Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Farin

Recommended Posts

I love both, but yeah the book is a better experience. It's more like a drug trip, whereas the movie is Terry Gilliam's warped imagination, which is awesome and drug trip-like, but not quite as exciting.

And I think I can compare books and movies, because I want to so there.

Of course you can make the comparison. It'd just make no sense - like paring apples to oranges :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because the main quality they share is that of being edible fruit, just as books and movies share the quality of being mediums to communicate ideas. Their respective differences wouldn't make for good comparisons. Are they nutritious? Yeah. But, it'd be like giving a negative review of apples for not being orange-coloured... or saying oranges should be red and crunchy in order to be faithful to the nutritious value of apples :beatnik:

Good comparisons should use the same metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like apples better than oranges. Look, I just compared the two. Never really understood that analogy. :cool:

Yeah, and there are people who prefer reading books to watching movies and/or television, but they don't go around making nonsensical comparisons between the two. Anyway, as long as you don't fault others for not being able to understand such a simple premise of comparing two inherently different things... :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I compared the movie "Atonement" to the book "The Lovely Bones" on which a movie was based.

I've seen the movie "Atonement," hated it. Some really long ghastly movie about a little girl who tells a lie and lives with it the rest of her life.

I have not read the book "The Lovely Bones," so I can't say whether I'll like it. The movie based on that book, though, starred the same girl as the movie "Atonement." She was good in both movies. But that has nothing to do with the book, really.

Anyway, since that's all they have in common, I'll go with it, even though it stretches the boundaries of comparison. :beatnik:

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You compared the movie Atonement to the book The Lovely Bones, which you have not read? =:P

I haven't seen The Lovely Bones, but the movie strikes me as overly-sentimental with a heavy use of music and slow motion in order to manipulate reactions out of its audience rather than letting the audience decide whether it's something to think and feel for. I only got this idea from watching the movie commercials :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you should only compare things that are different. If you compare things that are the same, there's nothing to compare. I think if a movie is based on a book, it totally makes sense to compare the two. Could you hear a cover of a song without thinking about the original?

But I do agree with you when you say the whole thing about being "faithful" to the book is unnecesarry. Some films are completely different from the books they're based on, and are much better for it. I think instead of asking "did the film stay faithful to the book?" people should ask "did the book translate well into a film?" or just "is the film good?" "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" stayed faithful to the book, but I would say it didn't translate well because films tend to be more action-based than books, and the action in the plot isn't very interesting. This isn't a problem in the book, though, because Thompson's writing is so good. The storytelling is great, but the story itself is average.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you should only compare things that are different. If you compare things that are the same, there's nothing to compare. I think if a movie is based on a book, it totally makes sense to compare the two. Could you hear a cover of a song without thinking about the original?

But I do agree with you when you say the whole thing about being "faithful" to the book is unnecesarry. Some films are completely different from the books they're based on, and are much better for it. I think instead of asking "did the film stay faithful to the book?" people should ask "did the book translate well into a film?" or just "is the film good?" "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" stayed faithful to the book, but I would say it didn't translate well because films tend to be more action-based than books, and the action in the plot isn't very interesting. This isn't a problem in the book, though, because Thompson's writing is so good. The storytelling is great, but the story itself is average.

Au contraire, if you compare mediums that are similar, you end up making the best comparison. Your first analogy doesn't work because a cover of a song is... a remake from another song... which are the same kind of communication. Now, if you would've said "what if I compared a song based on a book and said the song is bad because the book is better," then that is the case people make when they compare moving pictures on a screen to words on a page. I said above that anyone can make whatever comparisons they please, but good comparisons are ones where the methods can be reproduced in the same manner. You cannot reproduce words exactly into moving pictures and vice versa. This is why you seldom hear or read people compare a painting to a song; it's a whole different dynamic. To reiterate, if you give a bad review to a movie because the book was better, that makes no sense. However, if you give a bad review to a movie because you've seen other movies in the same genre done in a better manner, then that makes sense. Pretty much any critique where the author deviates into comparing movies to books, I pretty much stop reading it right there because it is nonsense. I can't compare a flavour to a colour, a sound to a taste, or touch with a sense that isn't touch because it is nonsense :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire, if you compare mediums that are similar, you end up making the best comparison. Your first analogy doesn't work because a cover of a song is... a remake from another song... which are the same kind of communication. Now, if you would've said "what if I compared a song based on a book and said the song is bad because the book is better," then that is the case people make when they compare moving pictures on a screen to words on a page. I said above that anyone can make whatever comparisons they please, but good comparisons are ones where the methods can be reproduced in the same manner. You cannot reproduce words exactly into moving pictures and vice versa. This is why you seldom hear or read people compare a painting to a song; it's a whole different dynamic. To reiterate, if you give a bad review to a movie because the book was better, that makes no sense. However, if you give a bad review to a movie because you've seen other movies in the same genre done in a better manner, then that makes sense. Pretty much any critique where the author deviates into comparing movies to books, I pretty much stop reading it right there because it is nonsense. I can't compare a flavour to a colour, a sound to a taste, or touch with a sense that isn't touch because it is nonsense :beatnik:

