I think, hopefully along with you, the reader that books are greater than the movie, especially in this case. For some extra details, here are some good mentions. The book, produced in 1886, had more evidence that Alan had committed the Appin Murder than the movie! Also, the plot and timing of character scenes were off. One example was when Davie asked the woman in the book where the House of Shaws was, in the movie it was a man! Also, in the book, the woman had hatred for the House of Shaws, when in the movie he had no hatred that would of made the movie slightly more…
The next reason was because at the begin the little boy Alan Parish got sucked into the game. The last reason is because there was a dude shooting at them with an AK.This is why i think the tone of the movie is frightening. The tone of the book is also frightening. The first reason is because there was a huge python wrapped around the mantle clock.…
S.E. Hinton was only 15 years old when she wrote this extremely detailed book. I liked her book a lot because of how much detail she put into it. I didn’t like the movie a lot because I was kind of expecting it to be a lot like the book but was disappointed when it left out many different parts of the book. While the book and movie have many similarities and differences, the book was more effective in telling the story.…
The settings I imagined while reading the book were very different from what I saw in the movie. Some of the characters such as Kenny and Byron were shorter than I imagined, but Joetta was taller than I imagined her and Grandma Sands looked very different than I imagined. I thought she would be tiny, really old looking, and very mean. She wasn’t really any of those. The settings were very different such as the church and the Watsons house. I thought they would be more dated. Their house wasn’t modern, but wasn’t as old as I imagined from the context clues in the book. Overall I liked the movie better because it had more information about racism and I felt I learned more about it. I think I would like the movie even better if it had Rufus as a character, but it was still a great…
Personally, I like the book better. The movie just doesn't give enough information. It leaves out so many details from the book that it just messes up the story line. Don't get me wrong the movie was a great movie but it just wasn't good enough. It needed more details than what it had. The little details is what counts the…
The next thing I’d notice was the young man actually walked into the old man's room. In the book he just bursts into his room and does the cruel deed to the old man. In the movie they just look at each other. But in the movie as they look at each other the young man also walks closer. This was another major thing they changed.…
Both the book and the movie are very different, they have lots of similarities and differences. The Setting, Plot and Characterisation are three parts that the book and movie can be compared.…
Some actors acted and appeared entirely different in the movie than the book. The directing and special effects were okay in some scenes, but half-baked and lousy in others. Furthermore, the characters are developed far less in the film and many semi-important scenes in the novel are excluded in the film. Do not watch this movie unless you have read the novel (or even if you have read it). If you haven’t read the book and decide to watch the movie instead, you will fail to understand the complicated relationships between each character and between the Socs and Greasers and just think the movie is substandard and all aspects of the movie lacked in action, emotion, or just seemed like they were not well thought out. A 3.5/10 may seem harsh, but I was not pleased. Just go read the book instead. It had the potential to be a great film, but severely missed the…
First of all, one of the biggest reasons the movie is better than the book is because of the quality of the flashbacks. In the book the flashbacks were more set in the past and much longer, sometimes too drawn out and a little boring for how much background story there is for just one day dream, whereas in the movie the daydreams are a bit shorter but more set in the present and more affect by what he does in that moment with little background because of how short they are and how close to the present they may be. The daydreams are usually much more exciting in the movie as well, whereas in the book it's set back to just a boring doctor surgery, that was…
One thing in particular that the book does much better is making use of complex metaphors and themes, such as: the river for life, and oneness with nature, that string themselves together as you turn each page of the book, while in the movie the metaphors and symbolism are represented in a much different way through picture. In the book, both themes regarding the river are very vivid and clear, as they use strong imagery of nature to draw pictures in the minds of the readers. In the movie both themes are represented and referred to much less because of the lack of narration.…
How does Jurassic Park use cinematic devices in the early scenes to establish narrative, character and theme?…
Finally as mentioned before, there are many comparisons and contrast that can be made from the film and the book The Big Sleep. There were a few changes, twist and turns, and unexpected endings at the end of the film. All in all, I think that the film is a very good interpretation of the book. The actors and actresses did a great job of portraying the characters in the…
Why I think the moviemaker chose those difference between the book and the movie was because in the book there was a narrator to tell you specific things. The narrator is there to tell some background information and make sure you get a better grasp of what’s taking place. So I feel as if in the movie they wanted you to pay closer attention to what was happening. And you have to have some differences between the two. While in the movie you can see more action and can sometimes explain things better by acting out, rather than being written out.…
How would you feel if you were the author of a book, and when it was made into a movie the director had changed many very important parts? This is what happened to Suzanne Collins, when she wrote “The Hunger Games”. She had put many things in the book that were vital to know and yet had been changed. When comparing the movie and the book “The Hunger Games” there were many things that had been changed and or cut out, even though they were vital to know, for instants the character Madge had never even been mentioned in the movie, the river that dried up in the book, and even Threshes death had been changed.…
While they are visiting they separate into groups to take a tour of the park. They depart in electric-run land cruisers. While they are examining the surroundings around them Tim and Lex notice raptors leaving on a boat to go to the mainland.…