 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.250.7.250
anyone?
"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus
Follow Ups:
.
Harris' Hannibal books are just not very good reading. The movie was very good as a thriller..
Eaters of the Dead was a pretty lame attempt to historize the Beawulf story. 13th Warrior was a well cast and acted action flick (full of anachronisms though it was.....the Viking leader directing his warriors with spec-ops hand signals)
Rob
Actually both are good but the movie synthesized the book even better.
nt
~ AH.
Kubrick's version was much much better than the book, in my opinion.
I agree although King hated it and even made a TV version himself more faithful to his novel. His version is scary in places but boring overall.
OMG! The book is SO much better and scarier than the movie IMO.
Music is felt, not heard.
nt
A sentimental favorite. I enjoyed the films theological implications which were never discussed in the book. Too much science and not enough humanity in Carl Sagan's book.
Henry Hill's book is fascinating for its insider view, but it has a slightly whiney undertone.Scorsese's film OTOH is positively scorching, It becomes about more than just Henry Hill and the mafia - it tackles nothing less than the American dream.
Great music too.
Schindler's List.I'll make a case for The English Patient but no so much better as running at the content at another angle.
Oscar and Lucinda - Peter Carey won an award for the novel which i wrote on in my first year English course. I prefer the book's ending Carey prefers the movie version ending. (change my mind the book's better).
I liked the movie version of Firestarter over the book - neither is saying very much but still Drew is addrable here and the booked dragged.
Gee you know I can't think of very many films that really blow the books away. Schindler's List was a dense book with more information and ordered in a different sequence but less powerful and a bit detached.
...I've ever seen post here who admits liking Oscar & Lucinda. I like it a great deal, including the score. Great performance by Cate Blanchette.I would have to read the book again, to say whether or not it was better, but I was enchanted by both.
> Gee you know I can't think of very many films that really blow the books away.I think books have the advantage of being able to give more time to character development. Also, the pace of reading allows for more intertwined stories and details to unfold. That build-up of character development and detail creates a certain emotional punch when you get to the climax of a novel.
A filmmaker has to pick and choose his battles to fit it all into a limited time (the audience has to absorb it all in one sitting), and the emotional payoff has to be more quickly brought to a boil and focused on fewer themes and ideas. Craming everything from a book into a film would confuse the audience, who has to connect all the dots while trying to follow the action, or it would gloss over too much and water down the ultimate emotional payoff. That's why characters and subplots get the axe in movies based on books.
On the other hand, films can convey certain things that books cannot, although I tend to think it's more stuff to the gut than the mind (like a sexy scene or a sense of thrill).
I've been reading books more lately, and I was noticing how it produces a certain satisfaction that I hadn't had for a long time watching movies. Not better or worse, just differently satisfying. And I got reminded by a post in a thread below how many times people will say, "aw, the book was much better than the movie."
I suppose the next question is, if you loved the book, how excited are you to see the movie? Think about how many times you come out of the theater muttering, "aw, the book was better than the movie."
"HO, HO, HO!" - Santa Claus
Though the book and film bear little resemblance to each other.
Regards,J.R.
The film is pretty one note - a good note - the book has much more depth to it. One could make an arguement that Young Frankenstein even with it's zany side which is pretty much the whole side is the deepest most faithful to the novella.
The Gothic novel always seemed to me to promise more than it ever
delivered, like, say, "Melmoth the Wanderer" or "The Monk". The film
is rather demented, not unlike speed metal. The book has a dreamy
placid quality, low splatter factor. Regards,J.R.
Sam Peckinpah's film is MUCH better than the book, "The Siege of Trencher's Farm". Like he told an interviewer, all the book has is the siege at the end of the book. All the undertones with the wife and the mathmatics professor who does not fit in were added in the script writing stage.
"Far From the Madding Crowd". Our book club just read Hardy's novel and it is nowhere near as intriguing as the film with Julie Christie and Terrence Stamp.
Fine book by Ira Levine but a splendid and thoroughly creepy translation by the great Roman Polansky.
Still one of my favorite horror films.
Puzo's novel was pulp fiction - a good read but nothing special - whereas Coppola's film is a genuine masterwork. Considering that Puzo, along with Coppola, wrote the script, I'm sure that it includes many "rethinks" on Puzo's part.
I'll agree with you there. The novel was entertaining trash. The movie, though, was something else altogether.
"To Kill a Mockingbird"The movie had to strip away the asides (and some of the subtleties) but it kept mood better. I have always considered it one of (if not the) greatest products of the studios, last gasp for them though it might have been. And the black and white was perfect!
It was also the last of James Wong How's films. And what a loss that was!
The cinematographer for "...Mockingbird" was Russell Harlan. James Wong Howe died in 1976, 14 years after "...Mockingbird".
