The Movies I Liked

[anm]

watched hitman again! after 2 years I guess

 

[venkatcr]

Me too. I wonder if our videophile friends will take exception to this

The mediums are completely different. In a book, an author can take a 100 pages building a background, another 100 pages introducing previous events and secondary players. A movie has to do all this in less than 90 minutes. When you read a book, you start emoting with the player's mindset. A good actor/director has to make you emote with the character on the screen, and his body language, facial expressions and, dialogue delivery all become important.

I can immediately think of a few movies that were better than the original book. One was Die Hard based on the book titled 'Nothing Lasts for Ever'. The movie was much better than the book.

Another was Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice. The movie taken in 2005 starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy was simply superb. It was able to portray the period, the desperation of Mrs. Bennet to get her daughters married, Mr. Bennet's (Donald Sutherland) coolness, and Mr. Darcy sheer arrogance. I re-read the book a few times and saw the movie a few times. I was able to emote with both quite well.

I also think the Bond series were much better than the books in transmitting the dangers Bond faces as well as the general environment in which he operates. In movies such as Dr. No and From Russia With Love, Sean Connery personified the Bond character so well that if you read the next Bond book, you will imagine Sean's face whenever you read about that character.

I think Matt Damon has achieved something similar with the Jason Bourne character. Though I found it difficult to imagine Matt being a cold bloodied killer, he has so strongly played the role that I cannot think of anybody else doing the same. You read Bourne Identity now, and the movie scenes will come to you mind vividly.

I don't know how many of you have read the original book by RK Narayan, but I would say Dev Anand and Vijay Anand achieved something similar in The Guide. One of his best performances, the movie took the simple story to a completely different level.

I can go on indefinitely, but I do hope you get the 'picture' so to say.

Cheers

 

[subhash]

Now that you've mentioned it - i've not ever seen a movie which is better than the book.

definetly, maybe the book versions are better , but am not in the habit of reading novels, being a surgeon other than my subject and other interesting topics i dont read novels at all ----for 1 it takes too long ,whereas a movi is over in abt 120 mins max and it takes u into a totally different level of make believe, i did try reading novels but it wud take me abt a month to complete one book @ the same time i wud have watched abt 15- 20 movies ,so i guess novel reading is definetly not for me , am sure people will have difference of opinion here

 

[kneo]

I can go on indefinitely, but I do hope you get the 'picture' so to say.

Yes. I can understand your point of view here but this being a subjective matter and the fact that I've not read most of the books that you've referred or seen some of the movies that you've mentioned, confines me to my viewpoint.

As you mentioned, both of them are two different mediums, and each is supposed to be enjoyed differently. I love to read the books and visualize and imagine that world - not in a single reading, but over a few days. I read chapters, eagerly wait for the next one to be read the next day.

Sorry for digressing from the original purpose of this thread, which is throwing up good recommendations for me.

 

[sud98]

Saw Angels and Demons yesterday. Nice movie, slickly paced, however, since I had read the book not so exciting as you know the ending.

I felt books with a lot of imagination can sometimes be bettered in a movie. For example, Lord of the Rings is a classic book, but the spectacle that unfolds in front of you in some of the battles is something beyond one's imagination. In my opinion, LOTR is one of the best movie adaptations of an extremely popular and great book.

 

[thevortex]

The mediums are completely different. In a book, an author can take a 100 pages building a background, another 100 pages introducing previous events and secondary players. A movie has to do all this in less than 90 minutes. When you read a book, you start emoting with the player's mindset. A good actor/director has to make you emote with the character on the screen, and his body language, facial expressions and, dialogue delivery all become important.

I can immediately think of a few movies that were better than the original book. One was Die Hard based on the book titled 'Nothing Lasts for Ever'. The movie was much better than the book.

Another was Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice. The movie taken in 2005 starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy was simply superb. It was able to portray the period, the desperation of Mrs. Bennet to get her daughters married, Mr. Bennet's (Donald Sutherland) coolness, and Mr. Darcy sheer arrogance. I re-read the book a few times and saw the movie a few times. I was able to emote with both quite well.

I also think the Bond series were much better than the books in transmitting the dangers Bond faces as well as the general environment in which he operates. In movies such as Dr. No and From Russia With Love, Sean Connery personified the Bond character so well that if you read the next Bond book, you will imagine Sean's face whenever you read about that character.

I think Matt Damon has achieved something similar with the Jason Bourne character. Though I found it difficult to imagine Matt being a cold bloodied killer, he has so strongly played the role that I cannot think of anybody else doing the same. You read Bourne Identity now, and the movie scenes will come to you mind vividly.

I don't know how many of you have read the original book by RK Narayan, but I would say Dev Anand and Vijay Anand achieved something similar in The Guide. One of his best performances, the movie took the simple story to a completely different level.

