| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jimmy |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 12:03:45
Though there's nothing wrong with the book, I'd say the movie "Pet Semetary" was better.
"American Psycho" could've been so good, but the director was trying to hard to be funny when there were already so many funny parts in the book and they wanted so much to make some "statement about modern masculinity". Plus there was no Talking Heads on the soundtrack. The movie missed everything that was good about the book.
I've never read "The Godfather" but I'm guessing the movie's better.
"The Shining" is good (but waaaaaay too long and slow). Someone should re-make it ( the re-make with the guy from "Wings" was ok but still not good enough.
"The Fountainhead" deserves a re-make too. They're supposed to be making a movie of "Atlas Shrugged"- I don't know how they'll manage to do it well. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 15:02:52
quote:
Originally posted by The King Of Karaoke
I tried reading the Hobbit and Lord of the rings trilogy when I was younger but by the time I got to the third book I was just confused. The names all sound so similar you forget who is who and where the hell they are supposed to be going.
So... I was glad when the movie came out. One thing I missed in the books but that was clearly evident in the movies was that I didn't realize hobbits were flamingly homosexual.
Actually, I think the correct term is "flamingly hobbosexual."
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:57:12
I don't think you could replace Jack Nicholson in the Shining.
He nailed it completely.
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
| Newo |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:31:57
I just read Blade Runner this summer and thought there was a charming quality to it the film lost completely, and missing out on those little bends and warps in reality Dick does was a bit of a waste. Fight Club I prefer to the book tho.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| floop |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 13:24:16
quote:
Originally posted by Carl
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Teenage Anal Sluts IV
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
Oh, pish posh. The book had a disjointed narrative, and the entry of the man 'to check the pipes' had much more impact on screen.
Like Asian Cheerleaders In Trouble VII, it was very much simplified for the big screen.
 "Join the Honeycult!"
in all fairness to the book, it's difficult to compare the film medium to literature; they are completely different artforms.
|
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/06/2005 : 09:31:23
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
I thought John Huston's The Bible was much better as a film than the bestseller it was based on. The book is too long, and a lot of it is totally questionable whereas the film is a tight 150 minutes and sticks to only Genesis instead of trying to tackle both Testaments...or a whole Testament at that. It was also good that Huston never attempted a sequel.
I was alone...in my BIG BED
-bRIAN
Haha, I was gonna suggest that one.
Oh and Carl, I think you need to re-read the topic's title. This is for movies that were better than the book, not the other way around.
Silly Billy.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Carl |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 17:47:27
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Teenage Anal Sluts IV
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
Oh, pish posh. The book had a disjointed narrative, and the entry of the man 'to check the pipes' had much more impact on screen.
Like Asian Cheerleaders In Trouble VII, it was very much simplified for the big screen.
"Join the Honeycult!"
|
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 10:33:53
I thought John Huston's The Bible was much better as a film than the bestseller it was based on. The book is too long, and a lot of it is totally questionable whereas the film is a tight 150 minutes and sticks to only Genesis instead of trying to tackle both Testaments...or a whole Testament at that. It was also good that Huston never attempted a sequel.
I was alone...in my BIG BED
-bRIAN |
| VoVat |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 10:26:34
Really? I thought the book had a lot more character development.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 12/05/2005 : 05:51:26
Teenage Anal Sluts IV
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| Carl |
Posted - 12/04/2005 : 02:10:33
quote:
Originally posted by soundofataris
I never read the book that Die Hard was based on but I can't imagine it being better than the flick.
Maltese Falcon was better as a movie. So was The Big Sleep. Jaws, Battle Royale, Fight Club, Bladerunner. I like High Fidelity better than the book, but I think I'm in the minority.
---------------------------------------
i try to be mallory but i'm still skippy
A friend of mine read Jaws, and said it wasn't very good. Apparently, there's a love affair between Richard Dreyfuss' character and Mrs. Brody, which thankfully they cut out. It's funny, Peter Benchley now regrets the bad press he feels he gave sharks, and is very interested in them and sympathetic towards them.
