Which is Better Book or Movie?

Hey baby, I do not want to be your superman. I just want to be your man and I will be super, baby.

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:04:39 GMT

The Count of Monte Cristo

THE BOOK: 1462 pages by Alexander Dumas. Incredibly detailed, often leaves the reader without an inkling of what is going on, very thorough, long climax, enthralling after page 800. However, it cannot hold a candle to...

THE MOVIE: For those of you who miss the old Dumbledore, he is here in this film. A short role, but important and enjoyable nonetheless. The basic premise of the book is used - revenge and all - with a few characters taken out, new motives placed in, and a Hollywood romance + ending. However, the stellar performance of the Edmond Dantes role (do not know the actor's name, sorry!) is worth seeing, and if you like action/adventure films with intruiging plots (think Indiana Jones minus the George Lucas signatures), you will love this. I definately enjoyed the film, and would recommend seeing it before reading the book (it is more comprehensible this way).

Stephen King's The Mist

Thu, 08 May 2008 13:46:46 GMT

I know I'm a little behind on my movies, but I just rented Stephen King's The Mist and loved it!

It is a bit different from the book. For example, in the movie they actually give a reason for the mist and the Lovecraftian creatures that reside inside of it. Apparently a military base was experimenting with alternative dimensions and were trying to create a window to view that dimension when something went wrong. And the ending! Super bleak... in the story the father and son sort of drive through the mist, see the big creature's leg and then drive away. In this ending... with the dad shooting his son, friend, and the elder couple just minutes before rescue comes was just too awful! You could really see the mind of the father snapping when he sees the mist lifting...

The creatures I felt were really well done. They were not cheesy made for Tv CGI that I am used to in recent Stephen King movies like The Shining and Rose Red... they were believable. I loved how they created the Large monster at the end. Almost elphantlike. It reminded me of Salvador Dali's Elephants... And the people's response to seeing creatures like that was frighteningly believable! Especially the religious zealot! My favorite character in the whole movie was Ollie Weeks. Mostly because I would so act the same way if caught in that mess. Acting as a mediator to keep people calm, understanding what could happen if they don't. Keeping cool when seeing really mind blowing things. And most likely I would also be eaten by a large monster before the mess let up.

But my favorite scene in the movie is the ending (although super bleak... seriously, I'm all for bleak endings, but that's pushing it!)... when they finally reach the jeep and drive past the store... Dead Can Dance's the Host Of Seraphim started playing! I just wasn't expected Dead Can Dance out of a Stephen King movie! (the fact that I heard Lisa sing it live might have something to do with it... if you guys get the chance to hear Dead Can Dance live... you have to do it!)

I am the master. You'll have to be a little more standoffish when fellers offer you a buggy ride.

Thu, 01 May 2008 19:52:50 GMT

WAITING FOR GODOT.

I suppose visualizing the entire thing makes you realize how incredibly, incredibly bleak it was, especially blocking-wise. The part where Pozzo, Lucky, Didi, and Gogo are all on the ground, was hilarious in the movie and not really in the book. I have never seen it on stage, so I could not really say. To summarize, you would have to read the book, but the movie is definately better for comprehension. The entertainment value of both is about the same.

The Colour of Magic

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:02:21 GMT

Today I saw a TV spot for an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's 'The Colour of Magic', due to come out Easter 2008 (in the UK anyway). Here's the spot on Youtube and an IMDB link.
Any early thoughts, anyone? I was doubtful at first when I read that Sean Astin was going to play Twoflower, but from the TV spot he looks okay. Let's see what happens.

EDIT 16/3: Hmm, looks like it's a combination of 'The Colour of Magic' and 'The Light Fantastic'. I saw a 'Making of' documentary-thing on TV today, and the actors playing Cohen, Herrena, and Bethan spoke. Of course I might have been able to tell that earlier, because their names are on the IMDB page, but...I don't know. It had been a while since I looked at 'The Light Fantastic'.

The Phantom of the Opera

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:10:50 GMT

I have seen the stageplay version by Andrew Lloyd Webber and I have seen the movie version that was put out.

After my dad took me to see the movie, he told me that it was based off of a book, and he gave me his opinion. He thought it was a difficult read when he was introduced to it in high school, but thought that I would be interested in it. And he was right. I fell in love with the book after reading it.

Stage play or Movie?