If a book and a movie share the same plot, characters, and dialogue, they have enough in common that they can be compared. Continuing with my use of "Fear and Loathing..." as an example, if you are watching a film about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, and you have recently read a book about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, you will naturally compare the two whether you want to or not, especially if the dialogue is almost exactly the same. It's just inevitable. Your expectations are higher. And it's a useful comparison to make, because if someone watches the movie and says, "I don't like it," you can say, "read the book, it's better."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a book and a movie share the same plot, characters, and dialogue, they have enough in common that they can be compared. Continuing with my use of "Fear and Loathing..." as an example, if you are watching a film about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, and you have recently read a book about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, you will naturally compare the two whether you want to or not, especially if the dialogue is almost exactly the same. It's just inevitable. Your expectations are higher. And it's a useful comparison to make, because if someone watches the movie and says, "I don't like it," you can say, "read the book, it's better."

I didn't write that a book and a movie "cannot be compared," so I don't understand why you said that they can. I just said it wouldn't be a good comparison - and it's not. That a book and a movie share the same plot devices is completely irrelevant in a good comparison. Example: I like Andrei Tarkovsky's Solyaris better than the Stanislaw Lem's book because the music was better... and the special effects were better... and the costumes, sets, and actors looked better... and the photography, editing, and pacing were better, etc., etc. In fact, going by this natural and inevitable comparison, the book totally blows and that's pretty much the same comparison of virtually every movie I have seen whose theme or themes are taken from a book, regardless of whether the movie was bad - even from a technical perspective. (Another point to note is that dialogue in a movie is irrelevant in a medium of moving pictures; any good director knows this.) Books and movies can share the same themes and ideas, and one can bring them up in an article, review, and critique, but there isn't a comparison there inasmuch as discussing the ideas and themes themselves without saying the book was better because that would not be a good comparison. Again, how did Terry Gilliam use photography, sound, settings, and actors to tell the idea? How was it edited? Why did the director make the choices he did (i.e., close-ups, tracking shots, colour over black and white film, film over video, casting)? Telling readers to "read the book" in a movie review says nothing :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've seen for June / July

I Am Trying to Break Your Heart - Fantastic documentary must see even if you aren't a hardcore Wilco fan. I Am Trying to Break Your Heart covers Wilco as they recorded Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, an album Warner Brothers refused to release, and later was named on nearly every Best of the Decade lists at the end of last year. The film shows the recording process, mixing and editing, touring, record company dealings, and the firing of a key member.

Eagle vs. Shark - New Zealand’s version of Napoleon Dynamite. I liked it, but I think my undying love for Jemaine Clement had more to do with my enjoyment than the actual movie.

An Education - Moving story and beautifully acted. Peter Sarsgaard and Carey Mulligan were awesome.

The Lovely Bones I agree with the general :thumbsdown: consensus.

Garden State - Depressing story with a happy ending and a kick-ass soundtrack. And Peter Sarsgaard again, this time with long hair :D

(500) Days of Summer - Clever take on rom coms. Bonus points for using my two favorite Smith’s songs.

The Top 5 In My Que :

Whip It

Pirate Radio

Wet Hot American Summer

Sid & Nancy

Heavenly Creatures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched the newish BBC Hamlet with David Tennant and Patrick m'fin Stewart. It was really very good. Tennant can certainly do crazy, and Patrick Stewart is the classiest person alive. Much more enjoyable than the Mel Gibson version.

