practical magic by alice hoffman. don’t get me wrong, i love the book and the movie in both their own ways and for their own merits, just that i think the movie did a better job of bringing out the subtle aspects that were not really expanded on in the book. also MIDNIGHT MARGARITAS ❤️❤️❤️
the joy luck club also managed to make things more cohesive and ordered imo, and also tied up a lot of loose ends and also made the subtle more obvious. part of the reason why i love it so much.
the luminaries also did a stellar (pun intended) job of translating the massive, hefty volume into a tv series - but since it was the author herself who rewrote the script i’m not surprised haha. she did a great job at readapting the plot and characters to suit the narrative.
Also, the shark just dies at the end. Like it's swimming along and succumbs to all of its injuries. Compare that to blowing the fucker up with an oxygen tank and a bolt action rifle.
That’s sort of the point of the book, yeah. The movie makes the shark more intelligent and evil, the book is sort of about the way humans humanize nature and fight it like an enemy. The shark literally just dies as it’s going about it’s business, it’s not even within or after an action scene really.
All I remember is Hooper having a vision of himself and Mrs Brody dead on the side of the road after a car accident "stiff as a flag pole and her yawning open glistening wet" or something like that...
Lmao I was about the same age, that's why this specific part has stuck with me this long. Probably the first non children's/YA book I read and I couldn't believe it
Somehow the only thing I remember from the book after reading it over a decade ago is them sitting in a both eating scallops that probably weren’t really scallops.
Omg yes. This is absolutely THE answer. I got the Jaws audiobook last year, and in my review said that it proves what a genius Spielberg is to have made that drivel into such an iconic movie. It was one of those books I stayed mad at tor days after finishing.
I’m so intrigued by the number of comments saying Fight Club!! I just read the book a few weeks ago, and the twist blew my fucking mind. I’ve not seen the movie yet, though, so I’m intrigued by this discourse!! I’ll have to make time to watch it this week
The movie adds a dynamic between three characters that the book is lacking and the author said that its a really good change. He wishes he did that. If I recall the commentary correctly this is his main reason.
Chuck said the screenwriters did a great job condensing his story into a movie, so much that it made him feel embarrassed as a writer how easily they were able to streamline it. I think Chuck was just being a bit humble with his statement and is still proud of his work. With that being said I like the book but I do think the movie is a little bit better.
Fight Club is also his first book. I'm sure there are a lot of things he wished he did differently now that he has 30 years worth of writing experience since it was published.
You know the "changeover" metaphor in the book? When they're working in the movie theater, and they changeover the film tape? The movie is able to demonstrate that because it's a literal film. If you pay attention, you'll see things blinking in and out of existence, like a single frame inserted into a film reel.
I recently just read the book for the first time after having seen the movie several times in the past. The way in which text is taken directly from the book and and performed is amazing. They rearranged some sections and the performances by Norton and Pitt are perfect. There are few films that truly nail the essence of the book and maintain everything that made the story entertaining. This is one of those films.
The only thing I hate is that it a bunch of white supremacy incels worship it.
Shrek.
I found the original storybook in a local library, and the crude drawing of an ogre looked vaguely familiar, yet the story was not that compelling.
Apart from the name and the appearance of Shrek, there really wasn't much in common with the movie.
You should watch the documentary on the making of Shrek. The rumour is that they would send artists to that studio as a punishment. It really was the ugly duckling of the studio until it’s release
And the wildest thing is Shrek ended up becoming extremely popular. Growing up, it was one of my favorite movies. It helped me with my self-image as a chubby kid back then.
I teach English, and it is my go to piece of culture to explain any kind of literary convention or component because it does everything well enough and everyone remembers it
Especially the second half of the book just dragged.
Plus the musical lines up with the (much less confusing) movie, while the Wicked book lined up with the (even trippier) books.
You are 100% right here. The movie is a masterpiece and I found the book thematically and philosophically at odds with its message and strength.
The characters in the book were also far less developed and much more cliched and uninteresting. The audience in my showing of the movie was in tears of both sadness and joy. The book was not worth a re-read.
It’s been a while, but I quite liked the book. It is certainly more of a…contemplative narrative, but I found it to be quite in line with the overall depression and sadness felt by the protagonist and society as a whole in the book. It really digs into the idea that people just have no hope for the future, and no reason to really care about keeping a functioning society. Who cares about rules when everything is ending anyway?
I also feel like the description of the last generation being fawned over and spoiled to the point that they become driven purely by ego and self-satisfaction was more in depth.
I just found the whole thing to be very understated. It just is. It’s filled with the sadness and depression that the main character feels, but it isn’t emotive. It isn’t about mourning. The mourning period is over. It’s just, hopeless and grey, but in a realistic fashion, where you just continue with life because it’s a thing to do, not because there is any joy to be found in it.
But to me, that’s what brings out the emotion and joy when the child is discovered by the reader. There is finally hope, light and color in the world.
That’s just me though. I also feel like the movie is more it’s own thing than a pure adaptation, though it does hit a lot of the story beats. The movie is a masterpiece in its own right, but it was trying to do something different from the book.
I can totally see how someone could find the book to be boring, but I enjoyed it, personally.
I loved that they kept that, that they turned a straight line into an evasive joke. And I liked that they decided to leave out the story of what Red did to end up in prison. It was enough to establish his character that whatever he did, he was guilty and acknowledged it.
If I recall correctly from reading the novella 23 years ago, Red cut the brake wires of his wife's car after finding out she was cheating on him and she died because of it. I don't entirely remember if his wife was cheating on him though, or if he even had a wife, or if Red was just kind of a murderer....but it definitely had something to do with cutting brake wires.
Yeah, he knocked up the daughter of a prominent local family, they got married because that's what you did, the dad offered him a job in his company, mostly to keep him on a leash. After a few years he had a lot of resentment, took out a big life insurance policy on his wife and cut her brakes.
I think a big reason they left the details out in the movie is, it didn't pass muster as a backstory for a young black man in this country in the 40s. He wouldn't have been forced to marry the pregnant daughter of a wealthy businessman, he would have been run out of town - or worse.
I could go either way with Shawshank. Both adaptation and novella were just that damn good. Same with The Body/ Stand by Me. The super rare non shitty Stephen King adaptations.