Since both are the same lines, same story, same characters, and same music, the only thing I can really judge is casting. Overall I only had a problem with two people for the movie: Emmy Rossum as Christine Daae, and Gerry Butler as "The Phantom."

Emmy had hardly and variation in her facial expressions. Everything was just wide eyes, and wide mouth.

Gerry was, lets face it, too tan and muscular for a man who has spent his entire life underground. His voice also didn't wow me, and his "deformity" looked more like a bad sunburn. Not quite as shocking as Michael Crawford's deformity when he played "The Phantom" on Broadway.

I deffinately prefer the stage play to the movie.

Book or Stage Play?

This was a hard choice for me, because I love both the book and the play, but I'd give the play a 9/10, and full points to the book.

"Like yellow parchment is his skin. A great black hole serves as the nose that never grew" - Joseph Bouquet, musical

"He is extraordinarily thin and his dress-coat hangs on a skeleton frame. His eyes are so deep that you can hardly see the fixed pupils. You just see two big black holes, as in a dead man's skull. His skin, which is stretched across his bones like a drumhead, is not white, but a nasty yellow. His nose is so little worthtalking about that you can't see it side-face; and the absence of that nose is a horrible thing to look at. All the hair he has is three or four long dark locks on his forehead and behind his ears." - Joseph Bouquet, book

In the stage play, Joseph seems to be exagerating what the "Phantom" looks like, but in the book, this is what he is thought to look like, and is supposed to be a first hand account from Bouquet.

The book also give the Phantom a name. His name in the book is Erik (no surname mentioned.)

The book was meant to be an investigation of the goings-on in the Opera Garnier, and so Leroux goes into much detail about the young Christine Daae, and her lover le Vicomt.

The climax where Erik has le Vicomt hostage and is persuading Christine to marry him is a lot more suspenseful in the book, and I shall not spoil it. I'll only say that the thing threatening le Vicomt, and another character with him is a larger threat than just a rope, and Christine's choice will decide both her fate, Erik, le Vicomt's, and everyone else in the Opera.

Eragon

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:23:07 GMT

I as sorely dissapointed with this movie. There were many many scenes I was anxious to see portraied on the big screen, and unfortunately %95 of them were not shown.

I also had a problem with Sapheria. Her voice was good, and what I imagined it sounded like, but for some reason, I was annoyed that she had feathered wings. In the book, Christopher described her wings to be almost like a bat's (with the finger like apendages, connected by a thin membrane). Having feathered wings would deffinately be considered a safety hazard for a fire breathing dragon.

There were also a lot of characters that had key roles in the book that were left out, or had their influence cut unbelieveably short.

I deffinately would not purchase this movie if you are a fan of the books. Rent it if you feel that you need to see it.

I have a bad feeling about this

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:16:30 GMT

I randomly decided to check IMDB for a few of my favourite books to see if any had been optioned and they've made/are making a movie of The Time Traveller's Wife.

Worried, I am.

twilight

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:45:31 GMT

what are your thoughts on this becoming a movie, do you think it will be a dud like blood and chocolate?

Always something there to remind me. Always something there to remind me.

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:22:40 GMT

The Princess Bride.

I have to say, as far as the original goes, I enjoyed the film far more. The original is sort of a farce, and a lot of it is confusing and drawn out and used to Morgenstern's purposes, but the movie is more entertaining.

As for the abridged version, the book is far better. It gives better background for Inigo and Fezzik, essentially fleshing out their characters. It is nearly identical to the movie in other aspects, including dialogue, but William Goldman's inputs are so touching and hilar that the book takes that slight preference over the movie (to which William also wrote the screenplay.)

Gone Baby Gone

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:18:58 GMT

as a huge fan of dennis lehane, i love this book. it's well-written and definitely one of the best in kenzie/genarro series. as for the movie, well, the problem is that the book is #4 in the series. so i kinda feel that the characters are not well-built. i miss angie's role in the movie (she plays big role in the book - since she is part of the two main characters). but as a stand alone movie, i think it is quite okay - it has its twists and turns. i'd probably might enjoy it more if i have never read the book.

BOOK: A
MOVIE: B-

The Man in the Iron Mask

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:54:43 GMT

A case of movie before the book. I stayed away from the movie for the longest time because it had Leo in it, but gave in when I seen it on TV. Loved that movie as it would turn out. It had such a wonderful cast for the musketeers... what's not to love? I've watched it several times since then.