The book was better and Kenneth Brannagh was the most faithful to it, although the sword fight in Mel Gibson's version kicked the most arse... and it was better than both, the book AND the Brannagh movie. It's incredible the amount of choreography that goes into staging one of those :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't write that a book and a movie "cannot be compared," so I don't understand why you said that they can. I just said it wouldn't be a good comparison - and it's not. That a book and a movie share the same plot devices is completely irrelevant in a good comparison. Example: I like Andrei Tarkovsky's Solyaris better than the Stanislaw Lem's book because the music was better... and the special effects were better... and the costumes, sets, and actors looked better... and the photography, editing, and pacing were better, etc., etc. In fact, going by this natural and inevitable comparison, the book totally blows and that's pretty much the same comparison of virtually every movie I have seen whose theme or themes are taken from a book, regardless of whether the movie was bad - even from a technical perspective. (Another point to note is that dialogue in a movie is irrelevant in a medium of moving pictures; any good director knows this.) Books and movies can share the same themes and ideas, and one can bring them up in an article, review, and critique, but there isn't a comparison there inasmuch as discussing the ideas and themes themselves without saying the book was better because that would not be a good comparison. Again, how did Terry Gilliam use photography, sound, settings, and actors to tell the idea? How was it edited? Why did the director make the choices he did (i.e., close-ups, tracking shots, colour over black and white film, film over video, casting)? Telling readers to "read the book" in a movie review says nothing :beatnik:

Ah, well upon this explanation, I agree with you. I guess I don't think that the movie is bad because the book is so good, I think the movie is bad and the book is so good. My lower rating the 2nd time I saw Fear and Loathing is probably more due to the movie's lack of re-watch-ability. Now that I think about it...the first time I watched Fear and Loathing I had never tried any drugs before, so I thought it watching the movie was a very interesting experience because the shots emulated their drug trips so well (or so I thought). Now that I've tried some drugs, just watching two guys take a bunch of drugs in Las Vegas isn't very interesting to me anymore. What's interesting to me is Hunter s. Thompson's (the character and the author) analysis of what he is seeing. A good example is when he describes the main floor of the casino as "what the whole world would be doing every Saturday night if the Nazis won the war."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Blind Side was good. I thought it was very sweet, too sweet, until I realized that the story is based on fact. Then the sweetness was easier to take, and I ended up really enjoying the movie. Be warned, there were tears involved, but then I cry at anything. 8/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well upon this explanation, I agree with you. I guess I don't think that the movie is bad because the book is so good, I think the movie is bad and the book is so good. My lower rating the 2nd time I saw Fear and Loathing is probably more due to the movie's lack of re-watch-ability. Now that I think about it...the first time I watched Fear and Loathing I had never tried any drugs before, so I thought it watching the movie was a very interesting experience because the shots emulated their drug trips so well (or so I thought). Now that I've tried some drugs, just watching two guys take a bunch of drugs in Las Vegas isn't very interesting to me anymore. What's interesting to me is Hunter s. Thompson's (the character and the author) analysis of what he is seeing. A good example is when he describes the main floor of the casino as "what the whole world would be doing every Saturday night if the Nazis won the war."

You don't think Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, or anyone else involved in the making of the movie has also tried drugs? Or the possibility that of the many positive reviewers this movie has garnered, there might be one or two who have done copious amounts of drugs? So now you're introducing another irrelevant factor into the review: personal experience. As a reader, I don't care how much drugs a critic or a director have ingested (unless the writer was high at the moment and wrote a buncha poppycock); I just want to know if the movie is good or bad based on the criteria that are common to movies. This is the bottom line. One doesn't need to make comparisons in a critique/review, but if one feels they have to do so, then other movies about drugs and/or drug trips shouldn't be too difficult to find, esp. now in the age of Red Box, Netflix, YouTube, and torrents. Off the top of me head:

Blow

Christiane F.

Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho

Gia

Huelepega

Liquid Sky

The Lost Weekend

The Man With The Golden Arm

Requiem For A Dream

The Salton Sea

Trainspotting

Not to mention the tons of exploitation films from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. Simply put, it is lazy to compare a movie with a book and/or real life because a movie will never be either, so it will always fall short of that (and vice versa) :beatnik:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...