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.
Well, let me set you all straight: not every Chick Lit book is a winner; some of them really are boring, predictable and just a plain waste of time! However, some earlier novels are exciting, light and frankly a breath of fresh air for anyone who wants escapism with a practical sense of reality. And as the genre evolves, the standard of writing has too. Writers such as Lindsey Kelk and Scarlett Bailey stride ahead with novels that are glamorous but realistic and genuinely get their audience excited about what they are reading. Sub-genres such as; “Marriage Lit” and “Christian Lit” have started springing up across the literary
But what specifically do the critics like about Casablanca that has resulted in its popular appeal? From a woman’s prospective, Lauri Boeder writes on About.Com that “Casablanca is a great romance, a stirring wartime adventure, a suspenseful action movie, and in the end, a terrific buddy movie.” She further states that “Casablanca is thrilling on the first viewing, and so richly textured it rewards being watched over and over. The dialogue is clever, touching, and dryly funny by turns and utterly irresistible. See it once and then see it again.” is what she recommends. But what does Roger Ebert say about Casablanca?
Without any strong feelings ,without some thought that usually good movies leave in your mind after you watch them. Of course there is some meaning in that movie and I think it is just about how to forgive somebody, how not to judge the book just by it cover. According to "Jump Cut" a review of
I’ve heard people refer to “The Notebook” as cheesy, as a ‘chick flick’ (a label very few of my colleagues can stand because of its negative connotation), as predictable and sappy. So “The Notebook” doesn’t exactly take a brain surgeon to guess how the story is going to play out. And it does unapologetically play on your emotions, practically begging you to squeeze out a few tears. But here’s why I enjoyed “The Notebook”: it’s a movie you can relax and let flow over you. It’s also one of the few films out there that tells a complete story.
Man Ray is one of my favorite filmmakers from the surrealist era. Usually I’m attracted to the implied violence of his work. This movie however did not seem to allude to violence like his other films do. This film was seductive in a more sedative way. A lot of the film was shot in a dreamy way almost as if the viewer was looking through water.
Since merely analyzing the novel would have been too wide as a topic I took a different approach and made the decision to compare Austen's original book to the 2005 film version. I wanted to find the differences between the two and see what impressions these make. Ultimately, my objective was to prove that the book is more realistic than the film if the fact that the story takes place at the end of the 18th century were to be taken into account. In addition I created a hypothesis that due to the plentiful amount of mistakes in the cinema version the written down form is more believable. In order to show this to be true I first read the book thoroughly and then watched the film while writing down all the dissimilarities I could find, whether they be events that had not happened in Austen's work or the disposition of characters being unlike in the hardcover.
Don’t Judge a Book by its Movie American society has become overwhelmed with the visual media, and often this media overshadows the classical paper books. The metaphorical phrase “don’t judge a book by its cover” is well known by most Americans; given our technological age, perhaps now we should think of it as “don’t judge a book by its movie.” When novels go through the process of being made into a motion picture the novel tends to be changed to better accommodate the actors or the audience. Sometimes this can be very effective; but occasionally writing movies originally from books can also be destructive to the author’s original ideas and purposes. The film Field of Dreams, produced by Universal Pictures, is based on the novel Shoeless Joe written by W.P. Kinsella.
Instead of making films for everyone, they have to choose a select audience: adults, teenagers, or youth. Then they have to create a movie specifically for that group. The movie then must meet the standards for the correct rating of the movie. Because of censorship some movies become underdeveloped and confusing. To solve this problem the developers usually release two versions of the same movie.
This is done for several reasons which include the idea that an addition to the movie may enhance the story. *The book has more information about the story while movies are shortened and with less information. Also, for what the producer and director believe will enhance the entertainment aspect of the film, they made add information that was not at all seen in the book. So people should read the books before they watch the movie. The other aspect of the book vs the movie is the instant ability to re-read passages that at first the reader did not totally grasp.