The animation movie is literally identical to the comic book, whether it’s the plot, art, or dialogue, everything is taken right out of the comic making the tiniest of changes. Despite this I found the comic much more effective than the animated smovie in many aspects. Although they both used the same art, for some weird reason I found the book to be more entertaining (not as expected). I guess it might just be that the art was more suited for the flow of the book (after all that was the artist’s initial intention). On the other hand the fighting/action scenes seemed to shine in the movie version probably due to the quick movements and also the addition of music was a positive for the
Luhrmann aimed at a younger age group, and he made it a lot more exciting and violent with a lot more action using the best special effects possible at the time it was made. Technology was evolving at the time this version was made and the younger generation were more interested in movies with the best special effects a movie could offer. Because of this approach, the language did not match the movie as it did to Franco Zeffirelli’s version. However, although they were carrying around guns, Baz Luhrmann kept the language from the original script and
Holes: Book vs. Movie By: Brady Flynn The movie Holes followed the book so closely that it was hard to find some differences. There are some scenes in the movie that are reenacted almost word for word from the book; it felt like I could have watched the movie while following along in my book. Even details like the camper’s clothing (everything from their white shoes to their hats with neck-protecting flaps) were kept the same as what was described in the book. Although the movie and the book were very similar; the one major difference I could find was with Stanley’s physical appearance. In the book, Stanley is described as overweight, and he is often mistaken for a bully because of how large and commanding he seems.
Apocalypse Now (I apologize for the length, but this movie was absolutely amazing in how it made me appreciate something I previously hated, and I was truly moved to write in this length about it.) Unfortunately, upon watching Apocalypse Now, I was compelled to compare the movie to Heart of Darkness, a book that honestly I did not enjoy reading. However, I was pleased to see that Mr. Coppola merely took inspiration from the book, and in fact in a rather intelligent and powerful manner. I don’t like to call the movie “entertaining” given how uncomfortable it made me, but I did enjoy the movie regardless, and it was powerful enough to give me plenty to talk about. The movie contained a number of allusions to the book, such as a first-person narrator who is deeply affected by his experience (Marlow in Heart’s Africa and Willard in Now’s Vietnam) and a character named Kurtz who is worshipped like a god by the natives.
Brandon FLOGGNAW 4/28/14 Period 1 ENG 9 R+J Movie Compare/Contrast Pros and Cons The two Romeo and Juliet movies were very unique and creative. The two movies were very different but still stayed true to the original play. The two movies barely changed to much in the movie, but they did still add a few things here and there. The two movies were very good, they were both very good adaptions of the original play. Even though the movies were very good adaptions, the movies did changes some things whether it was text or scenery.
The Punisher, however, seems to lack some important details that help a movie be of good quality. Batman Begins is better than The Punisher because of the character development, the number of villains introduced, and because of the variety of locations the movie is shot at. Character development is something that can be distinguished more in Batman Begins than in The Punisher. Batman Begins shows a more in depth coverage of the actual life and transformation of an every day civilian to a superhero. To accomplish this, more information was given on whom Bruce Wayne (Batman) was and what he had to go through.
This movie has a better cast, better director and better story. Also the comedy is better. This movie is actually funny. I thought that Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan had really good chemistry on screen. Shanghai Noon is great fun from start to
Probably because, despite all the radical social changes that have taken place since Jane Austen's time, people haven't really changed all that much. It has been argued that Jane Austen's novels all have the same plot; on a superficial level, there is a germ of truth to that argument. However, the true greatness of Jane Austen's work lies not in the basic stories but in the ironic and occasionally bitchy cultural observations that suffuse those plots and bring them to life. Scriptwriter and director Amy Heckerling has followed admirably Jane Austen's example by making a film that, on the surface, seems like another mindless teen flick but is actually a multi-layered social commentary. She took Austen's novel Emma, the story of a spoiled child of the 19th century English leisure class who thinks she knows everything, and turned it into the film Clueless, the story of a spoiled child of the 20th century American leisure class who thinks she knows everything.
Even though the 2010 depiction of Death at a Funeral is a close replica of the 2007 version, the later film surpassed its predecessor in all forms of entertainment. Both films were exceptionally funny and amusing, but the earlier adaptation did not demonstrate relatable content to remain as engaging and charming as the later. Mutually, the script, acting, and plot are virtually the same, but in all three categories there was just a little more pleasantry in the latest remake. Despite the characters name change in the 2010 version, you are able to categorize who represents what character from 2007. Starting with Chris Rock as Aaron, his portrayal of Daniel who was originally played by Matthew MacFadyen in the British version is a great clarification of the character.
The Shawshank Redemption is totally the contradictory from other book adaptations that typically have less similarities than differences because The novella have their differences but there similarities stick out. amazingly, there were more similarities between the novella and the film more than I estimated. The principal similarity was that the dialogue between both the written story and film were mostly the same. some of the dialogue in the novella was very realistic, unsuitable, and revolting, and could turn away the people in a movie. All the most important moments and events of the story happened exactly the same way in the same time in both versions.