14 & Viper Tetsu, my creative buddies from Gallery of the Absurd and Haiku Movie ReviewsErich Kuersten, the brilliant & twisted mind behind Acidemic
Thom, the unelected King (Queen?) of Planet Fabulon. He rules with a bejewelled fist
Adam, the mysterious man behind the curtain at Club Silencio
James P Hansen, a NYFF buddy of mine from Out1 Film Journal
JA gratuitously spreading himself across the internets from My New Plaid Pants
Film Experience hi-jinx will continue this week only without yours truly, Nathaniel R. Please enjoy the guest cinephiles. They love the cinema muchly, too. I'll be back next Sunday to wrap a red towel around my head and announce the winners of that Kiss of the Spider-Woman contest (last chance to enter is tomorrow). Kisses!
Posts
5 comments:
Question for Nathaniel or anybody else who would like to answer.
How do you review a film that is based on a book or Play?
For Example:
I read The Secret Life of Bees about three years ago and I just thought it was okay. I felt like it was kind of sappy & overly melodramatic. I've read better stories about the same topic.
So I watched the Movie with my family and it was so identical to the novel I felt like I was reading it again. Gina did a great job of adapting the the book into the movie, but like the book it has the same problems. I don't think it's Gina's fault because the original source was weak to begin with. Everytime I read a so-so review, I always think to myself, but that's how the book was, so how would you review something like that it was an excellent adaptation, but the story itself wasn't so great. I think Dreamgirls had the same problem everyone complained about how it goes downhill in the second half of the movie, but that's how the play was. Roger Ebert also complained about how dark "The Order of the Phoenix" was compared to the other HP movies, but the book was like that so...
-Ariel
I personally think if a mediocre book is made into a mediocre movie then it is still mediocre. It doesn't make it an "excellent adaptation" just because it matches the source in lameness. It's the job of the writers, directors, and actors to make the work its own in whichever new form it is taking. Maybe the source material isn't so strong, but you can take mediocre source material and turn it into something great. That's how you know a really great adaptation when you see one (I think.) It's equally hard to make a great book/play into a great movie, and I think its pretty clear with responses to movies like BLINDNESS that a great source doesn't make a great movie. You always have to keep the bigger picture in mind.
Just my thoughts, for what they are worth. It's an interesting problem, but I think when you are making something into the movie, you have to look at it as the work its presented. Its good to know the source, but you shouldn't judge it based on that.
Anyways, I'm excited to be a guest blogger this week! I hope we can have some fun while Nathaniel is away!
ariel - I tend to think that how u review an adaptation MUST depend on your knowledge of source material so I think all critics should state in reviews whether they are familiar w/ the source. It's Ok either way since it does need to stand alone but it's just important to know for the reader .
And what James said ;)
Thank You both for your answers. I guess it would be okay for the writers and directors to make the material a bit different from the original source.
teeehee, Boyd's voice is cute.
Post a Comment