Now I've finished the book. Wow, the differences. Although I can understand much of them since Iron Mask is the end of a trilogy. Pretty much the only similarities are the names. Philippe's role hardly makes for more than a few chapters. I liked Raoul's love interest in the movie better because in the book I longed for her death. And it never came, ahh! So the stories between the two are quite different as I've said. I find the book quite depressing once Porthos dies and it's sad for the remaining chapters. According to the afterward in my copy Dumas was said to have cried when he wrote that scene.

Which do I like better? That is hard to say. The purist in me should say the book but it's just so depressing. ^^;;

A Prayer For Owen Meany/Simon Birch

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:13:31 GMT

I am looking for your advice here. A Prayer For Owen Meany is my favorite novel. I have yet to watch Simon Birch. For years I wouldn't even entertain the idea of watching it. It's "loosely based" on the novel and I heard gossip that said it was originally supposed to be a movie version of the book but the film veered so far away from the story that John Irving asked that the title be changed. This made me want to steer clear of it. Since then, several people have told me that it really is a good movie. I would like to hear from some folks who have both read and seen this. Also, I know that there has been some backlash from the self-identified Christian community concerning the book. I do not count myself as part of that community and that is not part of my hesitancy. My question: if you love this book, should you see the movie?

The Jane Austen Book Club

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:48:16 GMT

So I saw the trailer for the movie, thought it looked awesome and decided to read the book first. I just finished the book but I haven't seen the movie yet cuz it hasn't opened where I live yet. I was a little disappointed in the book (I thought t would be a little more interesting) but it was okay. Has anyone seen the movie? What did you think?

Valley of the Dolls

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:28:35 GMT

As is the case with many movies, if I'd seen it before I'd read the book, I might say it was a good movie. But so many points were left out. I thought it was vital to character development that Anne was previously a virgin. And it's been a while since I read it, but didn't Anne get married twice in the book? And zero times in the movie? Not to be overly crude here, but didn't I read somewhere that the author wrote this thing with the idea that she thought the audience was ready for oral sex? There's no scene like that in the book, but Neely embarrasses Anne with the idea. And just what in god's name is up with that happy, female-empowered ending? Anne goes DOWN in the book. She doesn't save herself! She starts taking pills to numb herself to the fact that Lyon is a jerk.

sweeet!!!

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:47:16 GMT

thought you might enjoy this.. my papaw is an avid reader, too.. however, he usually sticks to westerns (Louis L'Amour).. sometimes, i'll goad him into branching out though.. so far he's read (and LOVED) The Hero & the Crown, The Blue Sword, all the Maximum Ride books, aaaand

he read it in 2 days.. after he finishes the western he's reading now, he'll start on book 2..
xposted to all my book communities and my journal

my first post here

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:12:43 GMT

So I've just watched a good portion of the movie Watership Down. I know I watched it as a kid, but I never really connected with it. I still can't. I'd read the story before I watched the movie years ago and though I don't have a conscious memory of this, I think I must have known back then that this was a weak interpretation. I think that a good bit of this failure was inevitable. The movie was made in 1979 and it's entirely animated. Well, I suppose it should be animated. But it's quite a dark tale and the filmmakers were limited to Bugs-Bunny-style animation at the time. Bigwig's no scarier than my kitten and Fiver just looks like he's on meth. (Fiver's actually a visionary and all.) I want to see Frank-Miller-style Watership Down. Or Pixar. Oooh, what if Pixar hired Frank Miller just for this? Animation has made some wondrously dark leaps in the almost 30 years since this came out. I'm not buying this whole troupe of happy-looking rabbits speaking in posh British accents. It doesn't fit the story at all. Well, except Fiver. He still speaks in a posh British accent, but he doesn't seem happy in the least. Meth will do that to you. And now that I think about it some more, in 1979 they could have had one good shot at it if they'd chosen to. They could have hired Jim Henson. I'm not sure if he would have taken the job or not, but at the time he would have been the only choice to do the darkness up correctly. Someone really needs to remake this film. It was a crappy film, but it's one of my favorite books and I think it lends itself remarkably well to the screen. If only someone would step in and do something about that.

Children of Men, novel by PD James.

