The Tenth Circle Discussion **SPOILERS**

[mlm828]

Jun 28, 2008 20:56:50 GMT -5 bjobsessed said:

Can I make a suggestion?

Those of you that are lucky enough to be watching The Tenth Circle this weekend will obviously want to talk about it. Can we either start a discussion thread for it or have the first person to post after the show in this one say 'spoiler alert?' That way, those of us who have to wait can choose to read or not to read without accidentally reading about the movie.

All I want to know right away is if it was good or not which I'm sure it is.

Thanks a lot.

Excellent suggestion! I've started this new thread, to make it easier for people who want to remain "unspoiled."

[mlm828]

As I said in the other thread, my overall assessment is "not bad, but it could have been a lot better."

The movie was billed as being about the impact of date rape on the victim's family, but it turned out to be more of a whodunnit. Was it really rape? And, later, who killed Jason (if anyone did)? In my opinion, the character development suffered as a result, especially the character of Daniel Stone, who is central. We learn about his background, but it's never really tied in to what is happening in the movie. Most of the time, the character is basically a dad who is angry because he believes his daughter has been raped. And a lot of what we learn about Daniel and his background is from the character telling us about it, which seems forced. I chose not to read the book before seeing the movie, but I suspect the character of Daniel is a lot more complex in the book than in the screenplay.

I found it interesting that, despite getting top billing, Kelly Preston plays a character who is somewhat secondary. I thought the story line about her affair was not entirely necessary, except perhaps to show there were problems in the Stones' marriage. However, the origin of these problems was not clear (to me, anyway), and the impact of the rape on the marriage wasn't really explored. I suppose it was necessary for her to have the affair, so that she would know about the drugs, and the affair would also explain why she didn't come forward sooner. But it still seemed superfluous, because it really didn't tell us anything significant about the characters, except that they were having marital problems.

The ending seemed -- odd. They go home, and that's it? It seemed to me the most interesting part was just beginning.

As I said above, I haven't read the book, but I suspect a lot was left out of the movie. I question whether a two-hour (meaning 86 to 88 minutes) TV movie was the best vehicle for this story.

[doobrah]

Oops-- I just found this thread, but I didn't put any spoilers in the other one.

I wasn't expecting the kid to be the one who got the drugs. I was thinking maybe Moss. And I figured there would be a twist in the end as to how the guy died.

The story could have been fleshed out a little more with the marriage problems. I mean, it's 3 am and Ron is taking his daughter to the hospital and the wife hasn't come home yet? And they just conveniently avoid the issue that mom is never home -- throughout the whole movie?

It really left me breathless the way that Ron shifts into violent mode . He did it twice -- the first time at the bed with the wife and then later when he punches the boy. He's so good. Too bad he is so picky with the roles he chooses.

I'm probably not the only one who would like to see more of our blond dude on TV or in the movies.

Neat trivia: Anyone else notice that Pedigree ran one of their David Duchovny-voiced ads during the movie?

[rducasey]

Martha, I agree....not bad but could have been better. That's my opinion too. I did read the book and I feel it really strays far from it. I am really surprised that Jodi Picoult praised the movie adaption so highly since so much of the actual story was not explored. This could have almost been a mini series as there was so much more to explore in characterizations alone. Daniel's character was so complex in the book, and you don't get such a feel for it in the movie. The whole Alaska thing was left out . (Actually for those who read the book, that Alaska part at the end seemed too farfetched to be believed but i will leave it at that for those who are going to read the book.) One of things I really enjoyed in the book was the connection between her teaching a course on Dante, and Daniel's cartoons about a superhero entering the 10 circles of hell. It helped define so much of what went on in the story. This was only described in one small part of the movie. In the book, his drawings were an integral part of the story, and the "cartoon page" that preceded every chapter/part gave a foreshadowing of what was to come in that part.
"That said", Ron did a great job as usual. His anger was really frightening when it erupted, and the emotion that could be seen on his face when his baby girl was being examined was almost painful to watch. The way he averts his eyes when his wife finally arrives, tells us early on just what he is thinking about her. He certainly was the more sympathetic character in the movie. Top billing should have gone to him. (Now into the shallow end of the pool here. The shaggy look was OK considering who he was, but the hair/wardrobe department could have spent a little more time on him...like shape that hairstyle a bit, and maybe show him shaving.....ha ha. However even that director knew that it does not hurt to show a close up of those eyes.)
The ending was very odd, I thought. Did Ron know that Laura had done it? Why was he confessing to it? I thought he thought that the daughter was involved , and was doing it to protect her. But then when he saw Laura there, he tried to prevent her from confessing. And are they just taking her word for it that it was an accident? The book ending is quite different and it makes much more sense. Justice is served. Not just a "they lived happily ever after" ending.


Note: Just read on Wireimage that the Premiere was held last Thursday night in NY and Ron was not there. Perhaps that is a sign that he is working on something else. "Keep hope alive". Also Kelly Preston was promoting it on Regis on Thursday but no sign of Ron.

[bump]

I thought the movie was better than what I'd expected. Perhaps I set the bar pretty low after "Freedomland" and "Already Dead" (didn't really care for either one). That said, a lot of the detail of the book was lost in the transition to film.

I also thought that they changed things from how they happened in the book, but since it's been over a year since I read the book maybe I'm just not remembering the details very well. For example, I didn't think the girl had gotten the drugs from Seth in the book. Can anyone confirm this?

I wish they'd gone into the Alaska part of the story because that would've given so much more depth to Daniel's character. Ron did a good job and let me just say that the scene where he leapt across the bed at Laura scared the daylights out of me. It was just so sudden. I also think they lost a lot of the marital troubles evident in the book.

So overall, not bad. I guess that's all they can do to condense a book into a 2 hour movie.

[doobrah]

Was anyone pulled out of the story (like I was) when Ron was in the police station watching the video of Jason?

It looked like he was back in the old precinct getting chewed out in the boss' office.

On closer look, it was a different set, but close enough to do a double take and flash back to Blind Justice.