i am half blind Claudia, the wall is right in front of me and i can't find it. Couldn't find Rushdie but found something interesting on Darwin and People of England turning away from organised religion.i found Dr. Zhivago better than the book. It was a poem, every frame was a painting. Bridges of Madison county was done well too. But my friends found it disappointing.People always find the book better than the movie simply because their visualisation does not match with the director's. Its difficult to bring everything in 90 minutes. DaVinci Code was an exception. The film was taken with the idea that the audience have already read the book. For those who have not read the book, the film was an abstract presentation, they had no clue what it was all about. There was a documentary on the BBC titled ' Did Jesus die on the Cross' i don't know if it was taken before Da Vinci code book came out.
I hated Tolkien's "Lord of The Rings" but loved Peter Jackson's vision of it. I'm probably not alone in believing that "Gone with the Wind" the movie is far better than Margaret Mitchell's novel. "Doctor Zhivago", "The Leopard", "The Age of Innocence" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" are great adaptations to film that do justice to the literary works they're based upon and sometimes even surpass the original's spendor by better conveying its essence.I find, however, that most film adaptations are indeed disapointing and mediocre, probably because the creative spark behind the process is most of the times just not up to par."The Remains of the Day" is perhaps one of the biggest let-downs in this respect. It's truly painful to watch Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thomson wasting their talent on such a poor adaptation to film of this literary masterpiece.
Post a Comment