Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Film/TV
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
And agreeing with #2 also, Kubrick's The Shining was infinitely better than King's book (or terrible remake).
LA Confidential
Jackie Brown
Out of Sight
The Princess Bride
The list goes on.
Sometimes a terrible movie of a great book can serve a purpose, though, by for instance sending a person to the library to check out Bonfiglioli's books, as I did a couple of weeks ago. They sound terrific; I'll know when my hold comes up. The movie I will never see, whether I like the books or not.
Tidelands is also superior in that the author is unable to evoke the vast, desolate Midwest landscapes where the camera easily does.
Silence of the Lambs also rises above the workmanlike prose.
Also worth noting that Clarks 2001 was a novelization of the film (and definitely inferior). 2010 was certainly a lot better than the movie.
"Brighton Rock" remains a masterpiece (I haven't read the book but viewed the film because of his recommendation. I've read Vol. 1 of Greene's bio by Norman Sherry) and it's one of my favorite films. I agree the remake was a disappointment considering the extraordinary cast (Sam Reilly, Helen Mirren & John Hurt among others) and the changed time (1964). I asked myself "Couldn't the soundtrack have included some Northern Soul or Brit Pop of the era?"
Sean, I read "High Fidelity" and thought the movie better too. The film set in Chicago (my hometown) is charming. Clearly, Cusack wanted it set there rather than in London (in the book). I did like Rob's "lists". I have many vintage recordings on vinyl & CD. So, the story is indeed close to heart. There's a bit of record snob, Rob in me too.
Finally, the film adaption of "The Red Dragon", "Manhunter" by Thomas Harris is very good but the book was good too.
An obscure one: The Beguiled, with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page (and a freaky turn by the great Pamela Ferdin), from a novel by Thomas P. Cullinan.
Walkabout, starring David Gulpilil and the most beautiful woman in the history of the world, Jenny Agutter, from a novel by James Vance Marshall.
Meh baring the fine folks fm Rifftrax giving us a 90s treat with Total Recall is rather reread the PKD short story.
As far as PKD on film gos so far only A Scanner Darkly succeeds as a faithful adaptation and while I love the film, I'd still rather read the book.
Clarke actually wrote the novelization of 2001 at the same time he & Kubrick were co-writing the screenplay for the film version. That's why there are major plot differences between the two: for example, Discovery being sent to Saturn in the novel, versus to Jupiter in the film, because during production of the visual effects Kubrick was never able to recreate Saturn's rings to his satisfaction and so had to alter the script when he decided to use Jupiter instead. But, by that time Clarke had already sent the novel in to his British publisher and it was in the process of being printed, so there was no way to incorporate many of the deviations Kubrick had implemented during shooting.
The Twilight series.
Even the author thinks so.
@1 - Nope. The movie is good as an exploration of people benumbed by modern life seeking connection through violent pain and sexual pleasure. The book is an astounding satire of modernity's tendency to numb us and replace our natural desires with consumerist yearnings, as well as an extended aside on the nature of celebrity as modern godhood, using sex and fetishism to connect it all.
Oh, and the movie was surprisingly adequate.
For additional reading, I would recommend the Cracked article on the same topic.
The fact that you didn't understand Burroughs source material is not a vote in favor of Cronenberg's unwatchable mess. Sure it was fun, but actually superior? Not in any way.
Attenborough's 'Rock' version was fair, but if you think it's better than actually reading Graham Greene, then you clearly haven't read any Graham Greene.
You make a better case for Noah - except for the fact that the film is an incoherent piece of crap and anything with Crowe in it is automatically worse than anything without him in it. Sure, it's better than the source material - but not by much.
I could go on, but the article simply proves you have a terrible ability to judge books *and* film. Please read more before offering opinions.