But Medusa!!

Hannibal's fixation on Clarice was due entirely to the fact that she was that which he *did not believe could exist* -- someone who did not compromise, who fought for ideals with practicality and wit, and who did not bend, and did not break (which is why he took such pleasure in trying to break her -- she wouldn't, and he could and did break everyone else he had ever cared to).

At the end of the book, she was bent. Not by her own volition, but through "treatments," drugs that made her pliable to Hannibal's suggestions and innuendoes until she came to believe them. The Hannibal of the other books would, I believe, no longer *want* Starling if this happened -- she'd been bent, and broken. The Starling in the movie was true to the Starling established in both the previous book and film -- she would not compromise, not even at the moment which could have meant the difference between her life and her death. She would not bend, she didn't break -- and this is what Hannibal responds to most: the challenge, and the incredible joy there is in knowing that an ideal you long thought impossible can exist, and does.

I very much enjoyed most of the book -- the ending was just so out of place and hollow, while the film was mediocre, but for the ending, which was true to both characters and didn't cop out in a slightly-twisted "together, they lived happily ever after" ending.

But, we have our stances, and neither of us are probably used to backing down, nor are either of us likely to do.

Maure.

______________________________
Obfuscations and Inconsequentials: a journal

shawshank redemption.

much better than the half-assed story in the book.

the film makers turned it into a real fable. The story was a money for old rope prison thing with bits of brutality.

In the film they managed to stay true to the book while enhancing it.

and also, while I'm here, i think American Pie the film was much better than the book.

********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy

there should be more movies about dancing polar bears.

~St.CountZero, of the Ancient Order of the Triad Cartel~
_________________________________________
A slim pixie, thin and forlorn
A Count, white and drawn - Bauhaus.

Er, how did the other two stories in "Different Seasons" translate? I've seen Shawshank-- as some comedian pointed out, there's a network that shows it all the time. I thought it was a good movie, though not as neat as the book. Haven't seen it all the way through, though.
But... "Apt Pupil" was a very creepy story, but I heard the movie sucked. And my fave story in the book, "The Body," was turned into "Stand By Me," which was supposed to be pretty good. Has anyone seen these films? I loved "Different Seasons" and hope the movies are good...

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~
People tell me its a sin
to know and feel too much within.

The Crow. well, it's a comic book. but still a book, no?
it's my favourite movie.

I must say, I didn't like Apt Pupil (the novella), and the more I think about the story the more I hate it. I felt that the story itself could have been good, but King went for cheap shocks and disgust, turning both Dussander and the kid into shlocky cardboard-cutout villains. It ended up being as much of a monster story as King's other stuff - and that at least didn't pretend it was anything else.

--
Mairsydoats and dosydoats and lidellamsydivy, a kidilee divy too, wouldn't you?

Medusa my love, you and I will disagree until death on Hannibal, I'm sure. It's part of what makes our friendship so much fun I think.

That being said, I'm with you 100% on Apt Pupil. The only thing the movie has going for it is Ian McKellan, but he's not enough to carry the whole thing. They watered down the orginal story, which was very, very dark. Quite frankly I'm surprised that it even got made at all; it came out at the same time all those high school shootings were going on.

Now I'll throw another log on the fire: The Shining. The book is great, but I think the Kubrick movie is better. For me, it will always be the scariest movie I've ever seen. Axes and hedgerow mazes are *much* scarier than croquet mallets and hedgerow animals.


Jeff
Diary of a Madman

"Stand By Me" was one of my favorite movies when I was a teenager. It's just about as good as "Shawshank Redemption". Recommended!

"Apt Pupil" didn't work at all, which was strange considering that it was Bryan Singer directing Ian McKellen. Don't know what went wrong - it somehow manages to seem like a made-for-tv movie.

Classic American seventies movies that are better than the books:

1) Jaws - Spielberg basically turns a third rate suspense novel into the best Moby Dick movie ever made - yes, it's better than Ray Bradbury and John Huston's fairly okay attempt at doing Moby Dick.

2) Carrie - sketchy Stephen King debut novel turned into classic outsider teenage movie, thanks to that all time great Sissy Spacek performance

3) The Godfather - so-so gangster novel turned into Shakespearian high art. And the Godfather part II was an even greater extrapolation of the material in the novel.

I guess The Exorcist would count too, and Rosemary's Baby arguably 100% as good as the book, if not exactly better.

- Michael

quote:

---

Originally posted by phool2056:
You're shitting me. That's like the best book and the worst movie in the world. Oh my god. I just...oh my god. I mean, I know it sounds silly/stupid, but I am almost offended by this concept. And it is REALLY friggin' hard to offend me. That horrible, nonsensical movie? That fun, intelligent book? Jaysis. I mean, you didn't state any reasons, so I have to take this as opinion not supported by facts, and thus inarguable either way, but still.

---

Why I didn't like the book:
1. It was a very intelligent book. All you had to do was ask it. Terribly pompous and overblown.

2. Descriptive histories leading to nowhere are all right in a historical text or something, but there should be a warning label on this book that reads "Caution: Excessive Backstory." And, yes, I know, it's a very complex and rich world. It would have been nice to have found that out, rather than be told it repeatedly.

3. The sentence structure. I just couldn't get into the rhythm of the writing, and I got the distinct impression that Herbert couldn't either.

4. Everything's a metaphor. There are no "cigars" in this book. None at all. Everything stands in for something else, and that just gets a bit wearing. I don't mind a bit of imagery, but everything being images ends up being rather dull.