I can go on indefinitely, but I do hope you get the 'picture' so to say.

Cheers

Venkat - I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this.

While I fully understand the difficulties that movies face in trying to recreate the ambience, characterization and transporting quality that is found in books, my opinion is that as a rule if there is a book which is made out as a movie, we are better off reading the book rather than the movie - especially if you are only going to experience one version. There can of course be honourable exceptions to this.

There are a few examples of mediocre or middling books being made out into successful movies. I would say that the James Bond series falls into such a genre. Not that I do not enjoy the Bond movies. But the original books are in no way great, if you see what I mean.

I have not read 'Nothing lasts for ever' or 'The Guide'. However Pride and Prejudice is an extremely powerful book. Read unabridged, the movie is no match for the nuances of the book. I agree that the actors tried their best as did the director. But then the limited scope of time given to the movie seriously damages its prospects in direct comparison.

Lastly Ludlum's Bourne series towers over the movies. The movies are entertaining and fast paced thrillers. I thoroughly enjoyed them. But if you asked me to rate the movie against the book - there is no competition. Ludlum was brilliant in those books among others.

To Sud98 - I must ask whether you did read the full Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Grand as the movie was with its larger than life characters, it really was nothing before the scale of the book.

Seeing the movie you wont realize the inventive genius of Tolkien who invented the language of the elves and dwarves complete with song, history and grammar! Aragorn was a powerful character in the book. In the movie, the hero depicting the character did not even have a decent voice. He just looked the part. As for acting and emoting, there was no sign whatsoever. Gandalf was the saving grace as was the brilliantly done Gollum!

No offence meant of course. Just my opinion.

 

[harry10]

'Knowing'
Watched this last night after reading some good reviews.
Quiet disappointed.
Got bored in many scenes.

Rating - 2/5

 

[Jith77]

Venkat - I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this.

While I fully understand the difficulties that movies face in trying to recreate the ambience, characterization and transporting quality that is found in books, my opinion is that as a rule if there is a book which is made out as a movie, we are better off reading the book rather than the movie - especially if you are only going to experience one version. There can of course be honourable exceptions to this.

There are a few examples of mediocre or middling books being made out into successful movies. I would say that the James Bond series falls into such a genre. Not that I do not enjoy the Bond movies. But the original books are in no way great, if you see what I mean.

I have not read 'Nothing lasts for ever' or 'The Guide'. However Pride and Prejudice is an extremely powerful book. Read unabridged, the movie is no match for the nuances of the book. I agree that the actors tried their best as did the director. But then the limited scope of time given to the movie seriously damages its prospects in direct comparison.

Lastly Ludlum's Bourne series towers over the movies. The movies are entertaining and fast paced thrillers. I thoroughly enjoyed them. But if you asked me to rate the movie against the book - there is no competition. Ludlum was brilliant in those books among others.

To Sud98 - I must ask whether you did read the full Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Grand as the movie was with its larger than life characters, it really was nothing before the scale of the book.

Seeing the movie you wont realize the inventive genius of Tolkien who invented the language of the elves and dwarves complete with song, history and grammar! Aragorn was a powerful character in the book. In the movie, the hero depicting the character did not even have a decent voice. He just looked the part. As for acting and emoting, there was no sign whatsoever. Gandalf was the saving grace as was the brilliantly done Gollum!

No offence meant of course. Just my opinion.

i had believed that good novels are always better than their movie version especially after watching the acclaimed 'godfather' (no offense to fans )

bourne series changed that for me....it was a pretty good adaptation...in the first installation the book might be better, then again the movie doesnt disappoint..for the other two, the movie fared better

but its an exception only...forget average movies, even for ones like 'green mile' the book did better

 

[thevortex]

i had believed that good novels are always better than their movie version especially after watching the acclaimed 'godfather' (no offense to fans )

bourne series changed that for me....it was a pretty good adaptation...in the first installation the book might be better, then again the movie doesnt disappoint..for the other two, the movie fared better

but its an exception only...forget average movies, even for ones like 'green mile' the book did better

Your 'The Green Mile' example reminds me of other Stephen King books made into movies. I believe several of his works like Tommyknockers, Pet Semetary and Dreamcatcher have been made into movies. His books simply slambang the movies. The depth that is there in this consummate story-tellers' works simply dont seem to be built for translation onto the silver screen.

And yes I am a Stephen King fan.

 

[subhash]

'Knowing'
Watched this last night after reading some good reviews.
Quiet disappointed.
Got bored in many scenes.