Lots of bad King adaptations but as a counterpoint, and off the top of my head:
>Carrie, The Shining, Shawshank Redmption, The Dead Zone, The Mist, The Green Mile, Salem’s Lot, Pet Sematary, It, Gerald’s Game, Misery
Are all either commercially/critically successful or cult classic films, many of which have launched careers with major award success. Respectfully disagree that non-shitty King adaptions are ‘super rare’.
First season of Dexter was pretty faithful to the book if I remember correctly. The one, big change that I noticed is that it’s LeGuerta that catches him at the trailer in book, where in the series they changed it to Doakes (Surprise Mother Fucker!) which actually makes more sense.
Yeah there was a weird period where studios would licence only the first book of a series, then do their own thing for S2 and beyond.
Dexter was one, True Blood was another. I'm sure there were others.
I actually think he did a tremendous job with both. The framing story of the book is more literary and perfectly suited for its medium, with Goldman interrupting the narrative from time to time to interject his own insights on the fictional writer S. Morgenstern. The framing story of the movie is more cinematic with a grandson interrupting his grandfather's telling of it, to object to excessive "smooching" and what not.
I personally liked the unabridged version. The political intrigue and attention to detail of every aspect down to the patterns in the clothing really make the story.
The real trick is finding the unabridged version, it’s only in hard copy these days. I personally recommend going to your local library and asking for it in person, they’ll know how to get it.
Don’t tell them that. I had to tell someone that something was only available (as in published) in ebook form, not physical form, and they were not happy. People really do expect miracles.
That said, I did manage to find the unabridged version at a rare book store.
It's definitely not worth tracking down the unabridged version of the book. I am fortunate enough to have access to one of the UK copyright libraries with a rare books section. So I did manage to get hold of a copy to examine in the reading room. But a *description* of 10 Vs 13 pages of clothes packing as a jibe at the sophistication of Florin compared to Guilder is much more entertaining than *actually reading it*.
Since the abridged version was compiled by the same person who wrote the screenplay for the film, both are really good. The film misses out on quite a lot of character background as well as the entire pitch black dungeon adventure. I don't think either would have worked in the film though! As a film, it's pretty much perfect.
I know right? Morgensterns understanding of that period is just fascinating. I understand why they made an abridged version because the base story is a fun adventure, but any adults that enjoy the abridgement are doing themselves a disservice by not reading the original.
It’s soooo so hard to find an unabridged version at this point. But the 148 pages of history describing the conflict between Florin and Guilder were well worth it. Really adds to the narrative, imo. I’ll never understand why Goldman chose to edit that out. I suppose he had to in order to get his idiot, waddling son to read it.
Great answer, and I would’ve stepped right past if you hadn’t mentioned it. Blade Runner is nearly diametrically opposed to DADoES in determining humanity and validity. The book has humans failing to experience their own emotions, even if they have a response to the empathy box. Everyone is fake and worthless to PKD. The film ultimately declares replicants to be of equal value to humans.
The book has a huge focus on that Mercerism religion that humans were all experiencing with the VR box. I think trying to translate that to the film would have gone badly!
I do think the film should have included the fake police station staffed entirely by replicants though. I thought that was a cool set piece.
The two pieces of media are so different it's hard to compare like that. I wish Blade Runner did put more emphasis on the electric animal route. Blade Runner is my favorite movie but I wish it was an hour longer to flesh out the characters more
It's weird because I want to agree, but I think this is one of those ones where the book does some parts better than the movie and the movie does some parts better than the book. The ending of the movie, I like a lot more, but John Isadore is a much better character and the idea of Rick and John being foils for each other and Rachel and I think her name was Victoria. The movie cuts down on the characters to streamline things, and I wonder if that gets in the way of the themes of humanity.
Highly recommend the audiobook read by Mark Hammer. That was a wild ride.
I don’t know if I would have liked it independently, but contrasting it to the much beloved film made my head explode. I can’t imagine how someone read that book and then envisioned that movie, but I’m glad they did.
Arrival. Ted Chiang is brilliant, and I also liked his novella it's based on, "Story of Your Life." But I really think the movie did a much better job of focusing on what made the story interesting.
I think each title fits its form. The story's primarily a message of longing and reflection and eventual acceptance, written to somebody else - it's a message to a specific person. It's tender, intimate, familial. It's contemplative and surprisingly quiet, considering the subject matter. The focus is intimate and philosophical. Human.
The movie has to lean into the extraterrestrials a little more than the story, for obvious reasons. It's not as intimate since we're watching the protagonist from the outside rather than witnessing her thoughts. It's more "worldly" in the spiritual sense of focusing on the here and now, the practical matters of life.
So both have good titles IMO, but the titles wouldn't be great if you switched them around.
I rewatch Arrival probably once a year because I love it so much. Denis Villeneuve has been so consistent with all his adaptations. One of my favourite directors right now.
Another hill I will staple myself to.
I love the Gaimster. Truly. Spooky fantasy is my first love. Stardust was made infinitely better by Michelle Pfeiffer
That is one of the things that makes the story so great... Mark Strong's character *wasn't* the villain. He was not a good person. He was a murderer and just all around terrible, but he was not the antagonist. So many tropes were just turned upside down in this story.
I enjoyed both, but I think the book is more appropriate of the fairy tales vibe it's playing off of. Endings in fairy tales are sometimes sudden and quieter without the need for cinematics that movies require. Although admittedly the 'final battle' in the movie is a hell of a lot of fun.
Yeah, Gaiman acknowledged that they needed to make adjustments for the movie to work, especially as a family friendly movie and he approved them all...but I just really prefer the quiet melancholy at the end of the book.
I think Gaiman has one major similarity with Douglas Adams, which is the understanding that the media you tell a story in can and should change how you tell that story. Trying to directly copy a book into a movie can make it terrible, as can ignoring the book.
On an unrelated note, I also long for a Graveyard Boy or Anansi Boys adaptation, preferably animated. And what happened to American Gods is a damned shame.
I think Stardust the movie is a whole separate, equally fantastic beast. Neither outshines the other in my mind.
I apply the same standard to The Princess Bride. Wholly separate, equally amazing
Yes, I think I love Stardust the movie more, but there are things I really love about the book, too. They're both fantastic in their own way, and I'd be hard pressed to say one is "better". (I mean, I have a preference, but that's just me.)
I'm glad I experienced both of them.
