Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Genuinely couldn't choose which of the two I prefer as they are both perfect.
And missed the warmth of the relationship between The Man and The Boy
Does the book ever explain how the hell Guy Pierce's family (a) have a dog and (b) seem to be able to live fine and follow them when every day for Viggo and the boy is a struggle for survival and he makes a point that all the animals are dead?
Kiss Me Deadly
Most film noir actually really.
Atmospheric, charismatic etc, but nonsense compared to the book.
I loved this film, felt that the transposition of the story into the 70s made it really fresh and original. Stellar performances.
someone agrees with me on this.
Brighton Rock (2010)...let's just agree to differ.
Solaris (both versions are quite good)
SCREW YOU HATERS
The Two Towers - No
The Return of the King - Yes but actually we discover it's not a very satisfying thing to film no matter how well you do it.
(elfy boy skateboarding into battle aside)
Pointless bit with Aragorn going all spaced out just so they can shoehorn in Liv Tyler? And the amount of time this took probably leading them to cut out Saruman's death entirely, which should have been in there.
Plus you've got the character assassinations of both Faramir and Théoden... Actually maybe I'm wrong on the latter but I seem to remember that even after they get rid of Wormtongue in the film he's all cowardly and indecisive but in the books he's like, "BRING IT!".
On and that ludicrous bit where the Nazgul flies right up to Frodo and totally misses the ring. YEAH, SURE.
but the film is mostly just people running.
I like that in a film
How close is the action to stuff that actually happens in the book?
Just know it's a good film and it was adapted from a book
I didn't even realise it was based on a book --- have you read it?
as in, it's a good film that happens to be based on a book.
It was not the kind of cartoon I was expecting
interesting how different it is from the book but still an amazing adaptation I think..
Bonfire of the Vanities
or American Psycho
There's a whole book apparently about how Bruce Willis' ego spoiled the entire film.
Also Tom Hanks just doesn't work as the central character.
It's tough adapting a masterpiece though
Tom Hanks as you mention, Melanie Griffith (who supposedly got a boob job halfway through filming it, which meant they had to reshoot), Bruce Willis perpetually smirking...
The Devil's Candy is great.
it's not so much about Bruce Willis. It's about how basically everything in that film was fucked. The writer was given exclusive rights to write about the entire process, and the fact it was an utter disaster just makes it an even more interesting book
I know your post isn't serious but just wanted to say how bad that film is.
THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
Mary Harron did such a fantastic job on this film.
Another great performance from Christian Bale.
Yet to read the book, bizarrely picked it up for £3 in Sainsburys. But I know its loved by assassins everywhere.
to have a good adaptation, the setting is different, Barry and Dick look nothing like how they're described in the books (to pick some examples of differences), but none of it matters as the film works.
and I was FURIOUS when I heard the casting and the setting. But then I saw the film and was totally won over by it.
Trainspotting: the Renton story.
but I think Get Shorty is terrible.
is utter, utter shite as well.
Both book and film.
Excellent cast. Travolta being cool, Rene Russo being cool and hot, Dennis Farina being very sweary, Danny De Vito being his usual great self, Gene Hackman being a massive dick.
Really good story. Quite complex but somehow done simply.
Great lines: 'They say the fucking smog is the fucking reason you have such beautiful fucking sunsets'; 'It's the cadillac of mini-vans'; 'It's a regular fucking chilli-fest'; 'Oh sorry, I was doing Shylock you meant *a* shylock'; 'She sits facing west so she can wear sunglasses. He faces east so he can see his billboard'; 'A bajillion, huh? That's a lot right?'; 'LEEEEEEEEEEO, MY LEEEEEEEOOOOooooooooo...' Loads more but I shan't go on.
Great film. Probably top five for me.
But yeah, strokes, folks, moving the world and all that.
but the first season of Game of Thrones was pretty much perfect
the only film where I've seen the poster saying 'this is a brilliant adaptation of my book!' from the author.
Shame we never got the opportunity to see a similar quote on the poster for The Lovely Bones.
Amazingly excellent film of an amazing book. Manages to carve a distinct identity from the book too, without betraying its essence at all. So impressed.
*tenuous, but technically correct.
</easily verifiable fact if I could be arsed>
the novel(la) was WRITTEN first but published later.
In summary : we're both wrong.
*Very, very tenuous
what the fuck guys?
...yielded Shawshank, Apt Pupl and Stand By Me. Only The Breathing Method yet to be made.
would be amazing if someone managed to make a feature film out of the breathing method, if only to complete the seasons.
is a hokey load of old bollocks.
Don't fancy critcising anything in there?
but I saw the film first. Do people who read the book first agree with me? The film and book are quite different, but in the same spirit. Like different adventures of the same characters almost.
Main kid is one of the most annoying characters ever. I know we're meant to laugh at his oddball antics but I just kept thinking "You're a cunt, pal."
It was sort of cool for me though, being from Swansea and going "I know that place!"
my work is done.
Intuitively Fred McMurray seems miscast, but actually he's perfect.
The Postman Always Rings Twice is another good James Cain adaptation. Like someone said earlier, noir tends to work.
Let The Right One In - not read the book, but the film's excellent.
Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas - captures the whole thing in a way I didn't think would be possible.
And a couple of Altmans:
Short Cuts (from a selection of stories rather than one book, but hey)
The Long Goodbye - as good as it is irreverent to the source.
which I really think is NOWHERE near as good as the book
(and Morvern Cellar, which I've never hear of)
but the rest are good calls
It just didn't feel right for me and was dull to watch. I didn't like how the characters were so Americanised and it just seemed too clever for its own good. I couldn't connect with it at all. I remember loving the book as a kid too. :(
is not to think of it purely as an adaptation of a Roald Dahl book. You have to primarily think of it as a Wes Anderson film. I know lots of people who were disappointed by it for this reason. My brother really liked it though despite no past knowledge of Anderson, that was a nice surprise.
and I quite enjoyed it but wasn't blown away by it. Maybe there is something I am missing here...
It's pretty much directly the book.
mean, take a look at you and me. You chose books - I chose looks. I have a nice house, a wonderful husband... and you are slaving away teaching snot-nosed children their ABCs