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

×
Forrest Gump. Excellent movie...shitty book.
Anyone read "The World According to Garp"? Loved the movie, never read the book.
avatar
Leroux: Hm, not quite sure, but I think it might be Vertigo.
Ah, yes. Vertigo is now Hitch's critically most acclaimed movie. It's undeniably great and powerful, but I always... (spoilers ahead!) I feel that Judy turning out to be "Madelaine" is a grave mistake. It takes away from the thorniness and creepy romanticism of James Stewart trying to resurrect his dead lover by turning this new girl into a copy of her. I actually genuinely believe that Hitchcock felt the same, but nonetheless wittingly diluted the impact of the creepiness of Stewart's actions out of commercial reasons and because he felt he couldn't portray one of Hollywood's greatest stars in such a way.

My personal Hitchcock favourite is Rear Window, by the way, not least because of lovely blonde Grace Kelly. These are the Hitch flicks that I've watched and consider must-sees:

- Notorious
- Dial M for Murder
- Rear Window
- The Wrong Man
- Vertigo
- North by Northwest
- Psycho
- The Birds
Post edited February 10, 2013 by Ivory&Gold
avatar
tinyE: Anyone read "The World According to Garp"? Loved the movie, never read the book.
I've both read it and watched it, both a very long time ago, but as far as I recall, the movie is extremely faithful to the book. All in all, I'd say they are about equally good, and very good indeed at that.
avatar
kalirion: Stardust

At least I remember thinking the book was strictly average when I read it many years ago as a teenager, but the movie was great.
Did you have the same opinion about Captain Shakespeare as I did?
avatar
Wishbone: I'll throw Stardust into the discussion. It's an excellent book, it really is, but the movie outdoes it in at least one very important aspect. In the book, Captain Shakespeare's involvement in the story takes up about a page and a half and is pretty unremarkable. Normally, I'm against inventing story elements of your own when making a movie out of a book, but what the movie does with the Captain Shakespeare character is nothing short of brilliant.
Post edited February 11, 2013 by Wishbone
avatar
jackalKnight: This is going to make me sound like a drooling idiot, but I prefer the film of Life of Pi to the book. The book is so weighted down with elaborate metaphor that the film's streamlining and use of visual delights were necessary to make me truly appreciate the story.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

sad face
Haven't read through all the posts so don't know if Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit have been mentioned, but I loved the books and the movies. Have not seen The hobbit yet but am positive it will be just as good as the book.
avatar
Moonbeam: Haven't read through all the posts so don't know if Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit have been mentioned, but I loved the books and the movies. Have not seen The hobbit yet but am positive it will be just as good as the book.
Well, Jackson milked the trilogy for all its cinematic potential, and you can't really argue with slow motion scenes and sweeping orchestral soundtracks. And he did Galadriel justice, who I believe is the most important figure in the Tolkien cosmos.

Still, if I had to make the choice, I know I'd take the books without a moment's hesitation.
Like some others I'd say Lord of the Rings. Also what I've read of Harry Potter. The first book was enjoyable even if not all that well written, but the second book was boring and I stopped reading half way through and I haven't read any more, so the movies saved the franchise for me.

I've just seen Cloud Atlas and I haven't read the book but read that the movie is better.

The most interesting book-movie case for me is Jean de Florette. I saw the movie and read the book, and enjoyed them both, but the book was funny and the movie was depressing.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Well, Jackson milked the trilogy for all its cinematic potential, and you can't really argue with slow motion scenes and sweeping orchestral soundtracks. And he did Galadriel justice, who I believe is the most important figure in the Tolkien cosmos.

Still, if I had to make the choice, I know I'd take the books without a moment's hesitation.
Yes the books are wonderful, often read them again and still find something new.
avatar
eagarza12: Forrest Gump. Excellent movie...shitty book.
+1

I read the book after watching the movie and was very surprised how bad it was, "Not Another Teen Movie" bad.
avatar
Navagon: That's the problem. Its focus actually lies entirely outside the story and its characters. It relies on that broader context and the resultant graphic novel suffers as a result. None of the characters are remotely likeable. They're ludicrously overpowered. So the only 'point' the story has don't actually relate to the story itself at all. Sure, you can call it an interesting commentary on supervillianary, but it's not very enjoyable on its own merits.
I disagree vehemently with every single thing you said.
avatar
Navagon: That's the problem. Its focus actually lies entirely outside the story and its characters. It relies on that broader context and the resultant graphic novel suffers as a result. None of the characters are remotely likeable. They're ludicrously overpowered. So the only 'point' the story has don't actually relate to the story itself at all. Sure, you can call it an interesting commentary on supervillianary, but it's not very enjoyable on its own merits.
avatar
Randalator: I disagree vehemently with every single thing you said.
Yeah, besides the comment about characters not being likable, which is subjective, it really does not seem like he's talking about The Watchmen. Hell, Manhattan was the only one with real superpowers.
Post edited February 11, 2013 by kalirion
avatar
Navagon: To throw in some graphic novels, I'd say Watchmen (exactly the same, apart from a better ending) and Wanted. The graphic novel left me somewhat ambivalent and unsure as to what it was striving for. To me it seemed like the protagonist was just as much a tool by the end as he was at the start. But I don't think that was the point. The movie didn't have that problem.
No way. Watchmen is an ok movie, but it has nearly all the subcontext of the graphic novel cut out. The movie is more or less a superhero movie, while the graphic novel is a comment on superhero comic books.

Wanted is neither a good movie nor a good comic book. But if I have the choice I would read the book.
Its long time since ive read or watched either, but i think the Jurassic Park movie was better than the book. But then again, they didnt go exactly hand-in-hand plotwise.

----

Metro 2033 isnt a movie yet, but i was bit sad that they had dropped all the religious and psychological stuff the book had from the game. Liked both of them and I can kind of understand why they did what they did - but it was still a shame.
avatar
tomimt: Seeing that I just love Clockwork Orange I have to disagree with you there.
avatar
Wishbone: 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.
avatar
Wishbone: It would be odd to do it the other way around, don't you think?
The american version of the book doesn't have the final chapter... sucks to be them as it completely changes the tone of the book and makes it far better than the film.