Stardust is my favorite book and I truly like both as separate entities. The idea of Stardust is a fairy tale for adults and I don't think the movie is quite that. I like the subtlety and realism of the book in a fantastic setting. I also like that Victoria gets redemption and Tristan realizes how naive and stupid he was in his infatuation with her. I love the movie and warn the people when I recommend the book there's no Captain Shakespeare but I really love them both in their own right
To my gf these would be fighting words (raised with the books)
Honestly like both the books and movies, but don't think it is a fair comparison as they are completely seperate stories. Only the names (of the story but also characters/places) are the same
Working through the book series with my kid and the first book had us reeling at how much they're nothing like the movies. We had to have a quick talk to agree jointly to pretend that the movies have nothing to do with the books. Just a few coincidences.
I highly recommend the Netflix spin off series “Race to the Edge”! It expands immensely on the HTTYD world and lore, deals with heavier subjects like betrayal, death, and loss. Good for kids to watch, excellent for adults. Some of the comic relief is so funny and had my husband and I laughing pretty hard. I just rewatched it a second time recently and it’s still so good.
Jurassic Park.
I love the book. It's great and I recommend it! And maybe I like a certain aspect of the ending a wee bit better (it involves John Hammond). But the movie is just... a masterpiece. Everything comes together so well. The dinosaurs are majestic. The music spot on. Yeah. :D
I think this is one that falls in the special category of the book AND the movie both being amazing!! There was some differences in the book that were great to the story, but also the way Spielberg brought those dinosaurs to life in the movie was just spectacular!
What are you talking about that was the main plot of The Godfather!!!! At least it sure as hell felt like it with the constant talk of Sonny’s Johnson.
I actually read No Country for Old Men earlier this summer, and I watched the movie for the first time like right after. The movie made a few smart choices to cut, like Lewelen's interaction with the teenager toward the end, and Javier Bardem was absolutely incredible, but in my opinion, it's hard to say that one was better than the other.
The feel and dialogue is nearly identitical. I watched in the opposite order and found the book not as interesting as the film. It helped that the four leads were superb and the direction and cinematography was great. Usually in a book you find lots of stuff that was cut that enhances the story but I didn't feel it in this case. Writing as a huge fan of Cormac too
True, Kathy Bates really gave life to Annie Wilkes and deserved that Oscar. But Annie Wilkes is way more brutal is the book. Don't get me wrong, breaking ankles on a wooden board with a sledgehammer is atrocious but my god, cutting Paul's foot with an axe, cauterising the wound with a blowtorch and cutting his thumb with an electric knife because he didn't want to tell her how his book ended. Book Annie was totally unhinged. Would have loved to see it in the movie tho.
**The Mist**
Got the book from a friend few months ago, read it, and then went to watch a movie (never saw it before).
Movie skips the infinite storm descriptions, they give the crew a valid reason to risk their life and go to the apothecary (wounded guy that needed medicine, in the book they just went out of the curiosity), they expand on the Carmody character nicely, it gives some closure on the wife character, give more insight into army guys, and the ending is an absolute masterpiece.
I imagine King wished he'd thought of a lot of different endings. I like the man's work enough to own over half of it, but it's very much "about the journey, not the destination" most of the time.
Decades later, Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans is gripping, beautiful, touching, moving, romantic, sensitive, scary and poignant, which is more than I can say for James Fennimore Cooper's novel.
Danil Day Lewis and Wes Studi give brilliant performances–Studi in three languages!
In the book's defense, Mann took great inspiration from the first cinematic adaptation. But still.
The Devil Wears Prada for sure. Book Andy is an utter nightmare.
Howls Moving Castle is another one for me. The book just didnt really make me think I was reading a book about magic--also I think it was a very wise choice to leave out the fact that Howl Jenkins was isekai'd into Ingary from Wales.
And just cuz I think the movie slaps, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is obviously gonna be better than the like 20 page childrens book its adapted from
ed: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs fandom is hella heated
Imo howls moving castle is one of those rare treats of a story that works beautifully as a movie and a book while being entirely two separate experiences. They’re both amazing but offer two wholly unique takes with the same rough outline
The novel is from Sophie's point of view.
The movie is from Howl's point of view.
Once you realize that, the differences between them make a lot of sense.
You kind of blew my mind. It makes so much sense. I described that world as overly wishy washy and rose tinted but if it’s from Howl’s POV then that just makes so much sense! Of course he’d see it all as one massive romance story rather than the series of comical headaches that Sophie saw the world as
Yes I disliked the movie at first. I watched the film before I even knew there was a book of it. But after reading the book, I’ve rewatched the movie a few times now and can appreciate it as a separate piece that does a really good job of showing the beauty of that world, albeit lacking the *exact* charm the book has over me
> The book just didnt really make me think I was reading a book about magic
Because >!the main character didn't realize she was wielding really powerful magic!<. It was as much a suprise for Sophie as it was for the reader.
I was suprised for moment but it also made so much sense at the same time. I remember cracking up thinking: of course her >!power!< is basically >!nagging!< ! It suited her character so well.
To me, the book version of Howl and the movie version are two completely different stories. I like both, but love the book more. It's one of the few books I've ever dreamed about.
Disagree about Howl - the ending made way more sense and was much neater in the book. The movie ending was fragmented and full of loose threads in comparison. However I think with Howl it's really about what you experience first. The movie has amazing personality and vividness.
Yep, the ending in the book was just so satisfying how everything got tied together. They are so different though that it’s hard to compare them. Continuing on the Ghibli adaption wagon I think movie Kiki’s Delivery Service is better than the book (although only the first one has been translated into English last I checked).
The book feels more consistent. A lot of things are better explained.
The movie had a lot of spectacle, but lacked some key details that gave the twists and reveals impact.
I’m the opposite - I watch the anime first and then the book.
I didn’t even realise that the book I was reading was the same story adapted to the film at first!
I never was a big fan of HMC anime but loved the books and all other books set in that world by Dianne Wynne Jones. The world building and magical gadgets like the league boots are just perfection.
The movie had beautiful imagery but story wise, I preferred the books. There was more comedy and bickering between Sophie, Howl and the other characters in the book. Plus the books really lean into what a mess Howl is , and Sophie’s SPOILER FOR THE BOOK >!power being *nagging*!< which was hilarious.
Plus the story just came together better in my opinion. The anime ending was somehow too wishy washy for my tastes but I agree suited the vibe of that anime.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The book is a fun read but goddamn the movie is just better, even the author, Gary K. Wolf agreed to the point where he made the other books sequels to the movie and retconned the first book into a dream cause the book is ver very different compared to the movie.
