I finally saw this on pay-per-view last night. I'm eager to see the reaction of someone who hasn't read the book. My main thought was, "This is good, but it's not better than the book; it's more or less a predictable visualization of the book." I wonder what the point is. Is it really an accomplishment? I mean, obviously it's some kind of accomplishment, but what kind, really?
What is the best book-to-movie transfer you've ever seen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If you are looking for the most stunning gap between the quality of the book and the film, I think you will be hard pressed to top “The Shining”. The book is a forgettable bit of pulp from a very rich but very third rate writer; the movie is a masterpiece from a potent but sometimes off balance talent. The casting, of course, is fantastic.
All the more remarkable is that King’s stories usually end up as very bad movies. Even a good actor like Johnny Depp turned in a lame performance in a King number.
See, I haven't read "The Shining," but I would like to. The problem is that I do the bulk of my reading late at night and probably couldn't handle a scary story at home alone in the wee hours. I have read some very entertaining King, such as his novellas "Apt Pupil," "Shawshank Redemption" and "Stand By Me." They are not great literature, but they're good, solid entertainment and have flashes of brilliance.
The film "The Shining" is superfantastic. Horror stories seem to cry out for dramatic interpretation (and my understanding is that the book and the film of "The Shining" were different in many ways), but I'm not sure that's the case with other kinds of stories. I just don't see the point in taking a magnificent book like "No Country For Old Men" and transferring it to film in a very predictable way. I didn't even have the sense that OK, this is the same story in a different medium. I just thought this is the same story.
I think I've said this before somewhere on this blog, but "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" strikes me as a brilliant film adaptation. They took a great book, really understood what made it so great, and then really understood how to make it into a great film, using the strengths and unique opportunities of the visual medium. You really had the sense that a story was being reinterpreted — not just retold — for a different medium.
Oh, no. Oh, no. It probably goes without saying that I'm a Stephen King fan ...
He's by no means a Faulkner, but a great story-teller? Yes. Original? Yes. Great voice? Check. Characterization? Superb.
(But his work is inconsistent. I thought it became noticeable when he wrested editorial control as to length and such from his publisher in the early '90s. "Insomnia" is, forgive my little joke, a total nightmare.)
Anyway, there's not just "The Shining" but "Carrie" as well. In that case his work went to a talented director -- Brian DePalma -- and the casting was superb in that instance as well.
Hehe. But now I get to travel memory lane on all the Stephen King movies ... thanks for bringing him up!
I thought "Misery" was a so-so story and film redeemed by Oscar-winner Kathy Bates ... and that "Christine" was a terrific story that failed in the hands of a credible horror director (John Carpenter) because of terrible acting! Excruciating! (I just watched that on the Chiller Channel a month or so ago.)
Jon at work is pestering me to watch "The Mist" on demand. Says it's great. It's an interesting story.
KC and I saw "1408" in the theater. I think I gave it a 7 on FilmAffinity. Probably would have been a 6 without John Cusack.
Most of his made-for-TV films look it. "The Stand" was an exception, although I think Molly Ringwald in a lead was a dreadful casting decision.
And that reminds me that I've wanted to see "The Dead Zone" with Christopher Walken ...
All right, sorry, kc. I'll address the question now.
Never a good idea to wrest editorial control, is it? I liken that to representing yourself in court. Just doesn't work, no matter your skills. Better to find an editor you respect and trust.
Good call on "Carrie," especially the casting. Jesus, I cannot watch Piper Laurie in "Twin Peaks" without thinking of the evil Bible-thumping mom in "Carrie." She was so good. And of course I had a big crush on Carrie's gym teacher, who was also the stepmom on the brilliant "Eight is Enough." (except no way in hell would that foxy gym teacher be married to the pudgy, pompous Mr. Bradford ... and when I say pudgy, I'm speaking of mental flab).
Rosemary's Baby.
Wait -- do you mean book-to-movie as in the movie equaled or transcended the book? Or that stuck faithfully to the original story? I assume you mean the first ...
Forgot to add "The Shining" is not my favorite King novel. But I like the subtext of the resentful dry alcoholic whose wife is needling him to the next binge (to the level of supernatural insanity).
(I have some family sympathies in that regard. As my sister has said: "My god. If you were faced with all those sticky notes every morning, wouldn't you drink, too?")
Yeah, I mean the first. Like there's a good REASON to redo the literary effort in a visual medium and it really, really works.
I haven't read "Rosemary's Baby," but the film is excellent. It's superfuckin' creepy. And it had John Cassavettes! And perfectly cast upstairs weirdo-neighbors! And Mia Farrow's pixie cut and waifish look started a whole fashion trend.
Well,
I thought about "The Razor's Edge," with Gene Tierney, but it's not the novel ... nor is "Murder on the Orient Express" (Ingrid Bergman! Lauren Bacall! Vanessa Redgrave!).
I think I may have to concede to "The Shining." Runner-up would still be Stephen King ... "Shawshank Redemption."
KC, forgot to mention that Jon was pestering me in part about "The Mist" because it's by "Shawshank's" director ...
And "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a contender. Great book. Great movie.
I was planning on adding “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” if nobody else did.
Post a Comment