Back in 1989, the novel "In the Deep Woods," by Nicholas Conde, was published.
An enthralling mystery about a woman caught up in the trail of a vicious, sadistic serial killer, "In the Deep Woods" threw several twists into the familiar crime drama genre.The perfect stuff for a movie, someone no doubt thought. And, through all those Hollywood machinations, "In the Deep Woods" appears as an NBC movie tonight at 8 p.m. on Ch. 2.
Unfortunately, any resemblance to Conde's novel appear to be purely coincidental.
Oh, the title's the same. And the killer turns out to be the same person it was in the book.
But somehow, somewhere, this riveting mystery has become just another mediocre TV movie, with a plot that seems pulled out of an old episode of an old police series.
Now, obviously it's not possible to boil a novel down to about an hour and 45 minutes without changing a few things along the way. There has to be a tightening of the plot and other shifts in character and time.
But what has happened to "In the Deep Woods" goes far beyond that. The story in Conde's novel was stripped bare and then reclothed with TV cliches.
Rosanna Arquette stars as children's book author and illustrator Joanna Warren. (The name was inexplicably changed from Carol Warren in the book.)
When a friend of hers is brutally murdered by the Deep Woods Killer, Joanna finds herself drawn into the mystery. Eventually, it turns out that the suspects include not only her own brother (Chris Rydell) but the man with whom she's having an affair (D.W. Moffett).
Thrown into the mix is a mysterious detective (the late Anthony Perkins in his last movie) who isn't what he seems to be.
The biggest problem with the movie version of "In the Deep Woods" is that it never bothers to build much in the way of suspense. And, while I won't give it away here, it's not hard to guess who the killer will turn out to be.
And, although the killer turns out to be the same in both book and movie, the reason for his murderous spree in the movie is entirely different. Not to mention completely ludicrous and laughable.
The ultimate resolution of the telefilm looks like an episode of "Jake and the Fatman."
One of the tragedies here is how Perkins was wasted in his final role. He has little to do here but stand around looking lugubrious and menacing - something he was very good at.
Had his character held true to the character in the book, it might have been a fitting farewell for the actor. As it is, it's just a footnote on his long career.
Arquette does the best she can with what's she's given, but the script offers little in the way of character development for any of its characters.
And the big mystery is why the producers of "In the Deep Woods" bothered to option the novel in the first place, the changes were so massive. It's not as if any of these changes were for the better, either.
It's also difficult to understand how they - along with the writers and director - could feel absolutely no loyalty to the book.
This sort of thing happens in both television and the movies all the time. But that's no excuse.
The travesty of the TV version of "In the Deep Woods" is inexcusable.