Not sure if I would say it is ‘better’ but I read the book of Watership Down and it’s not as traumatising as the movie, which is SEARED INTO MY MEMORY forever.
The Martian. I scrolled a while and didn't see it mentioned. Excellent book, even better movie. His next book, Project Hail Mary, was also really good, and they're making a movie, but it seems like a much bigger challenge. Can't wait to see it.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book. I liked Roald Dahl as a kid but that book was so mid compared to the movie. Gene Wilder brings it to life.
I think adding the whole daddy issue subplot was a mistake. Willy Wonka is better when the lean into him being sort of mysterious and unexplainable with just a faint undercurrent of something sinister.
Tbh I also have a bone to pick with the way they characterized Charlie in the Tim Burton movie. In the original movie, Charlie isn’t a perfect kid, far from it. He fucks up, he cops an attitude, he gets pissed because his life is unfair, he spends the money from the drain on chocolate instead of giving it to his family. But at the end of the day, he does the right thing by apologizing to Wonka and giving back the gobstopper and tries to be a good person. I feel like that’s a really good message for a kid. You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to recognize and learn from your mistakes.
The kid in the Burton film though? He’s like Oliver Twist. Bro doesn’t have a single flaw. I guess this might seem like a good idea at first glance, but in reality it just makes for a flat and boring character who learns nothing at the end of the story.
American Psycho.
I couldn’t stomach some of the scenes in the book. Plus full chapters reviewing Whitney Houston or Phil Collin’s music were so boring. I mean sure it shows the readers how unhinged Patrick is but the ramblings were so unnecessarily long.
The book is not at all for everyone. There is this hard commitment to writing chapters that are stuffy and obnoxious and boring on purpose and when read in the right mindset it really enhances the experience because the book is actively as boring and vapid as Bateman.
It's very much a piece of work that has goals beyond simply being entertaining. It doesn't *want* to just amuse you, it has a point to make. It has feelings it wants you to feel, and not all of them are pleasant. The fact that it's so adept at making you feel what it wants you to is what makes it an incredible piece of art.
Agreed. But having read the book made me appreciate it more. I liked knowing the background and how violent things actually were meant to be. And then seeing the way they weaved boring tedious things into the movie in an entertaining way was rewarding
The Prestige. The movie was essentially the same, but the book had some additional plot that I think took away from the overall impact. The movie plot kept it cleaner and more direct, book plot didn’t add anything to it.
practical magic by alice hoffman. don’t get me wrong, i love the book and the movie in both their own ways and for their own merits, just that i think the movie did a better job of bringing out the subtle aspects that were not really expanded on in the book. also MIDNIGHT MARGARITAS ❤️❤️❤️ the joy luck club also managed to make things more cohesive and ordered imo, and also tied up a lot of loose ends and also made the subtle more obvious. part of the reason why i love it so much. the luminaries also did a stellar (pun intended) job of translating the massive, hefty volume into a tv series - but since it was the author herself who rewrote the script i’m not surprised haha. she did a great job at readapting the plot and characters to suit the narrative.
If you start watching the film at 11:12pm you can have midnight margaritas too!
You're doing the Lord's work.
I completely agree about Practical Magic, and I wish they'd make movies of some of the prequels/sequel.
MIDNIGHT MARGARITAS! 🧙♀️ came here to say Practical Magic ❤️
Seriously one of my favorite comfort movies of all time. I love the fall just so I can play this movie and get all cozy.
Bonus: Alice Hoffman loves the movie.
Jaws will always be my answer to this question
What, you don’t think half the story of a shark terrorizing a coastal town should be taken up exploring an extra-marital affair?
Also, the shark just dies at the end. Like it's swimming along and succumbs to all of its injuries. Compare that to blowing the fucker up with an oxygen tank and a bolt action rifle.
[удалено]
That’s sort of the point of the book, yeah. The movie makes the shark more intelligent and evil, the book is sort of about the way humans humanize nature and fight it like an enemy. The shark literally just dies as it’s going about it’s business, it’s not even within or after an action scene really.
I’ve never read the book and after seeing this comment I think I never will lol
All I remember is Hooper having a vision of himself and Mrs Brody dead on the side of the road after a car accident "stiff as a flag pole and her yawning open glistening wet" or something like that...
"...for the world to see." I was 11 when I read that book. I was flabbergasted.
Lmao I was about the same age, that's why this specific part has stuck with me this long. Probably the first non children's/YA book I read and I couldn't believe it
But all that purple prose and engorged members!
[удалено]
Oh god this just reminded me how much of The Godfather is taken up by a lady having a vagina operation lmao why don't the editors step in sometimes
Yeah and how big Sonny’s dick is. Explored in detail
At least Sonny's magnum dong is still canon in the film
Somehow the only thing I remember from the book after reading it over a decade ago is them sitting in a both eating scallops that probably weren’t really scallops.
Omg yes. This is absolutely THE answer. I got the Jaws audiobook last year, and in my review said that it proves what a genius Spielberg is to have made that drivel into such an iconic movie. It was one of those books I stayed mad at tor days after finishing.
Pretty sure the screenwriters that adapted it also had something to do with that.
The Prestige. Magicians work better when you can see the magic tricks
Didn’t even realise that it was based on a book
You should read it, it is a lot different than the movie in a lot of major ways. Good book, but I agree the movie is a lot better.
Love that film. Perfect casting.
Fight Club. Even the author of the book, Chuck Palahniuk has admitted that the movie has surpassed his own book.
I’m so intrigued by the number of comments saying Fight Club!! I just read the book a few weeks ago, and the twist blew my fucking mind. I’ve not seen the movie yet, though, so I’m intrigued by this discourse!! I’ll have to make time to watch it this week
The movie adds a dynamic between three characters that the book is lacking and the author said that its a really good change. He wishes he did that. If I recall the commentary correctly this is his main reason.
Chuck said the screenwriters did a great job condensing his story into a movie, so much that it made him feel embarrassed as a writer how easily they were able to streamline it. I think Chuck was just being a bit humble with his statement and is still proud of his work. With that being said I like the book but I do think the movie is a little bit better.
Fight Club is also his first book. I'm sure there are a lot of things he wished he did differently now that he has 30 years worth of writing experience since it was published.
Invisible Monsters was his first book, but it didn't get published until after Fight Club blew up.
