Compared to the book, the movie was a letdown. Many important parts were left out, and the end was stupid beyond belief. Why did the moviemakers feel they had to change it? Did they assume we weren't smart enough to understand?<br /><br />I was disappointed that the story of the nameless Russian girl was never mentioned or, for that matter, the fate of Richie Grenadeau. I'm no filmmaker -- but I suspect that, with skilled screenwriting, the significance of these events could have been blended into the plot with minimal time added. Another neglected subplot was the riot Henry incited within the makeshift concentration camp. (Oh yeah -- the thought of our government actually committing unnecessary mass murder was probably too politically incorrect to include. Our government would NEVER do THAT. (Can we all say "Sand Creek," kiddies?))<br /><br />I agree with O'Keefe that Morgan Freeman was wrong for the role of Kurtz (Curtis in the movie). Don't get me wrong; he's an excellent actor. However, while reading the book, I imagined Kurtz to be quite the stereotypical opposite. I visualized this character to be a corrupt version of Rambo's mentor, Colonel Trautman. Freeman was believably crazy, but not quite evil enough -- and I suspect that his being cast in the Curtis role had something to do with why the aforementioned concentration camp scene was cut. <br /><br />In the novel, Stephen King explicitly suggests Kurtz be played by Christopher Walken -- but I feel an even better choice would have been somebody like Robert De Niro or Tommy Lee Jones. Morgan would have been better as Kurtz' commanding officer, the three-star General -- though I totally understand why he'd turn the role down (fewer lines).<br /><br />By the way, Donnie Wahlberg was a cool surprise as Duddits.<br /><br />