I’m in the minority I guess, but I really liked the movie. And I’m not that big a fan of the book, either. I think the book needed an editor badly.
I don’t get why everyone says it’s so bad. I heard a critic on Lars Larson go on and on about how it was made on a low budget and didn’t have any “stars” in it. That was his sole apparent reason for not liking it.
I think a lot of this is Hollywood jealosy and angst. A lot of people have a lot invested in “proving” that you can’t make a decent film outside of the existing studio system.
At no point watching it did I think “what a cheap production”. Maybe I just don’t notice those things. I really liked the Hank Reardon actor/character too.
That's nonsense. A lot of great, and successful movies are made outside of the studio system and all of Hollywood knows it. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Juno, and almost anything by Quentin Tarantino are good examples.
I don’t know what Mel Gibson’s budget for The Passion was, but he used no real “stars” and it made IIRC about a billion dollars in the end. Same with Easy Rider. It cost 700,000 dollars to make, but is now one of the most profitable movies ever to hit screens. If you have a good movie, you’ll make money, case closed.