Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Best & Worst Books to Movies

<< < (9/14) > >>

Orbert:
He used it, too. Not a lot, because that would be gimmicky, but he did use it early in the movie a few times, to great comic effect.

camelpimp:
Actually, I didn't like the movie version One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I felt it didn't really represent the book very well. It played very fast and loose with the plot, changed McMurphy's character, and reglegated Chief Bromden to a bit role, thereby changing the entire feel of the narrative from bizarre and hallucinary to a more straightforward one. Which, to me, destroys the magic of the book.

Although the movie did remove some of the book's extremely overt sexism, which I appreciate.

Orbert:
Those are good points. I guess like many people, if not most, I saw the movie first, then discovered the extra dimension given by the book. The movie did present the same story, quite faithfully, which is the most important thing. How it is presented is a very close second, but I still place it second. I can't stand it when the actual story is changed, but I'm willing to forgive some stylistic indulgences.

I don't know if there's really a way to present the movie from Chief Bromden's point of view. Most of it takes place in his head, so the most they could do is show the goings-on, and maybe The Chief watching it all and thinking deep thoughts. I would not want the awful, cliched voice-over "thoughts" as he observes things and thinks about them.

Instead, they took a good story, with a good message, and did what they felt was necessary to adapt it to another medium. But I saw the finished result first. I guess it would be different if you read the book first. McMurphy is the main character. In a sense, the book is written from "second person" point of view (first person, but a secondary character), as with the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, which are all from Dr. Watson's point of view. That's a literary device that just doesn't have an equivalent in cinema.

BrittanyMarie:
How was McMurphy much different? I read the book first, and the character in my head was a lot like how Nicholson played it.

onewheelwizzard:
I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were awesome.  They conveyed the epic nature of the story really well, and it would've been silly to try to go all textbook with it and copy Tolkien precisely when the whole reason why Tolkien is so good is the epic nature of the world he creates.  It's about the overall feel of them both for me, and I thought the movies did a respectable job of living up to the power of the books.  I still get chills watching some of the scenes of the movies, and those are always my "Something REALLY SWEET is happening" signal.

To Kill a Mockingbird was a fantastic adaptation, but I didn't like the book so much (I thought it was pretty good but bland) so that was the only reason it really impressed me.

Seconds to The Maltese Falcon.

And BIG ups to Sin City.  As an adaptation it was BRILLIANT.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page