expectation rating : a bit worse than expected ( mainly because i found the middle part to be a bit dull ) .
roger ebert gave it a four star review , and while he is a critic that uses the full scale , and i often agree -- such as dark city being the best film of 1998 , he must have seen a better film .
i read the book about five years ago and hugely enjoyed it .
the opening of a simple plan reminded me a bit of the sweet hereafter .
the landscape is snowy and cold , and is filmed what i feel is in a rather crisp manner ( which also reminds me of fargo ( which i loathed ) ) .
one can almost sense the cold .
but the movie far from the eye popping delights of the quick and the dead , instead raimi has made a more constrained film -- which probably is for the better .
this is probably not a movie that would have been improved by lots of odd shots .
the movie also reminded me of affliction , as the lead characters all seem to be hoping for and seeing a possibility to lead a better life than their father , and they see a chance for such a dream to come true .
this chance is uncovered in a snow covered field , where an airplane has crash landed .
in the plane three men find ?
the american dream .
.
.
in a gym bag .
?
affliction too was set in a snowy landscape .
it really seems very simple .
just hold on to the money until spring , and if no one claims it , they 'll be safe to spend it and their hope of experiencing the american dream can come true .
but the snow melts , and so might several of the character 's hopes .
as in ? return to paradise ? , some of the characters are presented with a chance to do the right thing .
but doing the right thing might not result in a better result than something more selfish .
the movie 's biggest strength is that it fact makes sense .
i have seen many movies based on books that just seem like selected scenes from the book visualized , eschewing anything remotely resembling a coherent story -- for example clear and present danger .
the biggest problem seems to over - familiarization with the story .
the writer perhaps feels that he does n't have to present scenes that are clear to him , but the lack of which only baffles an audience which has not read the book .
this is definitely not the problem with a simple plan , even though the screenplay is by the book 's author .
the movie is always clear on where it 's going , and always makes sense .
i 'm sue a lot was cut , but really i ca n't remember what .
even a minor scene involving a man complaining that he has paid for too much grains is included .
the man only comes in on mondays , but he claims that he has been charged for one purchase too many .
turns out . . .
well , see the movie .
one should be warned against seeing the trailer .
it reveals several scenes from the ending moments ( which yes , like in the book , it is a downer ) , several plot developments , and much of the beginning .
but much of this is not spelled directly out during the trailer , so if you 're lucky , you 'll have forgotten about all of this when you see the movie .
which probably is for the better the movie 's biggest strength is that it fact makes sense the movie is always clear on where it 's going , and always makes sense