told "Katie's" story at the beginning. As the novel progresses you find out more and more about her background. You know those important details and keep the reader interested.. Yeah, the film sucked at that.
2. Kevin drinks water? Why is he a bad guy? The audience has NO IDEA that he is an alcoholic... Hmmm.. maybe a good idea to tell them, or were you trying to fool them into thinking that he was "a healthy guy?"
3. Kevin did not find out where "Erin" was because of the neighbours answering machine. They didn't even know that "Erin" stole the identity of "Katie" the neighbours daughter. And we, as an audience never find out that that is the actually story.. we get the "is this your pie receipt?" "I know you know where Erin is" ... and then he sneaks into the house and how convenient it was that she left a message on the answering machine.. wow. I think that if I was running away from an abusive husband.. I might not call a friend from that area...I would disappear! WERID!
4. When did she stab him? That didn't happen! Or at least I don't remember it. And how did she get the money to run away. The novel described that, considering he never gave her money and if he did he would ask for the receipt and the change. Just saying...
5. He slept around. The novel made him out to be really bad.. the film.. not so much.
6. Jo. You know that lady that she would talk to. In the novel she actually talked to her a lot and invited her into her home. And the novel talked about letters that Jo left her husband and the new women that would eventually come into her life. In the novel you never expect Jo to be a figment of Katie's imagination, but the film made her look "CRAZY!" Yah.. bad idea.
7. Erin (Katie) did not talk to her husband outside the boyfriends house in such a great manor.. WHAT WAS THAT! And her boyfriend was never lighting fireworks.. what was that? The house was set ablaze with everyone in it.
I guess my whole point is that if you hadn't read the book, a lot of the plot didn't make sense. 1 because it had changed so drastically... and 2. because they rushed through important parts! BAD IDEA! BAD FILM!
On top of the actually plot.. there was no chemistry. Duhamel and Hough didn't have what Gosling and McAdams did. None of the Nicholas Sparks adaptations do, except for 'The Notebook.' So, I guess this is another poorly done film that just wasted my time.
I give this film an [F]. Although, it follows the same narrative structure of all films before it, it left out important information, and changed parts of the story which only confused the audience and made the main character out to be a "crazy-person." So if you want to see a film that is terrible....watch this one. I think it will be worse the more you watch it. Therefore, I am saying.. read the novel...it is so much better.
See you at the movies!
