"The differences are few and slight. So why wouldn't you have a problem with the story that was used to make a film you disliked? The film had to come from somewhere. And it came from the mind of Cormack McCarthy."

Making a film inevitably involves a process of slash and burn as the screenwriter decides what to include and what to leave out.

It is posible to make a good film of a book, and for it to be a good film, but it will always be an interpretation of sorts.

The original book gives the reader the freedom to interpret it how their minds eye perceives it.

McCarthy's descriptive prose contains a thought provoking depth that could be interpreted and translated onto the screen in more than one way.

As I have said, it is perfectly possible and often the case that good film versions of books are made, however it is not possible for a feature film to encompasss more than the most basic tenets of any book.

The key points may have been well identified, but the book is more than just its key points. Its skeleton supports an infinitely more subtle organic substance.