If you came here as a fan of Kotzwinkle's excellent book, 'Jack in the Box', I suggest you don't make the mistake I did and watch this movie expecting to find the same story. Yes, the narrative holds close to the content of the novel, but the film captures none of the spirit of the tale. It's a little mystifying that Kotzwinkle was also responsible for the screenplay, as he seems to have betrayed his own original work.
Director Robert Shaye seemed to completely misunderstand the book as well -- not only did he clean up all the grit and desperation that gave the novel such depth, he also emasculated the wicked sense of danger that made the story so thrilling and surprising. As an example, in the scout camping scene in the novel, Twiller and his friends are confronted with a violent and sadistic rapist who threatens them with a similar act. In the movie the scene is sanitized, turning a frightening violation into a silly prank.
The film's setting had none of the grime and economic depression of the novel's coal-mining central Pennsylvanian town. You can't swap Southern California for Scranton. As well, many of the book's excellent dank and dirty characters have been lost to cleaned-up 50s stereotypes. Spider in the novel is a filthy, twisted bastard who rapes his 5th grade sister -- in the movie he's barely distinguishable from any of Twiller's wholesome friends.
Perhaps worst of all is the betrayal of the novel's main character. Twiller by the end of the novel is pretty much a hopeless case -- he is too dumb for college and seems destined for a depressed blue-collar future in the local button mill. In fact in his best dreams he imagines living in a run-down shack with a view of the local junkyard. Somehow Shaye saw him escape that fate and made him a wealthy professional with a sleek house, expensive electronics and fancy clothes. This is not the Twiller I liked so much. If you liked him too, don't bother looking for him in this movie.
Director Robert Shaye seemed to completely misunderstand the book as well -- not only did he clean up all the grit and desperation that gave the novel such depth, he also emasculated the wicked sense of danger that made the story so thrilling and surprising. As an example, in the scout camping scene in the novel, Twiller and his friends are confronted with a violent and sadistic rapist who threatens them with a similar act. In the movie the scene is sanitized, turning a frightening violation into a silly prank.
The film's setting had none of the grime and economic depression of the novel's coal-mining central Pennsylvanian town. You can't swap Southern California for Scranton. As well, many of the book's excellent dank and dirty characters have been lost to cleaned-up 50s stereotypes. Spider in the novel is a filthy, twisted bastard who rapes his 5th grade sister -- in the movie he's barely distinguishable from any of Twiller's wholesome friends.
Perhaps worst of all is the betrayal of the novel's main character. Twiller by the end of the novel is pretty much a hopeless case -- he is too dumb for college and seems destined for a depressed blue-collar future in the local button mill. In fact in his best dreams he imagines living in a run-down shack with a view of the local junkyard. Somehow Shaye saw him escape that fate and made him a wealthy professional with a sleek house, expensive electronics and fancy clothes. This is not the Twiller I liked so much. If you liked him too, don't bother looking for him in this movie.