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:44:29 GMT

The original novel by PD James is a radical departure from her usual work, focusing not on crime but on a society in the near future where the major issue is a complete lack of fertility amongst human males for the past twenty years, with no children born in that time. The film is based on this hypothesis, with elements of the plot of the book written into the film, and as such is quite different in tone and presentation from the book. It was directed and collaboratively written by Alfonso Cuarón (who is, admittedly, one of my favourite directors).

The overriding factor driving the society in both the film and book versions is a lack of hope for the future; however, PD James and Alfonso Cuarón have very different ideas about how this would change society, perhaps emphasising the difference between post-cold war 1992 publishing date and 2006 release date for the film. The book focuses on the relationship between Theo and his charismatic, dictatorial cousin Xan, examining how strong personalities and governmental conspiracies would accompany a society into decline. By contrast the 'enemy' within the film is very much faceless; terrorism and xenophobia is rife within all societies, with (tellingly) the 'concentration camps' changed from a remote Isle of Mann to any and all coasts of the UK, dealing not just with criminals but more (contemporarily and relevantly) with illegal immigrants. The contrast between the two versions illustrates just how political a story it is, and in this the earlier version falters because it does not deal with current problems or attitudes or new theories of politics. Also, focusing on the the top end of government, rather than the very down-to-earth portrayal of the problems within society the film captures in it's rolling pan shots, the book doesn't engage in the same way and becomes a more sterile examination of government rather than society.

The way that the film tackles the society that has emerged is through the use of the journey, a (lesser) theme and plot event that was present in the original book. Alfonso Cuarón considers this a companion piece to his Y tu mamá también which also used the same device to explore a society in flux. This I think is where the film shines through - rather than the exposition or plot being centred around a definite familial relationship that the book has to explore, the film focuses on an almost mythical hope (the 'Human Project') which exposition never needs to pin down. As such the camera is able to capture what is at heart a very simple, archetypal journey for Theo and Kee. The visual references which allude to the films fictional setting are very much rooted in reality, to the degree that research and rewatching would be a joy, especially for anyone who researched global conflict. At the same time there are mythical motifs that fit with the simple story structure, which while often lifted from the book fit much more comfortably within the visually driven film.

This is probably why the film made such an impact on me: the visual focus of the film, with an almost complete lack of exposition versus the narrative, diarised and internalised account in the book is unfortunate as in that hypothesis - fertility breakdown - I want a wider view of society, and this the film delivers. Add into this the sumptuous and occasionally shocking camerawork (with one particular shot late in the film gaining an audible gasp from the entire audience) and the haunting marriage with the music and you've got a winner in the film. I'd very much recommend a viewing.

Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:39:20 GMT

I've always found Paul Verhoeven's adaptation of Starship Troopers entertaining, but nothing more than that. Verhoeven's movie is supposed to be a satire on military propaganda (note the newsreel like tidbits sprinkled throughout the movie), and there's an intriguing, but painfully brief discussion on the faults of democracy and the glorification of force at the beginning. But whatever principled agenda the movie may have had is completely lost in the din of starships crashing into one another, machine guns and portable nukes blasting away at aliens, and the occasional melodramatic gurgle of death. The movie, effectively, was nothing more than a fun joyride.

I was surprised to find sophistication and depth in the novel, which I'd gotten around to reading long after seeing the film. Granted, many of Heinlein's critics were right in saying that Starship Troopers seemed like nothing more than the author's mouthpiece for his political advocacies. The five-minutes-or-less classroom scene in the movie discussing the virtues of brute force is expanded into lengthy, but easily readable discourses about civic responsibility, "inalienable" human rights and the biological roots of morality. These episodes may sound didactic (and they should, because usually a very impassioned ex-mobile-infantry-turned-professor-sans-one-or-two-limbs is preaching) but the concerns they raise--perhaps because of the extreme position they assume--is intellectually stimulating.

I find the issue of universal suffrage particularly relevant in my context. The novel suggests that the right to vote should note be universal. It should be reserved only for people who have already proven that they will always place the good of the collective above personal gain. That's why in the futuristic world Starship Troopers depict, you have to be a Citizen (having served a term in the Service) in order to have the right to elect your leader. Here in the Philippines, our Constitution grants every Filipino citizen who can read or write the right to elect his preferred leader. However, every time we hold an election, there is always news of rampant vote-buying. Covert campaign operatives of this politician or that walk up to you and bribe you into voting for their candidate. They usually give around 500 to 1000 Philippine pesos (approximately 12 to 25 US dollars). Many people eagerly accept them, because a majority of Filipinos are beneath the poverty line. This is why we end up electing a college-drop-out-turned-actor as president, and even convicted rapists and outright insurrectionists as congressmen and senators.

