"Based on a Book" Movie Reviews

[Feral Camel]

There is a key difference between based on a book, and using a books name. I am Legend and The Lost world are prime examples of the latter.

I'm still angry about the I Am Legendadaptation. It was not a bad film. It just missed the point of the original text. It could have easily been called The Omega Man or even The Last Man on Earth. My issue stems from the idea that if somebody wanted to do a real adaptation of the book it would have to be some time in the future as audiences would be expecting a full on action film.

Off Topic - Does anybody else remember in early production of the film Johnny Depp was heavily rumored to play Ben (one of the antagonists in the books).

[Pull My Finger]

It's very difficult for a film to be on par with a good book. Film is naturally the medium with less potential depth. I said potential, because of course not every book actually explores the depth of the medium. I think one must take films for what they are and not expect them to have the depth and emotional scope of literature. Especially if we're talking Hollywood and television movies. It's not european art cinema, it's entertainment. It's like criticizing Tom Jones for not elaborately using counterpoint like J.S. Bach.

[Waaldo]

If a movie director decides to make a movie based off of the book then of course you can compare it. If you wan't to change the story of a book, write your own fucking book. Directors need to stop taking someone else's story and messing with it.

There are some things in books that just don't work on TV, but sometimes directors change so much that it's not even the same story, they just use the name of a popular book to sell more tickets.

[Shinzai]

The movies for Lord of the Rings were not a fantastic rendition of the books. Sorry. They were good movies, but they are not good tellings of the books. They left so much out. It's still fucking awesome, but they left a LOT out.

Feel free to explain how to compress more into the time-frame allotted, without actually creating a set of films that take 24 hours to watch, without losing anything from the book, or creating some incredibly length, over wordy and boring films. Answer: You can't.

To Kill A Mockingbird's bravado, so to speak, was to shed light on a really crazy subject at the time of its conception. There's a reason it is so hailed as one of the best book-to-movie renditions out there.

Yes, it is a fairly simple story to follow. No, it wasn't a very basic subject to follow. Especially not in 1960's USA, you know the one where the country was still segregated, and white people (in general) hated black people? It was a touchy subject, and Harper Lee and Robert Mulligan nailed it.

As I said, it is already a powerful story in its own right that can make for an easy screen adaptation, but still lots of parts of the book are left out of the film. Yet I don't see you complaining about that here. From the length of the courtroom scenes, the length of Atticus' final argument, the aftermath, Atticus' sometimes questionable naivety in the film; Atticus really just accepts the man he spent so much time defending was accidentally shot as if it was nothing?... OK, a lot of the children's parts are chopped wholesale, they skip over the 'caste' system in the town and numerous female characters are cut altogether or show up only briefly.

Thus, again, I suggest that demanding a transliteration of a book is nonsense. You can't pick on one film for leaving parts out, but not another. You either deal with them equally or don't bother.

The film was powerful and is powerful because the race message was extremely relevant at the time and is always relevant, though no where near as powerful as it used to be. Gregory Peck's amazing performance as Atticus drives past a lot of the film's own flaws, ones which are more readily accepted, or ignored, because of the time it was made in.