To Those Who Did Not Like The Movie
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Great Expectations
torislittlefaerie — 19 years ago(March 14, 2007 11:53 AM)
I understand both sides of the coin in regards to movie v. book. As an avid reader, it pisses me off when screenwriters completely ruin the original story line. However, keep in mind just a few things:
- Hollywood is Hollywood.
- The book is ALWAYS better.
- There will forever be an adaptation that you would have done better, in your own opinion, and most importantly
- Finn says in the beginning of the movie, that he wasn't going to tell the story the way it happened, but the way he remembered it.
**This story while based on Great Expectations, was Great Expectations with a modern twist from Finn's point of view; the way HE remembers it. Try to keep that in mind before bashing the movie a little more.
If you want an adaptation to bash, do it on Flowers in the Attic. For that butchered piece, there simply is NO explanation or excuse.
-
Kakewalk — 18 years ago(May 30, 2007 05:28 PM)
In my opinion, I think the most decent movie adaptation of a book, is Fight Club. Reading the book is like reading notes. There's so much narrative comments during the story and dialogue, that it is almost like reading organized random thoughts . But the movie is great!
Also, Lord of the Rings is also good, even though half of it is cut out. I just wish they left out more of the cheese. (cmon, you know sam and frodo are gay for each other. As with Merry + Pippin. And Gimli + Legolas. And Balrog + Gandalf) -
nbreyfogle-1 — 12 years ago(February 19, 2014 01:29 AM)
I found Finn the adult to be an unlikeable person, partly because of the shallow script and direction, but also because Ethan Hawke seemed quite miscast. Also, Estella was unlikeable all the way through, even though I generally like Paltrow in other films (BTW, she looked even more anorexic than ever here, and thus not sexy or attractive). For me, this film amounts to a failed attempt at glorifying mediocre characters, and a failed attempt to glorify mediocrity in general.
Anne Bancroft was the only truly shining high point in all of this. -
maz89 — 11 years ago(January 15, 2015 07:52 AM)
I don't get this insistence that the movie must remain faithful to the book. It just so happens that whenever a film relies too much on its source material, it often doesn't work as a movie at all. Cuaron clearly understands this. His modern interpretation possesses a distinct visual style, and he knows how to turn the words into visuals. If this means he deviates from the source material, then so be it.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.