Books To Films

47 posts in this topic

Posted

Constantine was a pretty decent attempt at comic to movie adaptation


Calling Tom Bedford falls to the thread.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Virgin Suicides - good book, good film

Perfume: story of a murderer - Again both good, but the book is better... it was impossible to do that film perfectly... the book helps you appreciate what they have done more though.

Requiem For A Dream - both excellent

Chopper - film really captured his sense of humour, I think I enjoyed the film more though, theres sooooo many names and small crime stories in the book it gets to the point where you just dont know who has been mentioned before.


I loved American Psycho tho book. film wasnt as bad as it could have been.. its just a shame they couldnt do a lot of the stuff in the book.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

American Psycho wasn't that great. They didn't come anywhere close to getting into 'the mind' of Patrick Bateman. It was more of a 'look at this weird rich serial killer who fucks prostitues and kills them in sick ways' type film. Just gore for the sake of it, which, in my opinion, is NOT what the book is about.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!! Thank christ someone else has seen that film for what it really is - a cheap, lazy misconception.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem with book to film adaptations is that if a film maker tries to make a faithful adaptation of the book 9 times out of 10 they will fail and be torn to shreds. I think the AP movie is great...but I really think it works better if you haven't read the book (as I hadn't). The book is so deeper that I don't think I really lost anything by having already seen the film, had I seen the film after reading the book I probably would hold a similar opinion to the two just stated above.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A Clockwork Orange - I love both the book and the film. The first chapter really throws you in at the deep end with Nadsat being used immediately (although in one copy I have the introduction at the starts does prepare you for the language), but the words Alex uses quickly becomes familiar and understandable within the context of the sentences in which they're found. It is notable that the film is based upon the American version of the book, in which the final, positive chapter is omitted because it leaves the matter of whether Alex's sociopathy has been cured/outgrown open to discussion.


Now that I've finally seen the film, I can agree. Absolutely loved it, and it's really, really funny.

1984- I think the film with John Hurt is a faithful enough attempt.

That shit american version of 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley is a crime to humanity.


Need to watch '1984' properly, only seen a few parts of it. Shame 'Brave New World' hasn't been done well, that's if we both agree- I haven't watched it- but I hope they do a decent remake one day.

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!! Thank christ someone else has seen that film for what it really is - a cheap, lazy misconception.


All right, calm down. 'Misconception' is the right word I reckon- it's not about the violence, and the film gives the impression that it is.

'Lovely Bones' should be out soon(ish) surely? Edited by Kate omG
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Blade Runner - took a minor incidental subplot from the book (which was very good) and made a completely different but still excellent film from it.

Monsignor Quixote (graham greene) - great book, great film, Alec Guinness is awesome in it.

Ghost World - why do people seem to like this film? I hated it with a passion. Films focussing on the drab existences of people who are essentially a waste of the planets atmosphere do absolutely nothing for me. The fact that people seem to identify with the irritatingly angsty sack of potatoes that is Thora Birch's character is worrying.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ghost World - why do people seem to like this film? I hated it with a passion. Films focussing on the drab existences of people who are essentially a waste of the planets atmosphere do absolutely nothing for me. The fact that people seem to identify with the irritatingly angsty sack of potatoes that is Thora Birch's character is worrying.



She is annoying as fuck. Doesn't worry me, makes me feel sick as fuck though
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

American Psycho wasn't that great. They didn't come anywhere close to getting into 'the mind' of Patrick Bateman. It was more of a 'look at this weird rich serial killer who fucks prostitues and kills them in sick ways' type film. Just gore for the sake of it, which, in my opinion, is NOT what the book is about.


Isn't the point of the film that it's all in his mind?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I haven't read the book, but having seen the film version of it, I can only assume that 'Atomised' works excellently
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Isn't the point of the film that it's all in his mind?


Well yeah, that's the big ambiguity of the book, which is left unresolved. But the uncertainty is built up much more subtley in the novel. Obviously they have to keep a film at a reasonable length, but the 'was it all in his mind?' question was shoehorned in quite suddenly.

It felt too much like a 'and then I woke up and it was alllll a dream' ending.

I'm pleased they retained the humour for the film though, and Bale was a good choice (I didn't realise that he was relatively unknown at the time).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I also think that in general his books are unsuitable for film adaptation, as they're all completely internal.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hang on, what?

I really didn't get that from the book or the film at all. I didn't think it was all about whether or not he imagined it, therefore still being psycho but a benign one. I thought his horrid killing spree was a given and the book/film was a comment on the stupidity, ignorance and selfishness of other people. I.e. - society is fucked, look how it allows horrible vicious murderers to operate (as long as they look nice).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah that's def. part of it - society is responsible for serial killers and all that. Bateman confesses on many occasions throughout the novel, but everyone ignores him.

His power/money also contributes to him getting away with it.

I think that the novel is a satire on American Individualism and high capitalism/comsumerism taken to the most extreme degree i.e. Bateman is the ultimate consumer through his literal consumption of other people.

Whilst authors are not necessarily the most reliable source, Ellis says that Patrick Bateman is 'a stylized villain or a big metaphor for a ton of stuff, and a launching pad for anything you want to say was wrong about the 80's: consumerism, yuppiedom, greed, serial killer chic, etc.'

From this interview. Edited by Kate omG
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, the 'did he really do it?' thing is pretty much irrelevant, which is maybe why you 'missed' it - it's part of the novel's parody of murder mystery/thriller fiction, rather than a legitimate plot device. I think the film had to emphasise it a bit more than necessary to get a story out of it, because there isn't much of a traditional plot in the novel.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anyone would think you were doing your dissertation on this book or something.....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I haven't read the book or seen the film in about 2 or 3 years now but the way I remember leaving each of them was that in the book it seemed fairly clear to me that he had committed all those murders but nobody had really noticed because his victims were either homeless people or hookers that had nobody to miss them and report the deaths or identikit stock brokers who weren't missed because they all had a penchant for Armani suits, Oliver People's glasses and went to the same barbers, although Bateman had the slightly better haircut. Allen's murder was covered up by the Real Estate company because they did not want the prices in the apartment building to take a hit from it being the scene of a grizzly murders.

To me the film was that his life was so mundane and monotonous that he fantasised about these murders as a way of breaking free, his flicking through the sketch book of the murders essentially told us that.

Obviously both are ambiguous but that was my take on them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We Need To Talk About Kevin is a better film than it was a book.

Has anyone read The Hunger Games, is it worth bothering with or should I just go see the movie?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't even work out what the hell that film is about based on the TV spot I saw. Some good cast though it seems.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I thought it was a Battle Royale remake?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nope, based on a series of books for 'young adults'.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, I just had a look online - she totally ripped off Battle Royale then claimed she had never heard of it. Lol!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now