I highly recommend reading the book, especially because of the social and political issues that it raises. The film adaptation, though it may have had some vague, noble intent, completely glosses over those concerns, reducing Starship Troopers into nothing more than your usual action flick. (The novel, if I might point out, rarely lingers over the battlefield. Fully 70 percent of the book takes place in some classroom or training ground.) The book may feel like propaganda at times, and may lack the character involvement that many novels now feature, but it is compelling. It leads us to question social values we hold most dear, which, I think is the mark of really good science fiction.

The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:03:26 GMT

Before I reread the novella by Ira Levin this week, I probably would have said I preferred the 1975 film directed by Bryan Forbes with its screenplay by William Goldman. Again as with Rosemary's Baby it has been some time since I read the original book and my memory was rather overshadowed by the film adaptation.

For those not aware of the plot, it concerns a young couple moving from New York to the town of Stepford, Connecticut where all the housewives seem to be totally submissive to their husbands and obsessed with housework. Joanna and another new arrival, Bobbie, feel very out of place because their houses are messy and they are thinking about issues like Women's Liberation (both book and film are from the 70s). At first they just think the differences are because they are New Yorkers and therefore more sophisticated than the suburban women but soon they begin to suspect that more is going on. My review of the novel is here.

Forbes' film plays it as quite straight sci-fi/horror leaving behind Levin's social satire. I think the only scene where that really comes out is when Joanna and Bobbie try to organise a 'conscious-raising session' and the Stepford wives begin to talk as if they are part of a 1950s commercial promoting the virtues of cleaning products. The novel also is ambiguous about the reason for the women's behaviour whereas the film is explicit. I discuss this under the cut, which does contain spoilers for the film highlighting its difference to the novel, so if you haven't seen any version or heard about its plot then might be reason to avoid looking.

In the novel Joanna comes to suspect that the wives of Stepford are being replaced by sophisticated robots. In the penultimate chapter she is left alone with the transformed Bobbie, who has offered to cut herself to prove this is nonsense and that she is not a robot. Joanna believes that Bobbie is about to murder her with the large knife she is holding but the scene then cuts away to the men who have brought Joanna there to disprove her allegations. In the final chapter we see, as in the film, that Joanna has become a Stepford wife passively pushing her shopping cart through the supermarket. So the implication is there that Joanna has been murdered and replaced but we do not have positive confirmation of it.

In the 1975 film, it is quite evident that Joanna and the others have been replaced by robots. This is first seen after Carol Van Sant's minor car accident when at a social gathering she begins to repeat herself mechanically, later blaming her behaviour on having been drunk. The wives also seem very robotic in their movements and flat tone of voice. In the climax Joanna stabs Bobbie in the stomach and but there is no blood and Bobbie seems to have been short-circuited as she repeats the same phrase and action over and over. Then running to the Men's Association Joanna discovers her robotic replacement, who approaches her twisting a scarf in her hands. Although we do not see the murder it is very evident it takes place. Again, in the final scene Joanna's transformation is evident as she strolls through the shopping centre looking totally blank.

I haven't really considered the mess that is the 2004 remake with Nicole Kidman as Joanna. It had quite a big name cast and it seems as though the budget was spent on its star salaries than the screenwriter and script supervisor as aside from a weak script there were plot holes all over the place. It was revisioned by Frank Oz as a comedy-thriller and failed in both respects. It wasn't funny or thrilling and the original horror left totally behind. In all it felt like a wasted opportunity to update the novella to sharpen the social satire and make it more relevant to the 21st century.

In terms of the film adaptations, I clearly prefer the 1975 one but I do think that the original novella is stronger because it is able to convey satire and horror. I've come to appreciate Ira Levin much more as a writer of suspense horror who broke new ground as well as for the psychological subtleties of his writing.

Persepolis

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:14:27 GMT

This is a graphic novel, I hope it is OK. Brief summary: Persepolis is the story of Marjane Satrapi, the author, since she is a ten-year-old child until her youth. It is also the story of Iran, since the revolution in 1979 until the early 90's. You learn about Iran through the eyes of Marjane, first as a child member of a family who fought against the Shah and then lost their illusions when the fundamentalists took the power; then as a teenager during the war with Iraq, and as a teenager alone in a foreign country (she went to Vienna for some years to escape the war), and then as a young woman suffering the lack of opportunities and the oppression of a fundamentalist government.

