The Shining on its own as a movie is okay, but IMO it's a terrible, terrible adaptation. The characters were almost unrecognizable from the book; most notably Jack Torrance, who's portrayed as creepy AF from moment one in the movie version. Wendy's characterization was just as bad, changing her from a fairly normal concerned wife/mother in a stressful situation to a massive ball of spineless anxiety. The kid and the cook were all right I suppose, but the first time I watched the movie I was like "Good lord, that's not at all what I remember reading."
Believe it or not, that's not really even acting. Apparently Stanley Kubrick was a right dick to Shelley Duvall, so her being haggard and frayed near the end of the film was her being honestly terrified for her own safety.
Well that sucks. I've never really been a fan of Kubrick (either as a person or his aesthetic), and now I like him even less.
Like I said before, good acting doesn't make it a good adaptation. Maybe this is partly on me because I was a huge Shakespeare nerd and in particular Hamlet and Macbeth are my personal favourites, but come on. Even in this scene, where is Ophelia? In the play Claudius and Polonius ask her to talk to Hamlet so they can eaves drop and figure out whether he's actually mad or just pretending. There's an actual cause and effect. Here he just wanders into a room and randomly breaks into a speech in front of the one two-way mirror that Claudius and Polonius just so happened to be behind. I may be wrong, I haven't seen this version in a few years, but I still remember being somewhat disappointed in it.
This film is almost a word for word adaptation of the play. You can't get any closer to complete fidelity.
I don't know what to say, man. I'm literally watching it right now just to see if I'm wrong about it, but so far I'm 45 minutes in and I'm not really liking it any better than I remember it.
Aww, come watch with me. Every time someone overacts we take a drink. Every time someone someone talks into the middle distance instead of the person they're talking to, we take two. Every time we see someone dressed in 19th century attire speaking Elizabethan English in a Modern American Accent, we ignore it because I want to get through this film alive.
Do you think it's possible that you're bias? And I don't mean this as an attack or anything. You're entitled to whatever opinions you want, but you went into watching that film with the notion that it was wrong. I think our perceptions are powerful, especially when it comes to entertainment. A lot of the gripe I hear about how terribly, atrociously bad adaptations are neglect to take into account that there is more than one way to make an adaptation, and that it's almost unfair to compare an adaptation to its source material. I think people just enjoy employing "gotchas" on the films rather than enjoying the retelling of a story.
I can attest to this whole-heartedly. Up until a couple of weeks ago I'd resisted all the hype and badgering to watch GoT. By the time I succumbed I already hated it with a passion, and lo and behold I didn't even make it to the end of the first episode. I genuinely don't think I enjoyed it (I was falling asleep around the 40 minute mark) but I can't deny I approached it with a very biased preconception.
You mean like I already admitted to when I first responded to you? I'm sorry if I struck a rather personal nerve, but if you want to discuss this further we should probably do it elsewhere. There's no need for us to have at it full out in public.
Have at what? A discussion about adaptations is inappropriate in a thread about adaptations? I'm not sure why you think you've "struck a rather personal nerve." I'm capable of disagreeing with someone without it being personal. Are you?
It's actually responses like this that make me think it might have gotten personal for you. But, if you insist. This adaptation takes place in the 19th century, say somewhere around 1850-ish. However, Hamlet Sr.'s ghost appears on full plate armour. Specifically the armour he always wore when alive. So, why would Hamlets father be running around the castle wearing armour that was, say 100-150 years out of date?
What? So it's the historical inaccuracies that ruin it for you? This makes me wonder what the Hamlet Sr.'s ghost wore in all the variations of the play. Would you feel equally upset about something like this if it happened within a well respected acting company?
It's an anachronism that happened because they tried to update the setting and didn't take actual timelines and history into account. It's like if the Jets and Sharks got ready to rumble and half of them were wearing tricorns and epaulets. It doesn't matter how well respected the acting company is, if something like that happened, heck yeah I would be just as put off by it.
Re: Branagh's Hamlet. It is a word for word adaptation, but that doesn't necessarily make it good. I remember being bored to tears at watching a man in his mid-fifties trying to pretend to be a hot-headed youth just back from college. And the throwing sword... Oh god, the throwing sword. I'm gonna catch hell for this, but I liked Mel Gibson's version a lot better.
Actually, looking back at the OP's OQ, I'd have to say Forrest Gump. It took a petty, stupid, and mean-spirited little book and gave it a heart, making it whimsical, touching, and watchable, not to mention award winning. Definitely not an accurate rendition of the book. Kind of like the way Sinead O'Connor ruined "Nothing Compares 2U"
The Shining was, for me, great. The way Kubrick built atmosphere and the mounting insanity was excellent. I agree that some parts in the beginning were slow, but they all work to build a fantastic climax. Try watching the European cut- it leaves out about twenty five minutes of the opening sequences. I suppose you're more into the jump scare kind of horror? Oh, and which Carrie are you talking about? There are several.
I really enjoyed the movie How To Train Your Dragon, although the only things that stayed the same between the movie and the books were the names.
The Never-Ending Story. Yeah, I know, that movie is like a holy relic in the US. But you guys, the book, it was not like that. The movie is fine on its own I guess, it's a decent fantasy adventure flick, but it does a total disservice to how goddamn smart and artful that book is. In the original German it is gorgeous and lyrical and melancholy and the setting and story are a vehicle to communicate with children about profoundly important philosophical concepts. Michael Ende might be my favorite author and Never-Ending Story is probably my second-favorite book of his, Momo being first. It breaks my goddamn heart that nobody I talk to realizes that movie was even based on a novel.
1984 is far more sacrilegious than anything in this thread. The novel is one of the best and the movie is a complete mess that totally ruins everything.
This? I didn't even know there was an original, but after listening to this I have to agree. This version is superb!
No, there's another version that Prince put out solo. It's a Casiotone keyboard mess. Looks like his estate is still doing a pretty good job of scrubbing YouTube of hs music, just to make sure that the younger generation never hears of him.
