Have you ever liked a movie more than the book it was based on? A book being made into a movie is sometimes stressful when it could be a total hit or a total flop. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer book by Mark Twain was a captivating book with details that molded well together. A movie was made in 1938 off of the book and I favored it over the book. The movie did leave me unsatisfied with its loss of an important scene that can cause confusion.
I found that the Pixar movie was a movie that was made just to present something on the shelf in between new hit movies from Pixar. The storyline was the only negative thing I have to support my opinion, although the storyline is a huge part of the movie. The technical elements and the actors were magnificent in this movie. Although the movie in my opinion, was a stapled together disgrace of a storyline, I enjoyed
A movie, even when it's good, doesn't often convey the feeling of the book it's based on. But in this case screenwriter Horton Foote treated the Harper Lee novel - about a Depression-era Alabama lawyer and his two children - with love and respect, and the director successfully evoked the novel's sense of childhood mystery and tenderness." (Dashiell) The same characters were the same heroes and the same characters were killed so the movie still resembles the book yet the directors choose to change some ideas around causing a different perspective while still maintaining the same morals. Some minor differences between the movie and the book include the book being much more descriptive and easier to understand where as the movie is harder to understand due to the fact that there isn't any narration. The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes.
Even though many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
Even tho many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
Plus, in the movie, the Egyptian pursuit is seen as an unexpected great chase for the Israelite. This method is used in the movie to create a more suspenseful scene for the viewer. The director probably didn’t see the precise biblical version to be as entertaining. But, by subtracting those few critical points, the movie lost part of the message that the Bible was trying to
“2 thumbs up! '; As an amazing play is moved to a movie, it is very sad to see characters or scenes lost. In Branagh’s “Hamlet'; very little is lost in his adaptation. This is very pleasing as the play is sensational The only problem faced is that of the comedic actors. This did not effect the outcome of the movie and many are looking forward to more of Branagh’s work.
Whether or not Demille meant harm to the Jews is unknown, but the film launched a wave of anti-Semitism. Historical movies such as “Schindler’s List” and “Gettysburg” are accurate interpretations of what really happened in history. Even biblical epics such as Franco Zeffirelli's “Jesus of Nazareth” and the hit Broadway musical “Jesus Christ Superstar” avoided anti-Semitism. A recent 2001 movie drama about Adolf Hitler as a young child called “Max” starring John Cusack, responded to the criticism the movie got and accepted input and changes from critics. With the good suggestions they received, it made for an even better film, and the public voice was heard.
This movie had a lot of Stereotypes in a way; however, it does justify the fact that there is tension and problems between the Israel’s and Palestinians. In the end of the movie, it shows how Phantom and Zohan made peace, got along and Zohan married Dalia. That doesn’t happen often between the Palestinians and Israelis. This movie reminded me of how I hope the Palestinians do find peace one day in their country. Two Reviews “The ideas and some of the individual bits in Zohan work, but the crudeness of the execution undermines the results” –Michael Phillips of Chicago Tribune on Rotten Tomato’s http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008759-you_don't_mess_with_the_zohan/
He likes to show the audience the tragedy that is going to occur, before the characters that are going to experience it know of it. His films are well received by worldwide audiences and critics everywhere and his movies have stood the test of time. Mark Pellington is a new director who hasn’t had even close to as much success as Hitchcock. His directing style seems to be much more modern and incorporates many different styles and angles. Arlington Road, directed by Mark Pellington, does not live up to the likes of a movie such as Rear Window, directed by Alfred Hitchcock because while they are similar in plot, they are far too different in themes, and directorial approach.