I saw the movie.
It was awesome.
Regular readers may recall that it was the movie trailer which initially spurred me to buy and read the book first; well, I finally saw the film the other day (along with my friend, the Book Fairy) and we both loved it. Emily Blunt is (of course) phenomenal, and the rest of the heavy-hitter cast were also excellent.
There’s been a bunch of interviews and publicity about the differences between the book and the film; the most obvious being the location of Manhattan instead of London. I was worried about how this would affect my enjoyment, as I completely connected with the London-ness of the book, but I needn’t have worried. It’s different, for sure, but it didn’t take away from my absorption into the plot, even though I knew whodunnit!!
A quick spoiler-free summary of key differences:
- It’s set in Manhattan, not London. I loved the London-ness of the book, but honestly, as a film viewer, I didn’t miss it.
- Emily Blunt is far more attractive than Rachel is described in the book. Again, no biggie; she’s such a brilliant actress I didn’t care.
- The book is just a lot more subtle than the film. This is only natural, of course – it’s easier to suggest and plant ideas in writing and imagination than when you are showing something visually. The pace of the movie more than made up for the limitations of the medium (in terms of the unseen/suggested, I mean).
- My friend had the same reaction at the same point of the movie as I did to the book. That was a convoluted sentence, but I mean she (almost) guessed what had happened (but wasn’t sure) at the same point in the narrative as I did when reading the book. (I hope that made sense!)
All these things make me believe that most book-fans won’t be disappointed by the film. Yay!