Books into Movies: Opinions, Reviews, Dsappointments and Vctories

[myrosiedog]

Bearcata,

I too was SO disappointed with Interview with a Vampire and Queen of the Damned. Anne Rice's books were so good and the movies were horrible. And part of the horribleness was Tom Cruise and I liked him back then.

[Google]

 

[Starbucks880]

I think they did a good job with the Bourne movies, though I never would have seen Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, but he did do a good job.

I just recently saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and it was as good as the book. Has anyone else seen/heard of it? I am not sure how many French people or Americans who watch foreign movies are on here. I do know in America it isn't wide release. They are both very compelling and I really recommend it.

[Rattus]

Originally Posted by CCL

Frequently an issue. Hollywood's idea of homely differs vastly from the rest of the world's. Usually it means slightly mussed hair or something.

True, and it seriously annoys me. Not theatrical releases, but the actress who plays Barbara Havers in the series based on the Elizabeth George books is waaaaay too attractive. Apparently no styling product and some ill-fitting clothes means you are homely (sad to say for me ).

[Bearcata]

Originally Posted by Starbucks880

I think they did a good job with the Bourne movies, though I never would have seen Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, but he did do a good job.

I just recently saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and it was as good as the book. Has anyone else seen/heard of it? I am not sure how many French people or Americans who watch foreign movies are on here. I do know in America it isn't wide release. They are both very compelling and I really recommend it.

I went to see the first Bourne movie with a friend and thoroughly enjoyed it. The second movie of course suffered from sequelitis and predictable plot of killing the girlfriend and lots of action and not very much plot. Still have to see number three. Overall I thought the movies were good. Then another friend told me that the Bourne movies do not resebly the novels at all. I checked the wiki entries for the plot synopsis and he was right. The only thing the Bourne movies and the Bourne novels share is the name.

[Bearcata]

Originally Posted by myrosiedog

Bearcata,

I too was SO disappointed with Interview with a Vampire and Queen of the Damned. Anne Rice's books were so good and the movies were horrible. And part of the horribleness was Tom Cruise and I liked him back then.

While I thought Tom Cruise was a mistake of casting. I had also heard that John Travolta had indicated interest in the movie. Again I was thinking no way would that ever work. Still with some hindsight, Travolta did resurrect his career. I think he has better acting chops than TC does. Travolta does crazy villans well.

I would luv to see Lindsey Davis's Marcus Didius Falco novels on PBS. Rome got such a positive response on HBO (?) that I think a historical mystery series would do well.

[Critical]

Originally Posted by Rattus

True, and it seriously annoys me. Not theatrical releases, but the actress who plays Barbara Havers in the series based on the Elizabeth George books is waaaaay too attractive. Apparently no styling product and some ill-fitting clothes means you are homely (sad to say for me ).

That's one of the many reasons I won't ever watch that series. I LOVE the books and never want to have someone else's vision of the books in my head. I've heard they're done well, but I just can't bring myself to watch.

I'm the same way about James and the Giant Peach. It was one of my very favorite books as a child - I probably read it dozens of times - and the edition we had was full of these wonderful drawings. I never saw the Tim Burton movie because I didn't want those images replaced in my mind

Well, I watched Persuasion last night and it was okay. It did include a few plot points that the 1995 version did not - most notably, the stuff with Mr. Elliot and his scheming was much more fleshed-out. Still, I found it less compelling and found little chemistry between the actors playing Anne and Frederick (who was very cute, but almost too cute). I also found the camera work very distracting - have they heard of a steady cam?. Plus, what was with Anne running all over hell and half of creation trying to find Frederick at the end? It's been a few years since the last time I read the book, but I don't remember Anne becoming a marathoner. All in all, the 1995 version was MUCH better. Maybe not as close to the book in every little detail as this new version, but much closer in spirit. Also, the actress who played Mary in this new version couldn't touch Sophie Thompson, who was perfection in the role. I did enjoy seeing Tobias Menzies (Brutus from Rome) as Mr. Elliot, although I didn't think he had the right level of smarminess that Samuel West had.

Yeah, so all in all, there really was no need for them to remake Persuasion, especially if they weren't going to do it better.

Nest stop, Northanger Abbey! It's my least favorite Austen, so maybe I won't be so, um....Critical

[Lucy]

Originally Posted by Critical

That's one of the many reasons I won't ever watch that series. I LOVE the books and never want to have someone else's vision of the books in my head. I've heard they're done well, but I just can't bring myself to watch.

I love the books too, but there are so many of the TV series that don't seem to be to be in any of the books that I'm pretty much able to enjoy them both as entirely separate entities. I do love a good British murder mystery show anyway.

Yeah, so all in all, there really was no need for them to remake Persuasion, especially if they weren't going to do it better.

Nest stop, Northanger Abbey! It's my least favorite Austen, so maybe I won't be so, um....Critical

I'd never seen the 1995 Persuasion, so I was ok with this one. It did inspire me to start reading the book last night -- I've got two copies, somehow, but I don't know that I ever really read it. I think with Austen, I loved P&P, Sense and Sensibility, Emma and Northanger Abbey, and ignored the rest.

[Starbucks880]

Originally Posted by Bearcata

I went to see the first Bourne movie with a friend and thoroughly enjoyed it. The second movie of course suffered from sequelitis and predictable plot of killing the girlfriend and lots of action and not very much plot. Still have to see number three. Overall I thought the movies were good. Then another friend told me that the Bourne movies do not resebly the novels at all. I checked the wiki entries for the plot synopsis and he was right. The only thing the Bourne movies and the Bourne novels share is the name.

It has been years since I have read those novels, so I don't remember everything, but yes, there are many differences between the books and the movies. This is one of the few situations where they made them good enough where I don't mind it because they didn't ruin it. I didn't like the second movie as well either, however, with the third movie they did make it much, much better.

[myrosiedog]

I liked the Bourne Movies much better than the books and I used to read a lot of Robert Ludlum (before I realized there were better authors out there. )
The 3rd Bourne movie is much better than the 2nd. Right up there with the first and Matt Damon is great as Bourne.

I am reading Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and I have to say that they changed so much in the movie. But this is a case where I happen to have liked both the book (novella, short story?) and the movie.

[Starbucks880]

Originally Posted by myrosiedog

I liked the Bourne Movies much better than the books and I used to read a lot of Robert Ludlum (before I realized there were better authors out there. )The 3rd Bourne movie is much better than the 2nd. Right up there with the first and Matt Damon is great as Bourne.

I am reading Capote's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and I have to say that they changed so much in the movie. But this is a case where I happen to have liked both the book (novella, short story?) and the movie.

Maybe you are right about that. I truely don't remember a lot of the books even though I did read them all and probably still have them somewhere around the house, maybe the fact that he is so forgettable to me says something about the books. But yeah, Matt Damon was great.

How ironic that you are reading Breakfast at Tiffany's because I just started it, too! I am kind of embarassed to say I just happened to have seen it in the bookstore and was like "Oh my gosh, there is actually a book, too!" so I bought it. As someone who is a book-lover, I was surprised that knowledge had escaped me. I am liking the book, though.