I still hav'nt finished Fight Club! It's a short novel, but I just put it down left it for a few weeks!
"Join the Honeycult!"
|
| Useyourname |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 23:55:30
Having read The Godfather before seeing the movie I'll have to say that the movie and book are about neck and neck as far as quality. Niether are really better. They're both equally good. The book has more information then the movie, but the movie has great acting, music, and directing. So each has it's pros and cons, but I think they even out in the end.
I was also dissapointed with American Psycho the movie. The book was mediocore and the movie could have been a lot better. Should be remade someday. I could see the Coen brothers doing the book in the right tone. Very bloody and violent but with enough of that dark, absurd humor they have without losing the violent tone.
jimmy |
| soundofataris |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 23:44:14
I never read the book that Die Hard was based on but I can't imagine it being better than the flick.
Maltese Falcon was better as a movie. So was The Big Sleep. Jaws, Battle Royale, Fight Club, Bladerunner. I like High Fidelity better than the book, but I think I'm in the minority.
---------------------------------------
i try to be mallory but i'm still skippy |
| Carl |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 18:55:31
quote:
Originally posted by jimmy
Though there's nothing wrong with the book, I'd say the movie "Pet Semetary" was better.
 NO WAY!
I saw the movie first, and thought it was a bit crappy. But the book is maybe my favorite King novel (besides some of The Dark Tower) that I've read. I warmed to the characters, and found it quite emotive. I liked the atmosphere of it, and it certainly had more depth than the schlocky movie-though Fred Gwynne as Jud is one the most perfect pieces of casting ever. BTW, did you notice King as a priest in the film?! The Shining was a bit of a let down after the film, I liked it, but I think I was expecting to be blown away. The miniseries has a lot of stuff that was cut out, and it is pretty good, but is less successful as a work of horror in my opinion, apart from the hag in the bath, which I found scarier than in Kubrick's movie (although the way it shows her in rising from the bath in that is pretty freaky).
Never read American Psycho, But the movie seemed to have too much of a comic tone, not that I did'nt like it. And I've never read The Godfather, the movie undeniably deserves it's classic status, though. I havn't heard of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.
I have to admit to only reading the LOTR (seperately, as three books) before the films came out, a friend gave me an old copy when I was a kid, but I only read the start of it then. I did read The Hobbit years ago. I can't seem to finish The Silmarilion, I always read a good bit of it, stop, then by the time I pick it up again, I feel like I have to read it from the start again! I love the LOTR, both the book and Peter Jackson's adaptation, and I always loved Ralph Bakshi's animated movie, too (even though it looks a bit tame now, and of course it only gets some way into The Two Towers, because there was no funding to finish it off!) It's a pity The Scouring Of The Shire was cut from PJ's adaptation (although it is paid homage to in The Mirror Of Galadriel sequence in The Fellowship), it's understandable why they had to cut it, though. I don't know how they could have done Tom Bombadil, it would have been a bit silly! Apparently, they were going to shoot a little sequence where the hobbits glimpse him running through the forest, but they ran out of time. Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn did a sketch with Peter Jackson for the MTV awards a few years ago (it's included as an easter egg on the Return Of The King Special Extended Edition), where they proposed doing a gay-themed film about Frodo and Sam! I remember Ian McKellan saying (And I think others have said this too) that he thought Sam and Frodo's closeness was like that of two soldier's in a war, that being in the middle of a battle makes people cling together for comfort, or something like that. Tolkien, of course, fought in the trenches during World War I.
Shit, I sound like a total Lord Of The Rings saddo! Oh wait, I am!!
"Join the Honeycult!"
|
| billgoodman |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 14:08:33
ohhh sam!
---------------------------
God save the Noisies |
| The King Of Karaoke |
Posted - 12/03/2005 : 13:54:25
I tried reading the Hobbit and Lord of the rings trilogy when I was younger but by the time I got to the third book I was just confused. The names all sound so similar you forget who is who and where the hell they are supposed to be going.
So... I was glad when the movie came out. One thing I missed in the books but that was clearly evident in the movies was that I didn't realize hobbits were flamingly homosexual.
|
|
|