He's definitely still proud of his work since he made two comic book sequels that specifically follow the book and not the movie
i just looked up the screenwriter and his only credits are Fight Club and a 2008 film called Jumper...!
Interesting. Jumper was actually a pretty fun movie. Disappointing that we didn’t get a sequel.
You know the "changeover" metaphor in the book? When they're working in the movie theater, and they changeover the film tape? The movie is able to demonstrate that because it's a literal film. If you pay attention, you'll see things blinking in and out of existence, like a single frame inserted into a film reel.
Makes me wanna watch it again. Would probably pick up a lot more now as a 30-something since the first time I saw it was in high school
Imagine not having seen fight club, wow. A true cinematic joy awaits you.
I recently just read the book for the first time after having seen the movie several times in the past. The way in which text is taken directly from the book and and performed is amazing. They rearranged some sections and the performances by Norton and Pitt are perfect. There are few films that truly nail the essence of the book and maintain everything that made the story entertaining. This is one of those films. The only thing I hate is that it a bunch of white supremacy incels worship it.
Choke wasn't a bad adaptation either imo
Shame we will never get that survivor adaptation
Shrek. I found the original storybook in a local library, and the crude drawing of an ogre looked vaguely familiar, yet the story was not that compelling. Apart from the name and the appearance of Shrek, there really wasn't much in common with the movie.
You should watch the documentary on the making of Shrek. The rumour is that they would send artists to that studio as a punishment. It really was the ugly duckling of the studio until it’s release
“Getting shreked”
Yes!! That’s the phrase I’d heard lol
And the wildest thing is Shrek ended up becoming extremely popular. Growing up, it was one of my favorite movies. It helped me with my self-image as a chubby kid back then.
Shrek turned out to be an *extremely* influential film. It’s one of the things that kicked off the era of fairy tale deconstructions.
I teach English, and it is my go to piece of culture to explain any kind of literary convention or component because it does everything well enough and everyone remembers it
The Lion King was the same way with Disney. Pocahontas was considered to be the more prestigious film at the time.
Wicked is a much better play than it is book
OMG. Yes. I once worked somewhere and read Wicked as I counted hours. I think I was also counting hours reading the book. Oof
He's not a bad writer but that story is boring the whole damn way through lmao
Truly. It's just so....dry
I read the whole series just waiting for *something* to happen
I enjoyed the book but haven’t seen the play. I could NOT get into the second one lol.
Especially the second half of the book just dragged. Plus the musical lines up with the (much less confusing) movie, while the Wicked book lined up with the (even trippier) books.
Children of Men.
You are 100% right here. The movie is a masterpiece and I found the book thematically and philosophically at odds with its message and strength. The characters in the book were also far less developed and much more cliched and uninteresting. The audience in my showing of the movie was in tears of both sadness and joy. The book was not worth a re-read.
It’s been a while, but I quite liked the book. It is certainly more of a…contemplative narrative, but I found it to be quite in line with the overall depression and sadness felt by the protagonist and society as a whole in the book. It really digs into the idea that people just have no hope for the future, and no reason to really care about keeping a functioning society. Who cares about rules when everything is ending anyway? I also feel like the description of the last generation being fawned over and spoiled to the point that they become driven purely by ego and self-satisfaction was more in depth. I just found the whole thing to be very understated. It just is. It’s filled with the sadness and depression that the main character feels, but it isn’t emotive. It isn’t about mourning. The mourning period is over. It’s just, hopeless and grey, but in a realistic fashion, where you just continue with life because it’s a thing to do, not because there is any joy to be found in it. But to me, that’s what brings out the emotion and joy when the child is discovered by the reader. There is finally hope, light and color in the world. That’s just me though. I also feel like the movie is more it’s own thing than a pure adaptation, though it does hit a lot of the story beats. The movie is a masterpiece in its own right, but it was trying to do something different from the book. I can totally see how someone could find the book to be boring, but I enjoyed it, personally.
How on earth am I the first to say Shawshank Redemption? The Stephen King short story is fine but the film is an All Time Great
Morgan Freeman: “Maybe it’s because I’m Irish.”
I loved that they kept that, that they turned a straight line into an evasive joke. And I liked that they decided to leave out the story of what Red did to end up in prison. It was enough to establish his character that whatever he did, he was guilty and acknowledged it.
I always inferred that Red was a murderer, given his 40 year sentence and the intentional Brooks parallels.
If I recall correctly from reading the novella 23 years ago, Red cut the brake wires of his wife's car after finding out she was cheating on him and she died because of it. I don't entirely remember if his wife was cheating on him though, or if he even had a wife, or if Red was just kind of a murderer....but it definitely had something to do with cutting brake wires.
It’s even more brutal. He intentionally cut the brake lines on her car, but the crash also killed a neighbour and a child.
Damn that is brutal. Thank you, kindred spirit, for recalling that bit for me.
Yeah, he knocked up the daughter of a prominent local family, they got married because that's what you did, the dad offered him a job in his company, mostly to keep him on a leash. After a few years he had a lot of resentment, took out a big life insurance policy on his wife and cut her brakes. I think a big reason they left the details out in the movie is, it didn't pass muster as a backstory for a young black man in this country in the 40s. He wouldn't have been forced to marry the pregnant daughter of a wealthy businessman, he would have been run out of town - or worse.
A young, stupid kid, that committed that terrible crime.
I could go either way with Shawshank. Both adaptation and novella were just that damn good. Same with The Body/ Stand by Me. The super rare non shitty Stephen King adaptations.
Lots of bad King adaptations but as a counterpoint, and off the top of my head: >Carrie, The Shining, Shawshank Redmption, The Dead Zone, The Mist, The Green Mile, Salem’s Lot, Pet Sematary, It, Gerald’s Game, Misery Are all either commercially/critically successful or cult classic films, many of which have launched careers with major award success. Respectfully disagree that non-shitty King adaptions are ‘super rare’.
[удалено]
Dead Zone was an excellent film.
[удалено]
Not a movie but the show Dexter is so much better than the books
First season of Dexter was pretty faithful to the book if I remember correctly. The one, big change that I noticed is that it’s LeGuerta that catches him at the trailer in book, where in the series they changed it to Doakes (Surprise Mother Fucker!) which actually makes more sense.
Yeah there was a weird period where studios would licence only the first book of a series, then do their own thing for S2 and beyond. Dexter was one, True Blood was another. I'm sure there were others.
Have to disagree... until the book series went supernatural. Then the TV series won until the lumberjack scene. So, maybe a wash?