Why I loved the movie.

1. Kyle MacLachlan

Not just another pretty face.

2. A pleasant mix of action, philosophy and just plain weird stuff.

3. The scene with the Emperor. Loved it.

4. The freaky little girl.

5. The sand worms.

6. At the end of the movie, it took me about five minutes to process what I'd seen. The used hardcover of Dune, on the other hand, only took a fraction of that time to strike the far wall after I threw it upon realizing I'd wasted a good five hours of my life reading it.

__________
AJGraeme

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
6. At the end of the movie, it took me about five minutes to process what I'd seen. The used hardcover of Dune, on the other hand, only took a fraction of that time to strike the far wall after I threw it upon realizing I'd wasted a good five hours of my life reading it.

---

All hail David Lynch for making sense of an overblown series that I never finished!!! Herbert sounds like burp to me, which reminds me of being gassy and uncomfortable, which is how the Dune books made me feel.

I liked Dune (the first book), but after reading it I was sated. I was never really tempted to get any of the other books. I'd even say that Herbert's real achievement lies in creating a world, not in creating a good novel.

I only watched the movie in a badly dubbed TV version, interrupted every 20 minutes by ads. Enjoyable, but on the whole it left less of an impression than the book did.

--
Mairsydoats and dosydoats and lidellamsydivy, a kidilee divy too, wouldn't you?

Well, Dweller, it's obvious that you and I have very different opinions about this particular subject. We clearly enjoy different things about the whole Dune thing. If I can do so without having bricks and deloreans thrown at me, let me suggest that you read it again. I will even agree to watch the movie the next time it comes on the SciFi channel. Which should be about fifteen minutes, as Dune is (or used to be) the Shawshank Redemption of the sci fi channel. Until then, let me simply state that I am right and you are wrong.

Also! I had forgotten about the Godfather. I saw that movie and the second one (never bothered with the third) two years ago and loved them. I read the book last summer and afterwards (as well as during) cried the bitter, sour tears of disappointment. The damn thing reads like a screenplay. All description of characters seems more geared towards helping actors accurately portray them than showing them to the reader. Lame book. Truly.

"All Quiet on the Western Front"
While it is an amazing and very profound book, I have to say there is something about the imagery in the movie that makes it even more effective to me (once you get passed the exaggerated actions of people used to being in silent films). Maybe it's just because I saw the movie first. Either way, it ranks up there as one of my favorite movies and one of my favorite books.


And now to incur some of Medusa's wrath:

"Queen of the Damned"
I couldn't get past how this movie was basically an hour and 40 minute long commercial for MTV. I never read the book so I can't really comment on the merits of it, but if this cliched, music video of a "movie" is actually better than the book then I thank God that I have never even been within sight of the thing. The fact that it brought nothing new to the vampire movie genre, coupled with the lack of a cohesive story-line, made it torturous to watch, and in fact I only left it on because I knew it was bothering my roommate even more than me.

Cow: Moo?
Duck: QUACK!!
Cow: moo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Soup:
"Queen of the Damned"

---

Ahhh, but it had Lena Olin playing a sultry vampire ... for a change

- Oliver (Concierge of the KaTe KarTel)
----------------------
"You like pain? Well, try wearing a corset!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by dayvd:
The Crow. well, it's a comic book. but still a book, no?
it's my favourite movie.

---

i love them both myself. can't say i like one better than the other. they're two separate experiences.


"Hey boy, take a look at me
Let me dirty up your mind"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rimmer:
Lord of the Rings. I'm enjoying the films sooo much more than the dull, sexist books!

---

I agree 100%. Tolkien is sexist. It shows that in all his books. However, I would never consider the LotR movies better than the books. Why? Because the books are great and the movies are simply good (and I'm being kind here). The movies are plagued with bad dialogue, bad editing, and even worse script (The sound, effects, costume, etc. kick ass though). Just to point an example: in the Fellowship of the Ring, the "council" scene is nothing but a bunch of actors shouting at each other and suddenly Frodo says 'ok, i'll do it' and then everybody agrees and the "meeting" is over. That means that the most important part of the first book is merely 10 minutes of (bad) film.
That surely gained me quite a few enemies. Be gentle with the flamethrowers please.

On topic, I think Sleepy Hollow largely overshadows the tale (which sucks, in my opinion).

quote:

---

Originally posted by heyjupiter:
I have to agree about LOTR being a better movie than a book, just because I personally am not a big fan of Tolkien's writing style. I like that one beautiful image can take the place of pages of rambling descriptions.

---

I have to agree. I love the LOTR story and the images in the movies. Reading the books, I had the overwhelming sense that I didn't much care what the hobbits were having for second lunch or any other extraneous detail.

mtxx hit my two right on the head: JAWS and THE GODFATHER....no doubt.

Not Always So

If you've only seen Sleepy Hollow once, I recommend seeing it again to be sure you actually liked it. See, the first time I saw it, I thought it was the coolest thing since I fell in the waterfall. Then the second time I saw it, I had no idea what I had been thinking the first time. I was just laughing the whole way through. I guess before I had been blinded by the beautiful visuals and hadn't been paying attention to anything else, because mostly that movie is just lame. Total victory of style over content, and, while style can save an otherwise mediocre film, it can't save one as bad as that one. Now awaiting thrown vegetables.

I wouldn't say necessarily better than the books, but I find The Lord of the Rings movies much easier to follow than the books. Could just be me, but I find the characters are easier to decipher visually than by all the different names and such.