MovieChat Forums > Blood Work (2002) Discussion > Killer behind Clint at ATM?

Killer behind Clint at ATM?


Was that really the killer at the ATM machine behind Clint, when he asked, "You done?" It didn't look like Jeff Daniels. And it didn't sound like him. Unless that beard was fake. Was it him?

reply

Yup.
It was him.
Notice that he had the earring from Graciellas sister.

reply

well, it was supposed to be him, but I don't think it was Jeff Daniels that they used for that shot, but I could be wrong.

reply

It wasn't Jeff Daniels. It was stuntman Todd Bryant. They didn't want to give it away too soon.

reply

It looked like Jeff Daniels to me...but it didn't sound like him (IMO). In fact, I thought right away - WTF...why is Jeff Daniels in disguise? That's kinda how I solved the riddle before its time. It wasn't a very good disguise.


reply

The guy was so obviously in disguise, one would think he was the killer straight away.

reply

It's funny that you knew right away that it was Jeff Daniels in disguise when it was really an actor named Todd Bryant. Check the cast and crew listings. You're a real detective.

reply

[deleted]

Well done on spoiling this for those who haven't seen the movie. Luckily that doesn't include me, just watched it already.

reply

it was pretty obvious that there were spoilers involved due to the subject heading.

I haven't read the book, but I've read most of his others, including the ones that surround the events. I'm a little confused on why they changed some of the facts. First of all, the character in the books is Buddy Lockridge. And as far as I recall, he was never a bad guy. The movie renames Buddy and has him being the badguy. It also gives his real surname of Lockridge to the witness from the ATM shooting. a little odd.

reply

it's not uncommon for a movie (or TV) adaptation to make some drastic changes from the source material. hell, it's a lot more common than a faithful adaptation in my experience. compare the Bourne or Bond movies to the books for example. about the most faithful adaptation of anything I can think of is Game Of Thrones and that was only for the first season

part of it is because some aspects of a story which work well in written form don't adapt well to visual media, partly it can be because those adapting the work want to still have some surprises for those who've read the source material. sometimes it's because the source material inspired them with a similar idea but with a different twist and sometimes it's just for the name value

~~~
"I don't care, I'm still free. You can't take the sky from me..."

reply