Like my last statement, it would harm people's knowledge on history, even though it doesn't look like it has great importance it is the small details that always count. The movie of 1960 to me did harm the way people thought of Bowie that he wanted to abandon the Alamo while Travis insisted on staying when in fact, both men thought it essential to hold the Alamo. This wrong fact could change the way people thought of Bowie, because in the movie they made him look like a deserter because he wanted to abandon the
I wish I could understand so I could help prevent them from doing so. I also felt disturbed when Charlton Heston held a pro-gun rally after the Columbine shooting. He also showed up after the first grader was shot. Charlton Heston refused to say sorry for hosting the rallies after the horrifying events. It just shows how ignorant people are in the United States.
Also after watching it I did not had some deep feelings about any of the characters of the movie and I did not got anything learning from that movie. For some of people who loves movie just to relax they might love it. I was excepting from that movie that it will show maybe something about Indian person who will get education and make something different in his life, but it did not. Another thing that I still wonder is the name of the movie: Smoke Signals. My opinion is that in the begging of the film smoke showed the death and trouble for somebody.
As we all know a huge part of a book is taken away when making movie, that is so the movie can make more sense. Well in the case of “Flatland” by Edward Abbott there are a couple of similarities and differences. The differences include the existence of area 33h, a riot was caused when the square revealed the existence of the third dimension, and the grandson of the square thought of the idea being merely foolish. Some similarities from both the movie and book would be the hypocrisy of the sphere when asked about the fourth dimension, the line king being scared when the square appeared, and the circles having the upper hand in flat land. At the beginning of the movie it is said that a secret monument in the center of flatland exist however
This Movie being a psychological “thriller” you would think the ending would leave viewers with a mindset of us making are own prediction of what was going to happen next. That’s what seems to be theme at least up until the ending of the movie which took the excitement and suspense out, making the movie inconsistent and dull. Yes, everyone wanted to know if Evan would ever resolve his problem, but you would anticipate the ending to be a bit more dramatic. This is why I don’t think the theatrical cut was an appropriate ending because it lacked suspense, thrill, and excitement, but I did Evans dilemma. The theatrical ending is one
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.
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.
That would explain how he never does any work throughout the movie, his outbursts of anger go relatively unnoticed, his own identity is consistently mistaken, and he gets away with all the murders (because they only happened in his head). The “movie watcher” reaction to this would probably use an older, more general term to diagnose Batemen as simply a socio-path. This
Had it been they found him, he would have failed the initiation and been executed. He later realized that he did not share the same interests as the Ibans after the whole initiation process and this pushed him farther away from them instead of closer. Douchan ends up going back to his home village, leaving the headhunters behind. The Iban tribe was not what Gersi anticipated, and it altered his outlook on his future in the tribe. The physical ordeal Gersi accepted was unexpected.
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.