Rating - 2/5

on what set up did u watch this, true if u chk the net for reviews overall this movie doesnt have good reviews ,but if u have a good set up, this movie has some great visuals and outstanding sound quality ----again here tastes /opinion do differ

 

[Jith77]

Your 'The Green Mile' example reminds me of other Stephen King books made into movies. I believe several of his works like Tommyknockers, Pet Semetary and Dreamcatcher have been made into movies. His books simply slambang the movies. The depth that is there in this consummate story-tellers' works simply dont seem to be built for translation onto the silver screen.

And yes I am a Stephen King fan.

so am i ....

but you have to appreciate the courage of producers who try to make movies out of them!!...his ideas are so over-the-top that no one else can do a good job narrating those...

green mile was not so over the top, but the novel voiced against capital punishment while the movie completely missed that...

 

[thevortex]

so am i ....

but you have to appreciate the courage of producers who try to make movies out of them!!...his ideas are so over-the-top that no one else can do a good job narrating those...

green mile was not so over the top, but the novel voiced against capital punishment while the movie completely missed that...

Well, well, I am happy to have found another King fan. Did you read the complete Dark Tower series? Now that would be a tough one to cinematize

 

[kneo]

I guess as venkat sir already pointed out, books have a distinct advantage of having a longer plot than the movie. A Da Vinci Code, Bourne series, etc. would have so many mini plots, side characters and dialogue exchange, which is not possible to replicate in a movie because of the time constraint.

But let me also tell you this. I had absolutely loved LOTR series on the screen (and I watched it on a CRT screen!!!) so much that I'm refraining from reading the books. Maybe someday I'd read them, but I'll only do it after watching the trilogy on a HD screen with DTS at least. I do not want to dilute my movie experience by reading the books, which happened to me for tne complete Harry Potter series (of which I am a fan).

 

[Rem]

John Travolta is the voice of Bolt...

wat a name for a dog

Saw Body of Lies luved it Di Caprio was really good in that movie.

Too many double crossings in the story though so sort of gets confused at times but then tht adds to the thrill.

 

[Jith77]

Well, well, I am happy to have found another King fan. Did you read the complete Dark Tower series? Now that would be a tough one to cinematize

yep its rare top find a king fan...most think its only for the pre potty trained

i started reading king from school library when i was in 8th grade...we werent allowed to borrow novels till 9th or so...that when i started reading gunslinger during library period...reading bit by bit every week was discouraging

i never completed that and didnt go back to the series....the idea of reading it over again might have put me off...think i should pick one up one of these days

these days am reading gerald's game

 

[thevortex]

I guess as venkat sir already pointed out, books have a distinct advantage of having a longer plot than the movie. A Da Vinci Code, Bourne series, etc. would have so many mini plots, side characters and dialogue exchange, which is not possible to replicate in a movie because of the time constraint.

But let me also tell you this. I had absolutely loved LOTR series on the screen (and I watched it on a CRT screen!!!) so much that I'm refraining from reading the books. Maybe someday I'd read them, but I'll only do it after watching the trilogy on a HD screen with DTS at least. I do not want to dilute my movie experience by reading the books, which happened to me for tne complete Harry Potter series (of which I am a fan).

Again no offense but if you do get a chance do read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It is simply masterful. Tolkien's inventiveness would take your breath away. But I will understand if you are not into books.

As regards Harry Potter, again, my opinion is that the movies are no match for the books. The single biggest advantage in the case of the Potter movies is having a hero who would satisfy most people's idea of how Harry would look.

 

[thevortex]

yep its rare top find a king fan...most think its only for the pre potty trained

Yes I do get a few hard looks when I say that I like King.

i started reading king from school library when i was in 8th grade...we werent allowed to borrow novels till 9th or so...that when i started reading gunslinger during library period...reading bit by bit every week was discouraging

i never completed that and didnt go back to the series....the idea of reading it over again might have put me off...think i should pick one up one of these days

these days am reading gerald's game

Gerald's Game is not one of his best. Do try Salem's Lot or Needful Things. I thought Insomnia too was one of his best, even if it was a bit slow, even for King. The Dark Tower series is a true magnum opus. Must read for every King fan and anybody who loves a good, long story. Oops - sorry for the diversion

 

[Jith77]

Yes I do get a few hard looks when I say that I like King.



Gerald's Game is not one of his best. Do try Salem's Lot or Needful Things. I thought Insomnia too was one of his best, even if it was a bit slow, even for King. The Dark Tower series is a true magnum opus. Must read for every King fan and anybody who loves a good, long story. Oops - sorry for the diversion

have read slaem's lot and needful things...will try insomnia...and the dark tower series before i get hard looks from king fans as well

 

[subhash]

reg1 dvd----illegal immigration, painful deportation, murder----watchable movie with a good starcast of harrison ford , ashley judd , but most of the actors look lost in the plot and also there are too many characters ,but still a watchable movie

 

[noking]

for my friends who have liked Body of lies would suggest another movie in same genre: SPY GAMES-*Robert Redford,Brad Pitt