Great books that were even better movies:
-
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(August 10, 2006 06:49 PM)
I didn't even know that was a book. See, I learned something new.
I wasn't saying Julia was physically ugly. She was playing a very unattractive character, though, and for the duration of the movie, I was able to forget that she is the one of the most beautiful women in the world. That's no easy feat.
Strangely, Paris Hilton is able to accomplish it with every public appearance. -
geitje — 19 years ago(October 05, 2006 06:36 AM)
This may earn me a severe beating or two, but I'd suggest the following:
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Virgin Suicides
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
While by no means bad novels, I feel that the film versions had much deeper impact on me. Could of course be perfectly subjective (age of seeing the film vs. age of reading the novel, f.i.), but hey, who needs objectivity anyway?
-
Fred-S — 18 years ago(April 18, 2007 07:35 AM)
I agree that 2001 was an outstanding movie. I also recall that when it was released the question of what it all meant made for many a lively discussion. It was years later that I discovered that the book actually had a story that made sense and made clear most of the mysteries of the movie.
-
GreyHunter — 19 years ago(December 01, 2006 12:36 PM)
I'm somewhat nonplussed that so few people consider the cinematic version of "Remains of the Day" measurably superior to the book. Ishiguro is a fairly good writer in normal circumstances, but he had deep problems with his ability to combine first person narrative, thematic exposition and, frankly, a realistic synthesis of characterization and internal monologue. The movie's redemption, and what makes it far superior, is that it doesn't utilize a voice-over to replicate Ishiguro's use of first person.
Another movie that surpassed the book was, quite frankly, "Bladerunner." Blasphemy to some, I know, but DADOES wasn't exactly Dick's crowning achievement. -
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(December 09, 2006 06:41 PM)
I heard many years ago that Blade Runner was considered the best SF movie of all time. Of course, there have been a number of good SF movies since then (I think that was late 80s I heard that).
After seeing the movie, I got a copy of DADOES, and found it to be nothing like the movie, to the point where I thought I must have been mistaken about the source of the movie. We didn't have the Internet back then to look things up.
It also didn't help that I saw the movie first. I don't think I could ever read a book based on a movie I loved, and think the book measured up.
If I did, that would be a great book, indeed. -
mentoringme — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 07:47 PM)
Sorry Grey Hunter but have to respectfully disagree. Just finished reading "Remains" and thought it was brilliant. I found the narrative point of view to be very consistent and engaging and was intrigued by the weaving in of three narrative threads: the road trip, Lord Darlington's political misadventures, and the love story that never happened along with the exploration of "dignity" and what makes a great butler. In my experience, this kind of subjective/retrospective writing is incredibly hard to sustain and in this case was done flawlessly. I should add that I was drawn to the book by the film which I absolutely love and can't separate from my enjoyment of the novel. All the film performances were great and AH brings Mr. Stevens to life in a way that I could never have imagined.
-
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 09:07 PM)
Whatever you do, stop reading "When We Were Orphans" right now, before your appeal for Mr. Ishiguro's writing is ruined. The book is just plain bonkers. Go get "An Artist of the Floating World" instead, or "The Unconsoled". "Never Let Me Go" was also very good. "When We Were Orphans" just made me wonder what Mr. Ishiguro could possibly have been thinking when he came up with that plot.
-
scatterheart — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 09:41 PM)
LoL, this is probably not the best place to discuss When We Were Orphans, but just my quick $0.02. I totally agree with you I thought it was a far inferior book than Remains. But I think that when Banks babbles on about finding his parents after all this time, he's in a state of great desperation and little coherence, and we're MEANT to think that he's bonkers. But yeah. I thought it was a great book, but definitely not as good as Remains, and I can see why you don't like it.
-
GreyHunter — 19 years ago(February 16, 2007 08:44 PM)
I understand. Perhaps my primary problem is that I consider the voice clumsily implemented even for a very proper butler, Stevens' first-person monologue sound stilted to me, as if the narrative was trying too hard in its exposition. But, of course, de gustibus.
-
jg67 — 19 years ago(December 14, 2006 05:36 PM)
Apt Pupil
The Hours
How much did you put out to get in?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5642503 -
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(January 12, 2007 10:08 PM)
Okay, I've got a new one. "Children of Men" by P.D. James, was a very good book. It was hard for me to admit this, because I wrote almost exactly the same story into a novella back in the eighties, then $#!+ canned it because I'm not exactly Hemingway (or P.D. James). James elevated a teenager's wan storyline into a work of art.
That said, the movie version blew my effing socks off.
I often see movies that had so much potential, but squandered it, and I wonder how I would improve them. Event Horizon and Whipped are two which spring to mind. I read books like When We Were Orphans or Never Let Me Go and imagine how I would have written them, if I were actually good at that sort of thing and had a few hundred free hours (for the record, eliminate the whole subplot with his Japanese friend from the former and get rid of most of the cottages section of the latter).
Cuarn, it seemed, took the book and asked himself "what can I do to make this story flow better" (though he probably did it en espaol).
The changes he made were absolutely for the better.