I watched it just now, and it's a decent+ film (a.k.a
+) and it's highly stylistic. Pretty much everything I was going to say was asked by wintertriangles already, so I'll just build off of that.
The Hemingway story is summed up within the first act, so does it maintain its intensity continuing onward for another 85 minutes? If so, what does it do that the story could not?
The first act was by far the best, it had an unmatched intensity, that faded away after the movie left Hemingway's story. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been a feature, but if it all compared to this act I would've found it as a truly great one. And this segment did give me an over hyped sense for the rest of the film, I was hoping it'd all be this entertaining, and didn't see a reason why it wouldn't be. So yes I don't believe that Veillers story matched with Hemingways. I also watch Tarkovskys short film
Ubiytsi also based on the story, it was only the first act, and I'm assuming the adaption was pretty loyal, since the two played almost word by word. The only Hemingway I read though is, The Sun Also Rises, so I don't know for sure. Tarkovskys first film wasn't as intense as Siodmoks, but that's because I watched it after (Tarkovskys version).
So other than that I really don't have to much to contribute, I enjoyed the flashback narration style, but didn't quiet catch how the ending played out. I can see the acclaim behind this noir, and liked it enough to appreciate it. As I stated the first act served great as a thriller, and I'd give that poriton a
, but it mellowed down after the killing. Also thought it was intresting that Richard Brooks and John Huston helped Veiller on the script, that's a loaded team.