I’ve looked through the other threads and didn’t find this question - Carson sees the case by the river. Then we cut to a scene at night as Carson walks back to his hotel room and Anton follows him. Carson says he knows where the money is and it could be there in 20 minutes. So why the hell did he leave it there by the river?
Maybe he thought he’d pick it up later when it got dark out?
I’ve never seen the movie.
@slicedalone nailed as the book had it. Carson’s goal was to not be seen collecting the case of money. It was naturally well-hidden enough to survive an afternoon & evening unnoticed in that low-traffic area. Or so he thought.
Oh, you must. You must.
Fabulous movie.
It did survive unnoticed. Carson himself didn’t survive to come back for it, and Llewelyn retrieved it knowing where it was because he’d put it there.
Strongly agree. A rare example of the book and movie being equally terrific in their respective media.
I normally despise seeing the movie having read the book. IMO the two different media demand two different stories told two different ways.
IMO/IME book then movie is utter disappointment, no matter how epic (or minor) the tale. It’s always a crude caricature badly delivered and void of motivation or nuance. It might be pretty; it can’t be good.
Movie then book can work if the movie didn’t stray too far - the book provides all the details the movie can’t spare 4 seconds for. But usually the book disappoints, or renders the movie a retroactive disappointment.
My new wife is the opposite: she insists on reading the book first if both exist. To her this brings out all sorts of novel co-insights absent from either form. Color me baffled, but at least she’s really, really cute.
I definitely see your point about book then movie, but because the media are so utterly different it can, in fact, work if the movie is particularly well done, which among other things means well adapted to the strengths and limitations of the medium.
Among the risks of book then movie is (a) that you’ve formed a mental picture of certain characters or some other imagery, and the movie’s representation is completely different, and (b) that the fast pacing and lack of explanatory depth makes the movie seem like a rushed CliffsNotes version of the book.
One example of an excellent movie that I enjoyed after reading the book was Shutter Island, based on the novel by Dennis Lehane. Very well made, with stars Leonardo di Caprio, Mark Ruffalo, and Ben Kingsley literally bringing the novel to life.
An example of the second case was Pet Sematary, largely because it wasn’t a very good movie and basically made a hash of one of Stephen King’s better stories. A sequel and a 2019 remake were even worse.
I did movie then book with No Country for Old Men. The movie was an absurdly faithful, word for word, scene for scene and dialogue for dialogue interpretation of the novel. Reading it felt rather pointless.
I read Elmore Leonard’s book Rum Punch and absolutely loved it. Then I saw the movie Jackie Brown and it was an amazing adaptation of the book.
I now reread Rum Punch on the beach each winter, an rewatch Jackie Brown every few years.