It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Oh good another thread where people say that things they like are good and things they don't like are bad.
avatar
tomimt: I still haven't read the book myself, but many people have said that the Clocwork Orange is better movie than a book.
avatar
Wishbone: Do not listen to those people. They have a horrible taste in movies.
Seeing that I just love Clockwork Orange I have to disagree with you there.
avatar
mxh178: Oh good another thread where people say that things they like are good and things they don't like are bad.
Relax, we are obeying ourselves. No one has thrown any punches...yet.
Silence of the Lambs. I read the books after watching the movie, and I have to say good job to the screenwriter and/or director for cutting out all the unnecessary details the author felt like adding to flesh out the characters. I felt like if he had a better editor, a lot of them would have been left out to begin with.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by resi_cat
Michael Crichton's 'Congo'
avatar
u2jedi: Michael Crichton's 'Congo'
Actually, I thought they both sucked. :D
Hah, at least the earthquake happened naturally in the movie... ;o]

avatar
u2jedi: Michael Crichton's 'Congo'
avatar
tinyE: Actually, I thought they both sucked. :D
Post edited February 10, 2013 by u2jedi
avatar
Andanzas: Nobody has mentioned Hitchcock? Vertigo? Rebecca? The Birds? Ah, the youth...
IMO, Rebecca the book was far superior to the movie. The casting in the movie was very well done and it sets the atmosphere, but the book was still much better and, strangely, even creepier. I never read the other two, so can't comment.
avatar
Wishbone: Do not listen to those people. They have a horrible taste in movies.
avatar
tomimt: Seeing that I just love Clockwork Orange I have to disagree with you there.
That's probably because you haven't read the book ;-)

To me, the movie is a cartoonish parody with all of the moral ambiguity from the book (including the ending) cut out of it.
avatar
mxh178: Oh good another thread where people say that things they like are good and things they don't like are bad.
It would be odd to do it the other way around, don't you think?
Post edited February 10, 2013 by Wishbone
One more

'1984'
I don't know if many people have read the book or watched the movie, but I must include "Krabat" in the list. Preußler's novel was a children book with cheesy plot, vingette style storytelling and events that were all over the place and couldn't make a coherent story.
The German movie (2008 adaptation) was a chilling dark fantasy story and was so good precisely because it strayed as far from the book as possible.
avatar
u2jedi: One more

'1984'
I respectfully dissagree on this one. Don't get me wrong, I thought the movie was great, but not as good as the book.
avatar
tinyE: As far as Apes goes it really doesn't belong in the conversation because you can't make the book into a movie the way it was written. No spoilers here, but anyone who has read the book knows what I'm talking about, you just CAN'T do that with a movie.
I'm sure you can. Maybe ditching the intro and keeping the intro. Or keeping the intro as a voiceover. You could pull a nice polanskiesque trick, there...

And, as far as I'm concerned, the novel is way way better and more interesting than all its adaptations.
I respectfully accept your disagreement

:o]


avatar
u2jedi: One more

'1984'
avatar
tinyE: I respectfully dissagree on this one. Don't get me wrong, I thought the movie was great, but not as good as the book.
Jaws

No offense to Benchley's novel, of course. But the movie was a cultural penomenon.