I thought that the film Castaway was a good representation of the hardships of life and what it truly takes to survive in difficult circumstances. A good thing in the movie that represented hardship was basically his entire situation being stuck on the island. I thought the way that the movie present his obstacles and him trying to figure out how to solve them was good. The ending was also was one of my favorite parts of the movie. I think the way the movie showed his victory in returning home didn’t mean everything would go back to normal was fantastic. For example, on the island the main character kept holding onto hope that he’d see his wife again, and once he finally did he felt like he lost her all over again. One bad thing about the
“Fear is a survival instinct; fear in its way is a comfort for its means that somewhere hope is alive” (Sturgeon). In the novel, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding and the movie, Castaway, directed by Robert Zemeckis, both stories involve a person(s) getting stranded on an island. In both the novel and the movie, a group of boys and an individual demonstrate that over time that fear and the will to survive is the only thing that is driving them to make the decisions they make. They will do things that display savagery and uncivilized behavior in order to beat nature. While some may argue that the urge to gain power is what leads one to make decisions and act upon it, it is clear that fear and the will to survive is what many people act upon
The Fires of Jubilee, is a well written recollection of the slave insurrection led by Nathaniel Turner. It portrays the events leading towards the civil war and the shattered myth of contented slaves in the South. The book is divided into four parts: This Infernal Spirit of Slavery, Go Sound the Jubilee, Judgment Day, and Legacy.
One of the main products of this movie that popped out to me was the stars. They all seemed to be great actors even though I only knew one of them. For example, I thought that Ian Michael Smith did a great job portraying Simon Birch. He made the movie cute and funny all at once. I also thought that Joseph Mazello did a great job portraying relatable feelings in the movie. You could tell by his facial expressions what his mood was. All the actors did a great job and I can’t pinpoint one of them who did worse than the
Acting of movie is very basic for todays standards. The actions of the Miles Bennell aren’t believable or logical. At some points the women of the movie tend of over action simple scenes. The rest of the cast is monotone and have little emotion.It ok casting, but they could of done better. You find yourself laughing at serious point in the film due to the poor acting. This movie could be recut to become a comedy movie, just based off their facial expression.
Compared to the novel Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson the film version was different from the novel. It wasn't as good as the novel in most places, but it had some good qualities, and scenes. For example, in the novel when Jess, Leslie, and the rest of the boys were racing you could see what Jess was thinking, and feeling. While in the film you could not tell what they were thinking, and feeling. This took away some of the beauty of the scene.
Although the film was quite different from the book, I think it was a successful adaptation. Through the many changes made to the book, the movie was still able to capture the main idea of the text: you can’t have living without dying. In my paper, I will discuss the changes to Winnie Foster and Miles Tuck, why I believe the director rearranged the sequence of events, and how the director used different film techniques to set the tone during different scenes.
still a classic- Stranded in the jungle, a tale of a man trying to get
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
The movie itself was a great movie. It followed the storyline of Exodus and it felt like it stayed true to the book. After a closer look at Exodus, you see that there were some added plot lines to the movie and some detail is inadequate. The stories of Datham and Nefreteri do take away some meaning. These don’t help the cause to show the strong power of God.
Therefore I will recommend it. I find the book enthralling, because of its underlying insurrectionary principle that just because someone announces their intentions and gets validation from other people, doesn’t mean you have to accept as right and you can contrast with their intentions and ideas. The reason I find the movie attractive and would recommend it is that of the nostalgic and euphoric feeling you may get as Walt Disney brings such a great book to life in Motion picture. That’s why I would recommend the book and movie known as Escape to Witch
I personally thought this was a great film, although initially I thought it might be boring. Once I got past the older production quality and immersed myself into the story, I enjoyed it. I can see why this film is a cinematic classic, especially with the memorable dialogue. My favorite lines came from Carr, the floor walker. He seemed to know his job like the back of his hand. “Any man loses his spoon; he spends the night in the box”.
I must say that The Maltese Falcon is one of the best books I have ever read. I also must say that the movie was nothing special, although I enjoyed it. The Maltese Falcon in no way strays from the stereotype that movies which are made from novels are not of the same quality as the novel. The movies usually do the books a disservice as characters are changed and often scenes are left out. I think that it is terrible how Hollywood changes the plot and characters from what the author originally intended. The result is missing plot, and absence of necessary theme. When these are left out of the movie, it is no longer a form of literature, but an action movie, a disgrace to its maker.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
The movie, The Giver, is better than the book because it contains more action than the book describes and it’s very exciting and intense. Everything about the movie was perfectly put together which made the movie a great one to watch. There is also a moral to the movie which I think is “Stand up for what you believe in.” I think this is a great moral and goes well with the movie because it shows that even if the whole world turns on you, as long as you believe in yourself, you can achieve almost anything. I also like the fact that it’s a futuristic kind of movie; it makes it unique. The movie not only makes you feel a certain way; but it also makes you think about how our world would be if we did not have the gift of choice-making. The Giver
There was nothing that I had particularly disliked about text movie, but one thing I wish they would have done, would be to go more in depth to how their lives were after they returned home. I thing it would be interesting to see how the family had changed after being apart for so long.