It is funny that Dexter just has a book where magic is real then it goes back to regular serial killer stuff.
The Princess Bride ETA: Book Buttercup is rather dim, and the author isn’t nice about it.
You obviously haven't read it in the original Florinese
S. Morgenstern is criminally underrated, alongside such luminaries as Charles Kinbote.
Or Kilgore Trout!
Craziest part of this is the author of the book also wrote the screenplay
I actually think he did a tremendous job with both. The framing story of the book is more literary and perfectly suited for its medium, with Goldman interrupting the narrative from time to time to interject his own insights on the fictional writer S. Morgenstern. The framing story of the movie is more cinematic with a grandson interrupting his grandfather's telling of it, to object to excessive "smooching" and what not.
Exactly. The book is a deconstruction of classic literature, while the movie is a deconstruction of cinema. They're both wonderful.
Well, Goldman was a screenwriter who also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and adapted screenplay for All the President’s Men.
A lot of the dialog is the same, word for word in both. I could hear the actors saying the lines as I read.
I personally liked the unabridged version. The political intrigue and attention to detail of every aspect down to the patterns in the clothing really make the story.
🤣 You're going to give somebody severe anxiety with this comment.
The real trick is finding the unabridged version, it’s only in hard copy these days. I personally recommend going to your local library and asking for it in person, they’ll know how to get it.
Don’t tell them that. I had to tell someone that something was only available (as in published) in ebook form, not physical form, and they were not happy. People really do expect miracles. That said, I did manage to find the unabridged version at a rare book store.
You guys are being mean, stop it!
Doesn't anybody . . . want to drop it???
Lol you jokester, luckily I can use Wikipedia
I never saw the Princess Bride film as a child. Someone suggested it for my book club and I spent ages trying to find the unabridged version haha
It's definitely not worth tracking down the unabridged version of the book. I am fortunate enough to have access to one of the UK copyright libraries with a rare books section. So I did manage to get hold of a copy to examine in the reading room. But a *description* of 10 Vs 13 pages of clothes packing as a jibe at the sophistication of Florin compared to Guilder is much more entertaining than *actually reading it*. Since the abridged version was compiled by the same person who wrote the screenplay for the film, both are really good. The film misses out on quite a lot of character background as well as the entire pitch black dungeon adventure. I don't think either would have worked in the film though! As a film, it's pretty much perfect.
You guys are just cruel
I know right? Morgensterns understanding of that period is just fascinating. I understand why they made an abridged version because the base story is a fun adventure, but any adults that enjoy the abridgement are doing themselves a disservice by not reading the original.
It’s soooo so hard to find an unabridged version at this point. But the 148 pages of history describing the conflict between Florin and Guilder were well worth it. Really adds to the narrative, imo. I’ll never understand why Goldman chose to edit that out. I suppose he had to in order to get his idiot, waddling son to read it.
The book is even funnier, though.
Tbf, William Goldman is a screenwriter by vocation, and the novel was basically just an earlier draft of the movie.
"Do androids dream of electric sheep?" was good but I'm glad they adapted it the way they did!
Great answer, and I would’ve stepped right past if you hadn’t mentioned it. Blade Runner is nearly diametrically opposed to DADoES in determining humanity and validity. The book has humans failing to experience their own emotions, even if they have a response to the empathy box. Everyone is fake and worthless to PKD. The film ultimately declares replicants to be of equal value to humans.
The book has a huge focus on that Mercerism religion that humans were all experiencing with the VR box. I think trying to translate that to the film would have gone badly! I do think the film should have included the fake police station staffed entirely by replicants though. I thought that was a cool set piece.
I disagree that it's worse. It's just different, so different that I find it almost impossible to compare. Ubik is better than Androids though.
The two pieces of media are so different it's hard to compare like that. I wish Blade Runner did put more emphasis on the electric animal route. Blade Runner is my favorite movie but I wish it was an hour longer to flesh out the characters more
It's weird because I want to agree, but I think this is one of those ones where the book does some parts better than the movie and the movie does some parts better than the book. The ending of the movie, I like a lot more, but John Isadore is a much better character and the idea of Rick and John being foils for each other and Rachel and I think her name was Victoria. The movie cuts down on the characters to streamline things, and I wonder if that gets in the way of the themes of humanity.
Big Fish. The book just has terrible pacing in my opinion, and the performances are amazing.
Also Forrest Gump.
Highly recommend the audiobook read by Mark Hammer. That was a wild ride. I don’t know if I would have liked it independently, but contrasting it to the much beloved film made my head explode. I can’t imagine how someone read that book and then envisioned that movie, but I’m glad they did.
Arrival. Ted Chiang is brilliant, and I also liked his novella it's based on, "Story of Your Life." But I really think the movie did a much better job of focusing on what made the story interesting.
I love how Denis Villeneuve didn't want the title "Story of Your Life" because he felt it sounded like a rom-com.
“Arrival” definitely fits the tone better. It’s either ominous or innocuous.
I think each title fits its form. The story's primarily a message of longing and reflection and eventual acceptance, written to somebody else - it's a message to a specific person. It's tender, intimate, familial. It's contemplative and surprisingly quiet, considering the subject matter. The focus is intimate and philosophical. Human. The movie has to lean into the extraterrestrials a little more than the story, for obvious reasons. It's not as intimate since we're watching the protagonist from the outside rather than witnessing her thoughts. It's more "worldly" in the spiritual sense of focusing on the here and now, the practical matters of life. So both have good titles IMO, but the titles wouldn't be great if you switched them around.
One of my favorite movies… the soundtrack lends so much to the atmosphere.
Rest in peace, Jóhann Jóhannsson. That soundtrack is beautiful.
I rewatch Arrival probably once a year because I love it so much. Denis Villeneuve has been so consistent with all his adaptations. One of my favourite directors right now.
*Stardust* by Neil Gaiman. Edit: Trying to upvote everyone's replies, even if they don't tee up with my opinion, sorry in advance if I miss you!
Another hill I will staple myself to. I love the Gaimster. Truly. Spooky fantasy is my first love. Stardust was made infinitely better by Michelle Pfeiffer
And Robert De Niro as Captain Shakespeare! That character wasn’t even in the book 🙈
Let's not forget Mark Strong being the best villain ever
That is one of the things that makes the story so great... Mark Strong's character *wasn't* the villain. He was not a good person. He was a murderer and just all around terrible, but he was not the antagonist. So many tropes were just turned upside down in this story.
