The story was lacking! Being a veteran, a fan and supporter of Naval Aviation, I loved all the air and carrier operations sequences. They were all realistic thanks to U.S. Navy cooperation. But being a Coonts and Jake Grafton fan, in my opinion, the actors didn't bring much life to the characters established in Stephen Coont's best selling novel and the screen writers went their own direction.
Danny Glover is a good actor. But in my opinion, I didn't feel the "command presence" of Cdr. Frank Camparelli that I felt reading the pages of the novel. Glover put in the demeanor of Camparelli, but didn't get the command presence right. (If you want to get a good idea of command presence, check out the performance of the late Richard Crenna in "First Blood." Or see Gene Hackman's performances when he plays high ranking military officers like in "Behind Enemy Lines" and "Crimson Tide.")
Brad Johnson was okay as Jake Grafton, but was Luke warm compared to the novel version. For example: if you read the court martial and testimony of Jake Grafton in the novel and see the on screen version, you will be highly disappointed in how the film presented it. It's like they watered the Grafton character down!
I thought Willem Dafoe's performance as Lcdr Virgil "Tiger" Cole was the most convincing and closer to the novel version than everyone else who had a character from the novel. The movie Tiger in my opinion was a little better. But unfortunately, one good performance doesn't make the whole story.
The Callie/Jake relationship from the novel was turned into a corny subplot for the movie! I really loved the way it was presented in the novel and loathed the way they interpreted it on screen! Callie in the novel was a pretty smart woman, but in the movie she didn't seem that way and her character lacked dimension.
Others have already stated other differences, so yeah I know, the movie will always be different from the novel. But it doesn't mean the movie can't live up to the novel. A good example of a movie adaption of a novel that is a good interpretation is "The Great Santini." Of course like all novel - movie adaptations, not everything from "The Great Santini" book is in the movie. But if ever there is movie that is true to the novel (in characters and plot), it's "The Great Santini." I think if "Flight of the Intruder" was true to and lived up to the novel, then I would agree that it shouldn't be underrated.
Despite the nice Naval Aviation and action sequences, this movie leaves a lot to be desired in the story and characters. Yes, there will always be differences in a novel - movie adaptation, but it doesn't mean the movie should stray so far away from the book that you get an inferior interpretation.
Danny Glover is a good actor. But in my opinion, I didn't feel the "command presence" of Cdr. Frank Camparelli that I felt reading the pages of the novel. Glover put in the demeanor of Camparelli, but didn't get the command presence right. (If you want to get a good idea of command presence, check out the performance of the late Richard Crenna in "First Blood." Or see Gene Hackman's performances when he plays high ranking military officers like in "Behind Enemy Lines" and "Crimson Tide.")
Brad Johnson was okay as Jake Grafton, but was Luke warm compared to the novel version. For example: if you read the court martial and testimony of Jake Grafton in the novel and see the on screen version, you will be highly disappointed in how the film presented it. It's like they watered the Grafton character down!
I thought Willem Dafoe's performance as Lcdr Virgil "Tiger" Cole was the most convincing and closer to the novel version than everyone else who had a character from the novel. The movie Tiger in my opinion was a little better. But unfortunately, one good performance doesn't make the whole story.
The Callie/Jake relationship from the novel was turned into a corny subplot for the movie! I really loved the way it was presented in the novel and loathed the way they interpreted it on screen! Callie in the novel was a pretty smart woman, but in the movie she didn't seem that way and her character lacked dimension.
Others have already stated other differences, so yeah I know, the movie will always be different from the novel. But it doesn't mean the movie can't live up to the novel. A good example of a movie adaption of a novel that is a good interpretation is "The Great Santini." Of course like all novel - movie adaptations, not everything from "The Great Santini" book is in the movie. But if ever there is movie that is true to the novel (in characters and plot), it's "The Great Santini." I think if "Flight of the Intruder" was true to and lived up to the novel, then I would agree that it shouldn't be underrated.
Despite the nice Naval Aviation and action sequences, this movie leaves a lot to be desired in the story and characters. Yes, there will always be differences in a novel - movie adaptation, but it doesn't mean the movie should stray so far away from the book that you get an inferior interpretation.