Sabrina Thomas Mel-Con #2 The film Speak detracts from the novel, the book Speak did a much more thorough job of getting up close and personal with Melinda’s story, whereas the film left out specific details that would have helped the understanding of the story. On one hand, in the book Speak, everything was very detailed and improved how you understood the story; on the other hand, the film was focused on the overall big picture. Very rarely did the movie go into great detail. For instance, in the book, there is a part where she has finally built the confidence to tell Rachelle about what happened the night of the end-of-summer party that wasn’t shown in the film that I thought was very important when I read it. “I’m on a roll.
Hamlet Movie Comparison From the two versions of Hamlet that we watched, Mel Gibson/Glenn Close and Kenneth Branagh; despite the fact they have the same plot but there are few differences between the both versions. Hamlet acting is really different in both versions of the movie. In Kenneth Branagh version we see the movie is done with strong emotions but Hamlet overacts in most of the scenes. We also see that Hamlet is not a calm thinker by watching how Hamlet amplifies his manners throughout the movie. In Mel Gibson’s version of Hamlet, Hamlet’s acting is outstanding because while watching the play we can see the effort and talent Gibson has put in the movie.
If the movie had more detail it would be more interesting. The book gave me a better picture. When I saw the movie it confused me because it didn’t have all the parts. If I just saw the movie I wouldn’t understand why Greasers and Socs were separated and why they hated each other. I think Cherry did a really good job; she fit the description really well I think.
I've got to say it wasn't easy trying to figure out which one I liked best, but I got to say I liked the film much more prominent then the novel. To see the action and adventure come to life was astonishing. Once you watch it though you see lots of differences from the novel and the film. You might see some from the characters or from something else. You will have to read it your self, but I will give you some differences to give you an idea of it.
The similarity between the two works made the movie an excellent interpretation of the book and was very enjoyable to watch after reading. The base factors that the producer chose to keep in the movie were essential to how well the movie represents the book. The obvious similarity was the bees, in both the book and movie, the bees and their honey are a huge role through symbolism and finding links to Lily’s mother. It is common that in a movie adaptation of a book, some essentials characteristics are lost to visual effects or because the producer didn’t think it was important. There were a few important scenes
Each serves its purpose well; the steel frame buildings just do so with more flair. I like to think that only a good movie would still be watched after fifty-three years. But, everything good about the book is missing or distorted (plot, characters, details). The plot is too convoluted to make a movie. But the movie of The Big Sleep is still a success and, well, a good movie, just because they changed the plot and the characters.
The movie Troy had some changes from the poem The Iliad but those changes did not necessarily alter the major idea conveyed by both the movie and the poem. There were definitely some major differences between the movie and the poem. Some of the major incidents remain unchanged in both Troy and The Iliad. The cause of the war remains the same. Paris steals Helen away from her husband, Menelaus, which he takes as an insult to himself and his kingdom.
That was it the actors only wore drama blacks and the background was unfurnished, it was a risky move on Kennedy’s part but ultimately paid off as the set really was a manifestation of what the play is about, no fancy lighting of costumes just characters real relatable interacting characters which I feel is what really makes a play of film or TV show, for example look at the award winning Game of Thrones series it real reason for the appeal and hype isn’t the action, the gore, the nudity, it’s the characters and their relations. That is why I am giving the Nixon theatre companies’ production of David Williamson’s The Club 9 out of ten pictures on the
I'm much more of a "genre" fan, and I much prefer fantasy, surrealism and absurdism to realism. My preconceptions were throwing me off of the film initially. The realist drama stuff seemed to drag on, and it made much of the film a hard sell. I loved the touches of weirdness, but they were too little, too far between--at least until I reached my personal interpretation of the film around the halfway mark. The film is also odd in that it's so retro.
While there are many similarities to the novel by Nicholas Sparks, many changes were made also. For starters, the producer, Denise Di Novi, decided to update the setting from the 1950s to the 1990s, worrying that a movie set in the 50s would fail to draw teens. To make the update believable, Landon's (Shane West) pranks and behavior are worse in the movie than they are in the novel. For example, in the novel Landon was initially unfocused, but not a bad kid, yet in