I read the book some years ago, and I loved it. I saw the movie recently, and I think it was a pretty good adaptation, it was aesthetically very beautiful, with very nice movement, and I think it really captured the spirit of the book. However, my boyfriend watched the movie with me and he hasn't read the book, and he thought the main character (Marjane, the author of the book and director of the movie) was quite selfish and not very nice in general. I didn't think that and I think it is because in the book the characters are more well developed and you understand her better. Since I knew the book, I completed the missed parts in the movie and I didn't see that in her.

What do you all think?

Timeline

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:01:22 GMT

I read Timeline a looong time ago and it is one of my favorite books. The idea of being able to go back in time is always a fascinating one, but to pair it with the "shifts" that happen if you go back too much is just cool. The idea of the way that would look stuck with me for ages. Creedy is such a fun character and I'll admit that I have a little "if he was real I'd have a crush on him" thing going on. Plus Crichton just has that way with words that sucks you right into the action and adventure that the characters are going through.

So when Timeline the movie came out I was stoked. ( I think The 13th Warrior is a very good book-to-movie set) so silly me thought Timeline would be super fun and awesome too.

I spent the whole movie saying "That didn't happen", "it wasn't like that" and various different renditions of that sentence. I remember hating the French interpreter since he was such a chicken shit and they were supposed to have those ear devices to under stand the language(speaking of, wouldn't that just be AWESOME to have in real life? oh yeah!) . The machine and whole facility looked like a joke that someone had crapped together in their basement and that whole business was rushed through something fierce. I wanted to see more archeology in the movie as well since I thought that was sort of significant to the book. Paul Walker...BLAH. I also thought that the movie didn't fully get across the fact that the one guy was from our time and was pissed about not being able to go back or whatnot because of the sideeffects.
I can't even remember the other things that made it suck, I think even on its own it still has not too much going for it, because if you didn't read the book it was easy to get lost in the movie.

The one redeeming factor of the movie? Casting Gerard Butler as Creedy, for me that was just a PERFECT match up. I was so pleased to have my favorite character represented so excellently. (as a result I do own the movie) but solely because of Butler's performance and I usually skip through most of it when Creedy isn't on screen. X-P)

So what did ya'll think?

GONE WITH THE WIND: BOOK/MOVIE

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:24:42 GMT

Ok since I didn’t see a post on it I had to do it. GONE WITH THE WIND, one of my favorite classic BOOK/MOVIE in the whole freaking world!! Who is with me on this?? And what are your options on either: A. The book or B. The movie. Why? Your ideas, theories, etc.

To Kill a Mockingbird

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:13:49 GMT

My favorite book of all time -- and Hollywood actually got it right with their movie. I think it says something when Harper Lee said the only person who could play Atticus was Gregory Peck. He was perfect.

Both the movie and book were powerful and very real. I loved them both.

Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:35:13 GMT

We all know this book. And we all know there are many movie versions. I am choosing the only one I liked. Romeo+Juliet, the 1996 movie. Staring Leo.

For me this wasn't a hard choose. Since the script follows the book, word for word, I gladly chose the movie. That's not to say, I didn't enjoy the book, it's just I found the movie more appealing. I don't know about the rest of you, but sometimes Shakespeare is confusing. However seeing some visuals really helped me understand what the characters were saying. Sure, most modernized stories are disappointing, but I think everyone will agree that this was done perfectly. The best part of the movie was the music. While reading a book, there is never any background music. Sure, background music isn't that important, but sometimes it can take a story and move it to a whole new level. I feel the music in Romeo+Juliet did just that. The right song was played at the right time.

Those are my thoughts.

Stephen King's Pet Semetary

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:55:55 GMT

I enjoyed the movie far more than the book. This is unusual for me as Stephen King stories don't often translate to movies very well (examples: Rose Red, Maximum Overdrive, It).

What I enjoyed about the movie:
1. Good special effects. The director does not use CGI throughout the movie except for one scene and it does not distract from the movie.
2. The movie does not date itself.
3. The acting is not overly campy as it usually is in Stephen King movies
4. The movie does not follow the book. (the movie is one of my favorite horror movies ever, the book... not so much. So i am glad that it doesn't follow the book)

What do you all think?