Keanu Reeves as Leonard Vole --> (My mom is definitely in love with this man, ha.) I'd choose Keanu Reeves because he is the man who has this adorable and enormously innocent appearance, and anyone would definitely believe that he's not guilty (as in Sweet November); but he can also be an action man who would easily murder someone. He is a great actor, and his quality of versatile allows him to play any kind of role.
Nicole Kidman as Romaine Vole --> Nicole Kidman is one of my favorite actresses, a really talented and brilliant woman. I'd choose her because she can act as a woman who has to be the center of attention (like Satine in Moulin Rouge). Another reason for me choosing her is that amazingly penetrating gaze she has, and the myterious crooked smile that she sometimes uses, that are two things that seem to be perfect for an accomplice.
Thomas Gibson as Mr. Mayherne --> Gibson has become one of my favorite actors, playing one of the main roles in my favorite TV show: Criminal Minds. I chose Gibson to act as the attorney mainly because of the way he acts in Criminal Minds: the character is a very serious man, who was once a prosecutor, and he has the strength an intelligence to be in a trial; he believes in justice and does as much as he can to make it possible.
2. Which are the main differences between the film and the book? Which one has more suspense?
1. The biggest difference of all is the ending. While in the book there is an abrupt ending in which Romaine tells Mr. Mayherne her plans and makes him see that Mr. Vole was indeed guilty, the movie ends with Romaine (or Christine, in the film) murdering Mr. Vole out of jealousy.
2. Another great difference was the one of the attorney. Mr. Mayherne is the one and only attorney in the book, and in the movie, there's Sir Wilfrid as the main attorney and some other people. Besides, in the book, Mr. Vole tells Mr. Mayherne his side of the story, while in the movie he tells it to Mr. Vole and a judge.
3. One more difference: the idea of Mr. Vole going on a trip with an unknown young lady once he could receive Mrs. French's money (this in the film). This was never mentioned in the book, but such thing was the one that lead Romaine/Christine to murder Mr. Vole.
4. One thing that changes from the book to the film is the way the old lady contacts the attorney. I definitely like the book's best, because the way the note is written (full of spelling mistakes) showed a bit of the woman's identity and economic situation.
The reading, in my opinion, has more suspense. The way Agatha Christie leads to ask oneself what will happen next, and to me the ending was a bit unexpected. Besides, I read the story before watching the film, and I didn't sense the feeling of suspense in the latter.
3. Do you think this case could be solved easily in our time? Why or why not?
As someone who watches too many procedural shows (Criminal Minds itself, CSI, Law and Order, Bones), I definitely believe that the case could have been solved. Usually when people murder for the first time, unless they have planned it with a lot of perfection (which in this case I doubt it or Leonard would have killed Mrs. Mackenzie as well to leave no witnesses), leave some clues of who killed the victim (a piece of flesh or cloth, for instance). And even though these shows are fiction, many of the things they do are actually used to solve cases in real life (especially in countries like the US or Great Britain, where they have the money to afford that kind of special equipment).
4. Is a blood test enough proof to determine a person's innocence/guilt? Explain briefly.
Blood tests are usually used for medical purposes, and they usually help to identify diseases or allergies in someone rather than their identity. On the other hand, witnesses, weapons, bloodstains (that undergo DNA analysis), and fingerprints are good ways to prove someone's innocence or guilt.
5. Which is an undeniable evidence to determine a person's identity? Support your answer.
The forensic DNA analysis. It was first described as DNA profiling in 1985 by an English geneticist called Dr. Alec Jeffreys. This man discovered that regions of DNA contained DNA sequences that were repeated over and over again next to each other, and that the number of repeated sections presented in a sample could differ from individual to individual. He later on developed a technique to examine the length variation of these DNA repeat sequences, creating the ability to perform human identity tests. As we all know, no one is genetically the same, and these DNA analysis techniques have been perfectioned with time to prove a person's identity with science.
Besides its use on the criminal field, DNA tests are widely used worldwide to prove someone’s paternity or to know about someone's biologic family through DNA analysis.
(With information from http://www.dna.gov/basics/analysishistory)
6. If not for Romaine's testimony, do you consider this a perfect crime? Support your answer.
I would have considered it a lousy crime! Even though all the evidence was circumstantial, the only person who believed his innocence was the attorney. Romaine's testimony was the one that made it a perfect crime, since it (the testimony) was brilliantly planned and executed to leave no doubts of Leonard's innocence, and since it is true that the Law cannot press charges against someone for a same crime more than once, he would have to have committed another murdered or crime to be sent to prison. I consider Romaine, at least, three times much cleverer than her careless husband.
7. Which was your favorite scene and your favorite character? Explain briefly your preference.
In the book: my favorite scene was when Mr. Mayherne received the old lady's note and when he goes to visit her. I think that I loved that part because this woman made me laugh in some sort of way; her way of speaking captivated me because it was really different from what I conceived as informal language, and I think it was a linguistic approach to a early-20th-century English poor person.
I definitely choose Mr. Mayherne as my favorite character, because he strongly believed in his client - that shows passion for the job; he did everything that was in his power to show his innocence - that shows conviction; and the only reason he helped Mr. Vole was because he really thought he wasn't guilty, not because of money, and I'm sure he would not have helped him that much if he believed in Vole's guiltiness - that shows honesty. If the modern world had attorneys like Mayherne, the legal system would function much, much better.
In the film: definitely the end, I love passionate murders! I am not saying that I would kill for love (I don't think that I'd kill for anything, Miss, please don't misunderstand me :D), but Leonard was a man who deserved to have an unhappy ending: he killed a sweet, affectionate old lady, stayed with her money, broke his wife's heart by dumping her, and would go on a luxurious trip with another woman? What justice could it be in the world if he escaped happily and with no remorse? I think that Romaine/Christine acted bravely - she did what we would all have wanted to do!
I choose, just like in the book, Sir Wilfred as my favorite character of the film. He was a nice man who worked despite of his health condition, and he was enormously clever! He was a really great lawyer, and a truly nice person (I liked those scenes in which you could see Sir Wilfred with the nurse, and talking about his vacations and his Bermuda shorts).
