Movies We Watched
Narc: An interesting movie, but not as good as Training Day.
25th Hour: I did not like this movie. It did not hang together as well as it should have. Too bad since the premise was interesting.
Frida: I liked the way they used the paintings for some animations and moods.
The Quiet American: I haven’t read the book and I think books are always better than their movie adaptations. I did not see the dichotomy between the British journalist and the American CIA guy. They seemed similar except for the sunny optimism of an American and the typical pessimistic (or realist, as a British friend pointed out last week) attitude of the British. The movie was quite good though.
Related Posts:
Categories: Movies
ڈفر Duffer
hey so do uknow this muslim pakicouple that recently got married andgoto GA tech…
sal: Guy is a grad student, gal a freshman (I think), got married on July 19. If that’s the one you are talking about, I know him well. Haven’t met her yet, but will do soon. We attended their wedding.
Re: movies better than books – “Jaws”, “The Godfather”, and “2001” are all miles better than the book (I think the original novel of 2001 had a different title, although I can’t remember what it was). It helps that they were awful books, but they are still very, very good movies.
That being said, I can’t think of any movie made out of a good book that was made into an even beter movie. Maybe “Rashomon”, although I haven’t read the book. Novels are usually just to big, generally, to make successful movies out of. Short stories work better, usually.
Andrew: Agreed about 2001, Jaws and Godfather. 2001 was actually adapted from a short story “Sentinel” by Arthur C. Clarke. The story only covered a small portion of the movie. I think it didn’t have Hal or the journey to Jupiter. Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the screnplay and a novel was also published.
I also agree that novels are too long to adapt to a movie in general. A novella or short story works much better. A good example is Lord of the Rings. The movies are good and pretty long but they skip quite a few things from the books.
Yeah, you’re right about about 2001. I think I read the novelization of the movie, which I thought wasn’t very true to the spirit of the film, but that’s a whole other conversation. Also to the better movie list I’d add “Psycho”, and also the Humphrey Bogart “The Maltese Falcon”. I never actually read the book of The Maltese Falcon, but I just have a hard time believing it could be any better.
I agree on LOTR. I think some of the stuff they cut was for the good (the singing, mainly – can you imagine?), most of it was necessary to keep the story moving, and they probably should have tried to cut even more. It has to have been really tough, because the books are just way too long, and I think that they did a pretty impressive job, overall. But not better than the books.
Andrew: Haven’t read the Psycho book, but the Maltese falcon book was pretty good as well.
All the stuff in the LOTR books helps create that world though and is fun (except the singing of course).
yuuuuuuuup ur right!!!!!!! the girl and her sis’s are good friends of mine! this is so unbelievable..heh..i was at the wedding too
but umm if u do meet her dont say u know me from my blog!!!!!!!! veryyy few peoplei know in real life knowof my blog..ya paranoia..no i writestuff thats personal thatswhy
Two more examples of movies-better-than-books-they’re-based-on, in my opinion: “Last of the Mohicans,” and “The Hunt for Red October.” Both also bear out the idea that the book shouldn’t be all that good. Plus I think J.F.Cooper might have been a good screenwriter or director.
sal: Small world! OK.
Thomas: Agreed about “Hunt for Red October”. Don’t know about the Mohicans.