Conference bookie::movies

    < I thought this was posted yesterday, even though my session was
    disconnected; I guess not...>
    
    > "Devil In A Blue Dress" is based on the book by the same name by
    > Walter Mosely.  It is a part of the set of detective books he wrote
    > which feature private eye Easy (Ezekiel) Rawlins.  A couple of other
    > books in this vein are "Black Betty" and "White Butterfly".
    
    John D. MacDonald also published a series of detective novels featuring
    a continuing character (Travis Magee) whose titles all included a
    color. First in the series was The Deep Blue Goodbye, published in the
    early 1960's, so I think he was the first one with the idea. There were
    eventually so many Travis Magee books that he was beginning to grasp at
    less and less common colors -- A Tan and Sandy Silence, Darker than
    Amber, The Turquoise Lament, etc. Had he lived much longer, MacDonald
    would probably have needed to consult the Sherwin Williams catalog to
    come up with book titles.
    			Jim
    
    (p.s. -- I can't think of any of his books which feature Black or
    White. Can any Travis Magee fans help me out?)

    RE: <<< Note 940.1 by NEWVAX::BUCHMAN "UNIX refugee in a VMS world" >>>
        
    >>                 -< Not first with this idea >-
    
         That's OK.  I really never considered the colors in the titles to
    be major selling points.
    
                                       Greg

RE .1 - Discussions of John D. MacDonald novels belong in the BOOKS conference,
hint hint... :-)

-- Nina

    RE: Book discussion rathole
    
    While avoiding the Book discussion rathole by entering your notes in
    the conference THEBAY::BOOKS, please be aware that there is a fairly
    extensive topic on MacDonald and his Travis McGee books already in
    there in Topic 78. ;^)
    
    - Dave

    I'm a fan of the Easy Rawlins books myself, so I went out and saw this
    Saturday night.
    
    I liked the movie.  The period setting was nicely done, the houses,
    cars, etc. really looking like 1948 Los Angeles may have looked.  The
    pervasive racism of the society depicted in the books is not softened
    for the movie.  Denzel Washington and the actors playing various minor
    roles do good jobs.  Washington looks a little too much like a man who
    spend a couple of hours a day working out, but his Easy is intelligent
    and at home in the black L.A. society of the story.  Easy's insanely
    violent friend Mouse got laughs from the movie audience.  I liked Maury
    Chaykin as an obese, horribly corrupt politician.  Jennifer Beals as
    the mysterious woman at the centre of the story was credibly confused
    and sad, if not sexually magnetic.
    
    The movie is not particularly violent by today's standards, but there
    are a number of killings and climactic gunfight.  As a thriller, it's
    not as strong on suspense as some I've seen.  The last scene is pretty
    corny.  I did enjoy the movie, however; it portrays the world of
    Mosley's books with reasonable accuracy, and the story's interesting
    enough.
    
    -Stephen 

  I saw this over the weekend and really liked it a lot. Note .-1 pretty well
sums it up, everyone did a fine job. 

  Definite go see, well worth the price on the big screen.

  **** out of 5,
  George

    I dunno. I didn't really care about Easy or any of the other
    characters, and I wasn't compelled to figure out the mystery. Agreed,
    the depiction of Los Angeles in 1948, and the black community at that
    time, was excellent and interesting.

    I would've rented it, though.

    Lisa

    Good but not great.  Denzell Washington was very good as Easy but
    Don Cheadle (of Picket Fences fame) stole the movie as Easy's friend
    Mouse.  Story had some holes in it, but the period stuff was nice.
    
    NAZZ

    Enjoyable, though I had trouble following the plot. I wasn't entirely
    sure who lived (sometimes, died) at what location throughout the movie.
    Still there were plenty of good facets that made the movie worthwhile.
    
      John

    I rented this last night, and liked it.  And not to sound racist,
    but I did have some trouble understanding the "accent"/slang/col-
    loquilness of the speech in the African-American community during
    the period.  
    
    Denzel Washington is good, looks good :-), and I thought they did 
    a good job with the sets, clothes, cars, etc of the late 40's...it's
    a good period piece.
    
    Sue 

    
         Don't worry Sue, even some Black folks had a little difficulty
    understanding all that was said.  You have to have lots of older
    relatives to translate for you :-)
    
         I still haven't seen it, but I will tonight.  I sure enjoyed the
    book.  It was a simple, basic kind of story, but it had unusual appeal.
    
                                      Greg

    One of the things I noticed in the movie was the sense of community
    it portrayed, both in the urban setting with thriving businesses and 
    in the suburban neighborhood in which Easy lived.  It was good to see 
    a "colored" neighborhood in which kids played together in the street, 
    adults looked out for one another, and maintained their homes & property
    ....a real neighborhood, not the stereotypical, run-down, slum type of 
    setting one might expect from Hollywood.
    
    Sue   

    
         Finally saw it.  Good stuff, but I realized again why people are
    usually not happy with a movie after they have read the book.  The
    characters I formulated in my mind were quite different from those that
    were portayed in the movie.  In this case, however, it wasn't a bad
    change.
    
    [Semi-spoiler]
    
         I expected both Junior and Joppy to be bigger, meaner and more
    violent than the actors were.  Frank Green and Mouse were cut-throat
    killers in the book, but were just "tough" in the movie. 
    
         Jennifer Beals was a PERFECT Daphne Monet.  Almost exactly as I
    had pictured her.  Denzel Washington was a good Ezekiel Rawlins, but he
    looks too good for the tough-living character described in the book.
    
         All this being said, I kind of liked the changes.  They were not
    better than the book, but they worked in their own way.  As Sue said,
    the cars and houses were great touches.  The movie 'felt' right.
    
         What was up with the guy running around cutting down trees,
    though?  That was just a strange touch thrown in for the movie version.
    
                                        Greg