I know that it's meant to be 'closer to the book' and 'darker' according to idiot film critics, but as far as I'm concerned if you think that then you haven't actually read the book.
All the good dialog and interplay with the characters is already in the original film, most of it word for word. The ending isn't quite the same, but who cares ?
Rooster is described as being around the age of 40 in the book, in the new film he appears to be about the wrong side of 70.
And he's not The Duke, he's just some stupid actor with a really fake looking beard

I pronounce a Fatwa against this blasphemous abomination