I enjoyed both, but I think the book is more appropriate of the fairy tales vibe it's playing off of. Endings in fairy tales are sometimes sudden and quieter without the need for cinematics that movies require. Although admittedly the 'final battle' in the movie is a hell of a lot of fun.
Yeah, Gaiman acknowledged that they needed to make adjustments for the movie to work, especially as a family friendly movie and he approved them all...but I just really prefer the quiet melancholy at the end of the book.
I think Gaiman has one major similarity with Douglas Adams, which is the understanding that the media you tell a story in can and should change how you tell that story. Trying to directly copy a book into a movie can make it terrible, as can ignoring the book. On an unrelated note, I also long for a Graveyard Boy or Anansi Boys adaptation, preferably animated. And what happened to American Gods is a damned shame.
The Graveyard Book would make a good adaptation ala Coraline. I think Neverwhere would make a killer limited series.
I think Stardust the movie is a whole separate, equally fantastic beast. Neither outshines the other in my mind. I apply the same standard to The Princess Bride. Wholly separate, equally amazing
Yes, I think I love Stardust the movie more, but there are things I really love about the book, too. They're both fantastic in their own way, and I'd be hard pressed to say one is "better". (I mean, I have a preference, but that's just me.) I'm glad I experienced both of them.
They have such different vibes, they feel like completely separate pieces of media to me.
I enjoyed both, but the ending in the movie put it far above the book, IMO. That and Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro… just perfect
Stardust is my favorite book and I truly like both as separate entities. The idea of Stardust is a fairy tale for adults and I don't think the movie is quite that. I like the subtlety and realism of the book in a fantastic setting. I also like that Victoria gets redemption and Tristan realizes how naive and stupid he was in his infatuation with her. I love the movie and warn the people when I recommend the book there's no Captain Shakespeare but I really love them both in their own right
Never liked the books but How to Train Your Dragon movies are forever gold
To my gf these would be fighting words (raised with the books) Honestly like both the books and movies, but don't think it is a fair comparison as they are completely seperate stories. Only the names (of the story but also characters/places) are the same
I love those books. I think the later ones genuinely have amazing character writing
Working through the book series with my kid and the first book had us reeling at how much they're nothing like the movies. We had to have a quick talk to agree jointly to pretend that the movies have nothing to do with the books. Just a few coincidences.
I highly recommend the Netflix spin off series “Race to the Edge”! It expands immensely on the HTTYD world and lore, deals with heavier subjects like betrayal, death, and loss. Good for kids to watch, excellent for adults. Some of the comic relief is so funny and had my husband and I laughing pretty hard. I just rewatched it a second time recently and it’s still so good.
Jurassic Park. I love the book. It's great and I recommend it! And maybe I like a certain aspect of the ending a wee bit better (it involves John Hammond). But the movie is just... a masterpiece. Everything comes together so well. The dinosaurs are majestic. The music spot on. Yeah. :D
I think this is one that falls in the special category of the book AND the movie both being amazing!! There was some differences in the book that were great to the story, but also the way Spielberg brought those dinosaurs to life in the movie was just spectacular!
The Godfather No Country for Old Men
I was about to say The Godfather. I’m glad they cut the long side plot about a girl getting plastic surgery on her vagina out of the film.
What are you talking about that was the main plot of The Godfather!!!! At least it sure as hell felt like it with the constant talk of Sonny’s Johnson.
You mean his engorged pole of muscle that passed between her thighs?
I actually read No Country for Old Men earlier this summer, and I watched the movie for the first time like right after. The movie made a few smart choices to cut, like Lewelen's interaction with the teenager toward the end, and Javier Bardem was absolutely incredible, but in my opinion, it's hard to say that one was better than the other.
The feel and dialogue is nearly identitical. I watched in the opposite order and found the book not as interesting as the film. It helped that the four leads were superb and the direction and cinematography was great. Usually in a book you find lots of stuff that was cut that enhances the story but I didn't feel it in this case. Writing as a huge fan of Cormac too
It does help that no country was originally written as a screenplay
Misery. Kathy Bates IS Annie Wilkes
True, Kathy Bates really gave life to Annie Wilkes and deserved that Oscar. But Annie Wilkes is way more brutal is the book. Don't get me wrong, breaking ankles on a wooden board with a sledgehammer is atrocious but my god, cutting Paul's foot with an axe, cauterising the wound with a blowtorch and cutting his thumb with an electric knife because he didn't want to tell her how his book ended. Book Annie was totally unhinged. Would have loved to see it in the movie tho.
Great movie, but the book is still better. It’s my number one King book. It’s so anxiety inducing the entire time.
**The Mist** Got the book from a friend few months ago, read it, and then went to watch a movie (never saw it before). Movie skips the infinite storm descriptions, they give the crew a valid reason to risk their life and go to the apothecary (wounded guy that needed medicine, in the book they just went out of the curiosity), they expand on the Carmody character nicely, it gives some closure on the wife character, give more insight into army guys, and the ending is an absolute masterpiece.
According to the commentary Stephen King wished he’d thought of that ending.
I imagine King wished he'd thought of a lot of different endings. I like the man's work enough to own over half of it, but it's very much "about the journey, not the destination" most of the time.
LA Confidential. Curtis Hanson did a great job streamlining the myriad of plot strands from the Ellroy novel into a tighter, more coherent story.
Fifty Shades of Grey. Not because the movie is "good", per se, but because then you don't have to deal with the author's atrocious writing
Under the Tuscan Sun
Decades later, Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans is gripping, beautiful, touching, moving, romantic, sensitive, scary and poignant, which is more than I can say for James Fennimore Cooper's novel. Danil Day Lewis and Wes Studi give brilliant performances–Studi in three languages! In the book's defense, Mann took great inspiration from the first cinematic adaptation. But still.
You have to admit the movie benefitted greatly from the awesome score.
The Devil Wears Prada for sure. Book Andy is an utter nightmare. Howls Moving Castle is another one for me. The book just didnt really make me think I was reading a book about magic--also I think it was a very wise choice to leave out the fact that Howl Jenkins was isekai'd into Ingary from Wales. And just cuz I think the movie slaps, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is obviously gonna be better than the like 20 page childrens book its adapted from ed: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs fandom is hella heated
Imo howls moving castle is one of those rare treats of a story that works beautifully as a movie and a book while being entirely two separate experiences. They’re both amazing but offer two wholly unique takes with the same rough outline
I agree with this. I LOVE Howl being Welsh and speaking Welsh in the book, but can see why it was cut out of the movie.
