> Hutton made a passable Archie -- if you've never
read any of the
> books. He had the patter down, but I think they
could've done more
> with voice-overs . . . and if they'd only filmed the
effete,
> sunken-chested Hutton from the neck up. They can put
a Tyrannosaurus
> Rex in a Spielberg movie and they can't put a
boxer's body on
> Hutton?
Well, I have read many of the books, and think that Hutton
was fine (maybe a lightweight. i'll give them creative
license) mainly because, other than the patter, the intense
scene between him and Wolfe, a loud argument that shows the
only one who can talk any sense to Wolfe is Archie. The big
man demands control, but life sometimes throws curveballs he
can't deal with very easily. I needed an Archie with that
ability, and Hutton has it. Now, if they'll do more movies
with these two maybe we'll see growth in the way the
chracters are portrayed.
I will straddle the hard-boiled/not hard-boiled fence with
this one simply because I like these books so much, but
usually can't stand cozies. So for me, it's all in the
characters. At least the setting is in New York as opposed to
some isolated country home. The wise-cracking detective, the
antagonistic police figure, street hoods and undercover ops.
All from the HB trunk, eh? Granted, also from Holmes and even
Poe's Maupin, but...
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Mar 2000 EST