My opinion is somewhat...biased. I, myself, did not enjoy it, and I adore fantasy as a whole. It's one of those books that has alot of people that praise it or despise it, and not to many in the middle. It's entertaining to read, if you're willing to tolerate the akward dialogue and heavy cliche' elements in the story, then go for it. Just don't expect much from it.
just recently "Never Let Me Go" by Kazuo Ishiguro. I read the book and was really excited to see the movie since it seemed to have a pretty star studded cast and I have begun to enjoy Andrew Garfield. And thank god I read the book before I saw the movie because if you hadn't read the book I doubt you would have understood anything that was happening. A lot of explanations were cut out and the audience was simply expected to "get it". I suppose it didn't lose the emotion though since I still cried at the end. But I was disappointed by how it came out overall.
The movie Forest Gump ruined the book for me, but in this case, I consider that a good thing. There are a lot of differences between the two, especially with the portrayal of the main character. I like the movie, but when I tried to read the book, I found very little to like about the main character.
You are either going to enjoy it for what it is or you are going to hate it because of what it is. As thalorin19 said most people fall into 1 of 2 sides. Well for the most part. Its entertaining but its nothing new and many people who dislike it will quickly point out the similarities between Eragon and Star Wars. I say its worth giving a chance. Maybe you will enjoy it or maybe you wont. So borrow a copy from the library or someone and give it a chance. Personally I enjoyed reading the series so far and am looking forward to the last one in the series. But this is coming from a guy who could spend saturday watching Syfy original movie marathons of horrible B horror movies. sorry if my posts a bit confusing or too wordy. Its like 5am and I am really tired.
haha alright, thanks for the suggestions :] I might buy it if I ever see it on offer , or I might check it out from a library.
For me, it was Chocolat... the movie was fine, really, but absolutely nothing compared to the book and in my opinion totally missed all the beauty and subtlety that the book expressed. I'm just glad I read the book first, otherwise it WOULD have ruined it for me!!
Dune - One of my favorite books destroyed in the theater. I havent seen the more recent one, but, fool me once.... The Stand - OK, it was a tv series, but man, it really sucked.
Totally agree! It was awful! Just like Johnny Depp's accent in it! The book is too delicate for the heavy-handed Hollywood approach!
The only film version of a book that has been amazing was Atonement. I know they changed the ending but I think the movie ending worked better than McEwan's. Though both were excellent!
The Road. The film couldn't adequately capture the psycological aspects of the father/son relationship. Having read the novel, the movie wasn't too horrible, although I would assume for someone who hasn't read it a lot of emotion would have been lost.
I thought Chocolat was fine. Nothing near as good as the book, of course. Perfume was the same way. The Golden Compass is a book I like, and boy did they screw that one up!
The 1939 version of Goodbye Mr Chips is not just amazing its much better than the book. I really liked Rebecca as well. Now I do struggle with the Narnia adaptations, they were never going to meet my expectations though - not to mention I'd like to see them done in order of sequence of the books rather than order they were written.
It wasn't ruined, but I didn't like some of the changes Jackson made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Sure they're my favourite movies to date, but I didn't like how they created Lurtz (the Uruk who shot Boromir several times). I'm sure death by Lurtz was more iconic than being overwhelmed by countless enemies (in movies at least). The battle of Pelennor fields never showed the Easterlings from Rhun, nor did it show the Knights of Dol Amroth. It also made the Gondor soldiers look like weak untrained villagers, Gondorian soldiers were a lot better than Jackson portrayed them as. The Harry Potter moves have been pretty good, but they destroyed the Goblet of Fire...
This is good to know. I enjoyed the movie as something to watch on a slow night but didn't care for it much as a story. I wonder if they changed it somewhat to give more of a clear antagonist? The reason I ask is: I grew up in France, and unless the story was meant to be set much longer ago, the plot with the chocolate shop being boycotted during Lent could never happen. French people do not have a reputation for being religious or denying themselves chocolate, nor do they deserve one! But maybe I should read the book after all...
I don't think this was the worst ever, but I was disappointed by The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The first ten minutes had me spellbound and then they lost me completely, and it was such a contrast. I'm so tired of people who make children's fantasy movies thinking the only way to make it exciting is to have the characters unrealistically escape death by an inch over and over...
I so very much agree. Going from "the Voice of Fate," the frightening, all-knowing voice on the radio, that tells you exactly the moment at which it will begin to rain tonight, that represents the computer that rules your life... to "the Voice of London," a brash right-wing TV commentator... (we need a puke smiley. Don't you think?)
Guardians of Ga'Hoole. For a few weeks I've been reading the series by Kathryn Lasky and I just finished the third book today and discovered what the flecks exactly were. And after realizing what they were, I was immediately dissatisfied with how Hollywood resolved the end of Legend of the Guardians. It's all slanted by an occult POV, and they went for the epic-battle ending as opposed to what happened at the end of the third book. No wonder Kathryn Lasky refused to write the screenplay. She would have been chopping up her own blood and sweat.
Alan Moore is a ninny. I read the graphic novel. The movie was just as good. I saw no difference that was as BOLD as "Jurassic Park". I read "Jurassic Park" and the movie was totally different, but I love both. I love the differences in the film from the book. However, I dislike how the girl had to have something special instead of just being a girl. Because in the book Tim was both into baseball and computers and she was just there. I read and loved "Catch-22" and saw the film...and liked it as well. I read "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and saw the movie and liked both. Though in that one I really liked the book a lot....but the film did a good enough job for me. I read X-Men Comics and like the movies even though they jacked with the awesome characters and their personalities. I even like the Fantastic Four movies. Time to Kill---great film and book. I'm trying to think of a book that turned movie I didn't like. Like hated. AH I think I know The Sphere was not a great movie...but that book was fantastic. That's the only one I can think of.
The first two X-Men movies were okay. The third one was just awful. They could have done so much better had they worked on the story more and less on special effects. The movie posters even looked like jean advertisements. Congo wasn't a very good movie either, but the book was good.
Oh, you are right. Congo was a good book (not a great book) and the movie was poorly done, that's for sure. That's one they could update and make so much better. I still liked the Third one. I liked all of them. Regardless of how they try to destroy X-Men...the awesome that is them still seems to shine through. Just like X-Men First Class (opening June 3) this year will be good despite the lack of the original X-Men being part of it...outside of Beast.
