Books into Movies: Opinions, Reviews, Dsappointments and Vctories

[CCL]

The BBC made new versions of all of Austen's works last year (not including Pride and Prejudice or Emma, versions of which the BBC had made in the 1990s). Those are the films that PBS is airing this winter. The Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility was not a BBC work.
I saw a good version of Persuasion a while back - here's the link to in imdb. Persuasion (1995) (TV)

[Google]

 

[myrosiedog]

Originally Posted by Critical

Well, I didn't say the movie was great - just that it was better than the book! Seriously though, I did read the book and I'll admit that I got sucked in. When I read his second book I realized what a horrible writer he is. With Bridges, it was the story, not the writing. I think many authors would have had a hit with that story. When he didn't have a good story, his lack of talent was glaringly obvious.

AJane - I think Irving is probably fed up with people trying to adapt his books to film. I thought he would have closed the door after the wretched Simon Birch was made based on his spectacular book (and one of my top 5 favorites) A Prayer for Owen Meaney. I know he did publicly distance himself from the film, but I wish he would just stop selling the rights to his books. No one has ever been able to do them justice. The World According to Garp is the only one that was half-way good and it still didn't come close to the book.

I LOVED A Prayer for Owen Meaney. And The Hotel New Hampshire. Irving is brilliant and most of the movie adaptions were just awful. Garp was ok as a movie, but a wonderful book. And the movie adaption of The Hotel New Hampshire was just plain awful.

Rattus, give Owen Meaney or The Hotel New Hampshire a try. I read Hotel first and then Garp and I didn't love Garp as much as the other two.

Nicholas and Alexandra was GREAT, but I haven't read that since highschool and I rememeber the movie too but don't remember if the movie was better than the book, why too long ago.

The Da Vinci Code was very disappointing as a movie. LOVED the book. Read his other work later and loved Angels and Demons even more, so I hope they don't butcher that one too much when it is a movie.

[speedbump]

I loved the book Fast Food Nation but was really disappointed with the movie.

The same with Flags of Our Fathers.

[AJane]

Originally Posted by Critical

The BBC Mansfield Park is (I think) the one with Kate Beckinsale as Fanny. I have to say, I didn't love it. I actually enjoyed the one with Francis O'Connor more, even though it was a bit more feminist than Miss Austen probably would have liked. Maybe it had something to so with Jonny Lee Miller (a perfect Edmund) and James Purefoy

Ok, now that sounds vaguely familiar. I think I may have seen a little bit of that movie after all. Is Fanny really mouthy and actually has some backbone? I never cared for Austen's Fanny - so cringing and pious - but I now recall seeing a few scenes of some version of Mansfield Park where I was absolutely shocked at the movie Fanny.

[Veruka]

Originally Posted by myrosiedog

The Da Vinci Code was very disappointing as a movie. LOVED the book. Read his other work later and loved Angels and Demons even more, so I hope they don't butcher that one too much when it is a movie.

I think they made a critical mistake with DaVinci Code trying to give the audience something different from the book. It was one of those books that is so vividly written in every aspect - the description of the characters, the settings, etc - that if they had really stuck to it and been determined to deliver every bit on the screen just as it had been written in the book, it would have been brillant. It does not matter that it was so widely read. I think most of the reason that the Harry Potter movies have been such a success is that people get to see what THEY pictured in reading the books up there on the screen and think "How did the director know what I was thinking?" The same could have been true of DaVinci. People who read the book came into the movie because they loved the book. There's no need to give something new when the audience is so sold on the original product.

[myrosiedog]

Originally Posted by Veruka

I think they made a critical mistake with DaVinci Code trying to give the audience something different from the book. It was one of those books that is so vividly written in every aspect - the description of the characters, the settings, etc - that if they had really stuck to it and been determined to deliver every bit on the screen just as it had been written in the book, it would have been brillant. It does not matter that it was so widely read. I think most of the reason that the Harry Potter movies have been such a success is that people get to see what THEY pictured in reading the books up there on the screen and think "How did the director know what I was thinking?" The same could have been true of DaVinci. People who read the book came into the movie because they loved the book. There's no need to give something new when the audience is so sold on the original product.

You're right about that. Changing a storyline so drastically can really hurt a movie. I do realize that it has to be edited for time, etc., but The Da Vinci Code just did not measure up as a movie.

And honestly GWTW as a movie was great, but the book is so very different and so much better. But in my opinion both are classics even though the movie was very different. Same with The Wizard of Oz. And I loved Charlie and the Chocolate factory as a child, but both movies were very disappointing to me. The book was so much better.

I am looking forward to seeing "Charlie Wilson's War", but have not read the book. I'm wondering if I should just see the movie and then read the book. I saw the interview on Sun. with both him and Joanne Herring (the real ones, not the Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts version) and thought it was very interesting.

[Critical]

I never thought any of Dan Brown's books would make good movies. Maybe Digital Fortress, but certainly not the other ones. DVC and A&D simply have to much expository information in them to make them good movies. Without all of that information about the art - much of which was left out of DVC - it becomes just another chase movie. I don't think it ever could have been made into a successful film - there was just too much expository information required to make it like the book and then the film would have been a) 4 hours long and b) crushingly dull for most of the viewing audience. Movies and books are such different mediums. I think it's foolish for producers to think that, just because a book is successful, it will make a good movie. And yet, they keep trying!

CCL - that version of Persuasion is one of my favorite movies ever! I can't imagine any two actors being better for the roles than Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. I might watch the newer version (although I thought the 1995 movie was done by BBC ), but I can't imagine that it would be better.

AJane - YES, the version of Mansfield Park that I'm talking about had a much more "plucky" Fanny. I love the book, but I did appreciate Fanny with a backbone!

Let's face it, with most adaptations, the producers do take liberties with the story (I'm still trying to forgive Kenneth Branagh for Hamlet and I adore him). Sense and Sensibility certainly wasn't faithful to the book, but it was a lovely film. I liked the Gweneth version of Emma too, but it definitely left out huge parts of the book. Even the 6 hour BB version of P&P didn't include every little thing, although it's certainly (I think) the best Austen adaptation, by far.

[CCL]

Originally Posted by Critical

CCL - that version of Persuasion is one of my favorite movies ever! I can't imagine any two actors being better for the roles than Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root. I might watch the newer version (although I thought the 1995 movie was done by BBC ), but I can't imagine that it would be better.

You're right, Critical - the 1995 version was made by the BBC. I guess they figured they could do a better version? Seems weird to remake it only 12 years later. I don't know. I thought the 1995 version was very good, personally. I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

[AJane]

This isn't exactly the proper place to post this, but I figured everyone who cares has visited this thread - the PBS "The Complete Jane Austen" series starts tonight with Persuasion.

[Lucy]

I wish I'd taped it -- I didn't really remember Persuasion, and didn't think I'd like it as much as the others, but I did enjoy it.