The elder statesman was "retired". But he was there virtually daily and was very, very influential (actually . . . he "did it" according to the cast . . . all one has to do is look!). To my knowledge he did nothing after for which he got credit, but there may be something similar (i.e. "uncredited")In that matter I defer to you.
I think his work on "Chinatown" (1974)is Howe's masterpiece.
a
although it's been a while since I've read the book or seen the movie, and I enjoyed them both, Vonnegut's narrative style and indelible descriptive passages do not find their way into the film, for the most part.
In Vino Veritas
s
A very enjoyable movie (rented recently), but the book is a classic.
though I enjoyed them both
And dark, and sarcastic. Sarcasm in fact is Vonnegut's chief literary conceit. Guess it makes him feel good about all that money and fame.The movie IMO makes not a single misstep.
clark
Perhaps there is a lot of sarcasm in "Slaughterhouse Five", but keep in mind, Vonnegut did spend the night of the Dresden firebombing underneath the city as a POW. If he wants to write about that night sarcastically, I figure
he's entitled.Besides, was Vonnegut really rich and famous when he wrote "Slaughterhouse Five"? I thought the big money and the big fame came with the publication of this work...not before, although I know he was a working writer.
TA,Aside from omitting the part where Hooper nails Brody's wife, Jaws was much better on the silver screen.
Robert Shaw was so good as the Mossad agent in Black Sunday, that it made me enjoy the book even more, the second/third/fourth time. Bruce Dern was also better on the screen than on the printed page.
BTW - the inspiration for his (Shaw) character was actually former PM Ehud Barak who was the commander of Sayaret Matkal at the time. Barak dressed up as a woman with an uzi strapped under his dress and walked through a PLO camp in Lebanon before killing his targets.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell them you're Jewish"
In the book "Jaws" it is Mrs. Brody who seduces Hooper.
"2001: A Space Odyssey". Far better thasn Clarke's accompanying novel.
nt.
And while we're on Boulle, "Bridge on the River Kwai" was better than the book, although the book was pretty good, too.
While I think the original "Planet of the Apes" is a very fine film, I find it overrated (but still FAR superior to any of its sequels) and inferior to Boulle's book.The movie, while keeping the core of the story intact, certainly changed much of the plot dynamics of the book, to the detriment of the story.
I saw the movie before I read the novel. I also understand that some of the Boulle's more salient plot points were forced out of the film by the executive producers via the old "you cut that out or forget about financing" threat. Who knows how much better the film could have been had the producer and director had less studio interference.
I guess I just like the film's "twist" at the end---seemed even more provocative than the book's, IMHO.I noticed that the "new" version of Apes sort of returns/pays homage to the original ending.
Pierre Boulle was also the author of "The Poseidon Adventure", like all of the films based on his work, there are twists and turns that were not put in the film (the teenage girl was raped and then WANTED to have the rapist's baby, for starters).The book is okay, but it doesn't have the shot of the guy falling backwards into the light fixture and being electrocuted...or Leslie Nielson saying, "A giant wall of water...headed right towards us..."
Unless I'm mistaken...
You're correct...one of my favorite movies AND book.
Thanks for the correction! That's what can happen when I am at one location, and my books (which include "The Poseidon Adventure") are at another. I appreciate the information!
Huston made Joyce´s small jewel ( a short story from a book dedicated to Dubliners ) into one of the best films in whole history. That was his testament, and his gift to us all.And "The South" follows the same pattern..., only that the original story was not so good: Erice made an outstandingly poetical, deeply human film, which is year-lights ahead of the story it´s based on.
Another one which now comes to my mind is Welles´s "The Immortal Story", based on one of Dinesen´s tales: another gem, which is even better than the excellent original one.
And now, while writing this, I realize that all three have Death as their gravity center...
Regards
BF
a beautiful swan song . . . and a remarkable film.The only thing to compare it to is the Joyce . . . and one is left bereft of words. Better? Who cares!
It's a fine, fine movie, and a shame it's not available on DVD, but it's not better than the story. I think in this case it's just not useful to make the comparison, because they're both exemplary in their respective media. That the film has to end with voice-over from the book betrays the extent to which it's still in its source's shadow, actually. (Though I'll admit that since seeing the film my reading of the story has been in the shadow of the film: I find it difficult to extricate how I imagine some of the characters from how they appear on screen: Freddy Malins, Mr. Brown, Kate and Julia....) Regardless, a beautiful film no doubt. I haven't seen it in years, actually. What the hell? I suppose folks here have it on laser disk or something....
Erice?
Hehe..Can that be?
We talk so many times about J. Huston " The Death " and do you know what? Still it is enough!
I will have my once a year, always in Autumn, viewing soon.
What a film. What a film. I pity the one who still has not see it.
Stephen Kings; "Christine"Grins
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
