Not sure if this has ever happened to me before: to like the movie adaptation as much as I like the book itself. Naturally much of this feeling is due to the inclusion of Peter Dinklage into the cast of this film, but that said, I found The Thicket to be among my favorite movie adaptations of this year, which is interesting given the amount of creative license taken with the material. Based on the Joe R. Lansdale western novel of the same name,the film follows Jack Parker, a boy who, after his sister is kidnapped by a violent killer known only as Cut Throat Bill, enlists a fierce bounty hunter named Reginald Jones, who becomes the leader of the group of outcasts searching for the stolen girl. Joining Dinklage is Juliette Lewis as Cut Throat Bill, Hanna’s Esmé Creed-Miles as Lula Parker, Jack’s sister, and The Old Man’s Gbenga Akinnagbe as Eustace Howard, an ex-slave who assists Jack.
I should preface this by saying that I am a huge fan of Joe R. Landsdale and an avid reader of his novels, especially his long-running Hap and Leonard series, which I’ve read at least a dozen times. I say that to say that Lansdale falls into the same category as Elmore Leonard for me; if they are making an adaptation of his work, better believe I will be among the first to watch it. The Thicket is no exception; as soon as I learned about it, I anxiously awaited its release. And now having seen it, I can say I was not disappointed. As I previously mentioned, a lot of my admiration for the film comes from Peter Dinklage’s portrayal of Reginal Johnson, more aptly known as Shorty, a dwarf bounty hunter. Much like his character in Game of Thrones, Dinklage’s character is among the smartest in the room. However, unlike in Game of Thrones, this character is not afraid to get his hands dirty, which is shown from the character’s first scene when he is forced to teach an indignant and entitled city official a lesson when dares to take issue with his size. This film was reportedly a longtime passion project for Dinklage, and it shows in his portrayal as the character of Shorty who, at least for me, practically leapt off the page and became fully formed.
Now the film does do quite a bit of deviating from the source material in regards to some of the character’s personality traits, such as downplaying the religious elements of Jack Parker’s personality which directly affect his role as the group’s morale center. In the book, Jack’s reluctance to cross certain ethical lines is an important portion of the character’s development. These elements still exist in the film, but to a more limited degree. It is nothing that is detrimental to the overall story, but I expect it will be noticeable to a fan of the book. Additionally, in the books Eustace’s drinking causes some degree of trouble for the group at large, but in the film, the character is more aware of alcohol’s effect on him and elects to abstain for much of the film. This alteration I was actually in favor of, because it added to the character’s depth and made him more of an asset rather than a burden. Multiple characters are also removed; these characters would have added to the strength of the posse, but in truth probably would have really only pulled focus. However, the addition of an old friend of Shorty and Eustace and his backstory could have been useful, as it would have shown some of the darker elements of the story material. Despite these alterations, the film still held my attention with minimal to no effort.
The film does drag a bit in the second act, as our group follows the trail and finds themselves in a bit of a disagreement as to how to proceed. However, I did not see this as much of an impediment to the film’s quality, as it was in keeping with my thoughts about the novel, which spent significant time with the group following a member of Cut Throat’s gang and being forced to stop every time they came across his acts of depravity. While this could at times feel like it was dragging, in both cases it was an important factor, and it forced the group to confront the kind of evil that they were chasing after. This is somewhat downplayed in the film for the sake of avoiding making certain characters irredeemable.
Of the two versions, naturally I would say that the book has the darker tones to it. However, when it comes to endings, I have to say that the film treated us to a much darker ending than the book. In the book, many more characters survive, while in the film, many characters do not survive the mission. This again was a first for me, as it is rare for an adaptation to take on a darker conclusion than the book it is based on. Given a choice, I think I would opt for the movie’s conclusion, as it felt like the more logical outcome of the mission. The group was hunting ruthless and merciless killers, and of the two groups, our protagonist group were the more likely ones to fail from a practical standpoint, so when you get right down to it, the movie ending was the more logical way for the story to end.
As I said, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this adaptation given all the creative license taken. I am not normally one to be in favor of such an alteration, but in the case of The Thicket, I dare say that they improved on the story.
