jeapc

So much better than the book. Although the book's author is listed as one of the writers (but not of the screenplay), I can only assume the other writer (Jeremy Leven who is listed as the screenplay) wrested the very basics of the book from the book's author and turned it into the masterpiece that it is. Matt Damon, Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and J. Michael Moncrief I think were about the best choices for these roles. To top it off, this may be the best soundtrack that Rachel Portman ever wrote especially in her use of the brass section. She imbues the story with such character that I think the movie would fall apart without it.

It's just not very good. The premise, as pointed out by another reviewer, is completely absurd. The lead, Matthew Rhys, is fine but not any better or worse than any of the other actors. There is no apparent effort to make him different between the two characters he plays (e.g., change the way he combs his hair, give him a slight limp or manner of speech). The scenery, staging, period pieces (e.g., 1952 television, beautiful cars, period clothing, and sets) are all excellent. It's just not a good story even if you suspend reality. The main premise is that a complete stranger can be an exact fit for someone else. Remove the doppelganger part of the story and you have absurd characters in a boring story.

We saw this as a free second feature "sneak preview" when this was apparently being test marketed in 1983. We had to fill out a survey afterward. What I remember was:

1. This was a dreadfully bad movie.

2. My surprise that John Huston was in such a clinker.

3. They did a good action sequence involving a children's soccer match. At least one person in the audience was cheering the orphans' soccer match.

4. When the survey asked if I found sympathy for any of the characters, I answered Pelé. I felt sorry that his big screen debut was in such a bad movie.

I do not remember much more than that.