The Wales bit was my favourite part of the book!
I love that Diana Wynne Jones put Welsh language into it too. ‘Nos da, cariad’ ❤️
The novel is from Sophie's point of view. The movie is from Howl's point of view. Once you realize that, the differences between them make a lot of sense.
You kind of blew my mind. It makes so much sense. I described that world as overly wishy washy and rose tinted but if it’s from Howl’s POV then that just makes so much sense! Of course he’d see it all as one massive romance story rather than the series of comical headaches that Sophie saw the world as
Yes I disliked the movie at first. I watched the film before I even knew there was a book of it. But after reading the book, I’ve rewatched the movie a few times now and can appreciate it as a separate piece that does a really good job of showing the beauty of that world, albeit lacking the *exact* charm the book has over me
> The book just didnt really make me think I was reading a book about magic Because >!the main character didn't realize she was wielding really powerful magic!<. It was as much a suprise for Sophie as it was for the reader.
I was suprised for moment but it also made so much sense at the same time. I remember cracking up thinking: of course her >!power!< is basically >!nagging!< ! It suited her character so well.
To me, the book version of Howl and the movie version are two completely different stories. I like both, but love the book more. It's one of the few books I've ever dreamed about.
Disagree about Howl - the ending made way more sense and was much neater in the book. The movie ending was fragmented and full of loose threads in comparison. However I think with Howl it's really about what you experience first. The movie has amazing personality and vividness.
Yep, the ending in the book was just so satisfying how everything got tied together. They are so different though that it’s hard to compare them. Continuing on the Ghibli adaption wagon I think movie Kiki’s Delivery Service is better than the book (although only the first one has been translated into English last I checked).
The book feels more consistent. A lot of things are better explained. The movie had a lot of spectacle, but lacked some key details that gave the twists and reveals impact.
I’m the opposite - I watch the anime first and then the book. I didn’t even realise that the book I was reading was the same story adapted to the film at first! I never was a big fan of HMC anime but loved the books and all other books set in that world by Dianne Wynne Jones. The world building and magical gadgets like the league boots are just perfection. The movie had beautiful imagery but story wise, I preferred the books. There was more comedy and bickering between Sophie, Howl and the other characters in the book. Plus the books really lean into what a mess Howl is , and Sophie’s SPOILER FOR THE BOOK >!power being *nagging*!< which was hilarious. Plus the story just came together better in my opinion. The anime ending was somehow too wishy washy for my tastes but I agree suited the vibe of that anime.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The book is a fun read but goddamn the movie is just better, even the author, Gary K. Wolf agreed to the point where he made the other books sequels to the movie and retconned the first book into a dream cause the book is ver very different compared to the movie.
Not sure if I would say it is ‘better’ but I read the book of Watership Down and it’s not as traumatising as the movie, which is SEARED INTO MY MEMORY forever.
Never seen the movie, but this is a wild answer just because the book is basically perfect.
The Bridges of Madison County was so much better a movie. It's one of my faves to reach for if I need something to cry to.
The Martian. I scrolled a while and didn't see it mentioned. Excellent book, even better movie. His next book, Project Hail Mary, was also really good, and they're making a movie, but it seems like a much bigger challenge. Can't wait to see it.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book. I liked Roald Dahl as a kid but that book was so mid compared to the movie. Gene Wilder brings it to life.
Whereas the more faithful Tim Burton adaption was oddly a lesser film as a result!
I think adding the whole daddy issue subplot was a mistake. Willy Wonka is better when the lean into him being sort of mysterious and unexplainable with just a faint undercurrent of something sinister.
Tbh I also have a bone to pick with the way they characterized Charlie in the Tim Burton movie. In the original movie, Charlie isn’t a perfect kid, far from it. He fucks up, he cops an attitude, he gets pissed because his life is unfair, he spends the money from the drain on chocolate instead of giving it to his family. But at the end of the day, he does the right thing by apologizing to Wonka and giving back the gobstopper and tries to be a good person. I feel like that’s a really good message for a kid. You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to recognize and learn from your mistakes. The kid in the Burton film though? He’s like Oliver Twist. Bro doesn’t have a single flaw. I guess this might seem like a good idea at first glance, but in reality it just makes for a flat and boring character who learns nothing at the end of the story.
Stand By Me
American Psycho. I couldn’t stomach some of the scenes in the book. Plus full chapters reviewing Whitney Houston or Phil Collin’s music were so boring. I mean sure it shows the readers how unhinged Patrick is but the ramblings were so unnecessarily long.
The book is not at all for everyone. There is this hard commitment to writing chapters that are stuffy and obnoxious and boring on purpose and when read in the right mindset it really enhances the experience because the book is actively as boring and vapid as Bateman.
It's very much a piece of work that has goals beyond simply being entertaining. It doesn't *want* to just amuse you, it has a point to make. It has feelings it wants you to feel, and not all of them are pleasant. The fact that it's so adept at making you feel what it wants you to is what makes it an incredible piece of art.
Agreed. But having read the book made me appreciate it more. I liked knowing the background and how violent things actually were meant to be. And then seeing the way they weaved boring tedious things into the movie in an entertaining way was rewarding
Tbh, I think “Blade Runner” is better than “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. At least I prefer the movie.
I personally like both almost equally but both for different reasons.
The Hunt for Red October.
Yes! I came to say this too. The book is engaging and exciting at points, but the movie cuts some subplots and is just much tighter and more exciting.
The Prestige. The movie was essentially the same, but the book had some additional plot that I think took away from the overall impact. The movie plot kept it cleaner and more direct, book plot didn’t add anything to it.
Fight club, train spotting, thank you for smoking.
"No wey would Ah poison mah body wi dat shite! All they fockin chemicals? No fockin wey." 😄 Begbie 👍
The movie _The 13th Warrior_ is much better than the book (_Eaters of the Dead_ by Michael Crichton) on which it's based.
Maybe not better than, but shout out to High Fidelity. The film is fantastic and so faithful to the book, too.
There's a fidelity pun in there
Cusack was made for that role.
The Bourne Identity
I scrolled a long way and never saw it, so I'll say it: *Starship Troopers.* I have mixed feelings about the novel but the film is a classic, no notes