'Get It Done'
A place to talk about movies--Old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
What is the general opinion of Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago? I've never read the novel, but my impression was that it was a literature classic. And I'd certainly hold the movie up as great.
Despite having read The Lord of the Rings decades ago, I've found that Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett have replaced my prior mental images of Gandalf and Galadriel. The other actors, NSM.
What is the general opinion of Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago? I've never read the novel, but my impression was that it was a literature classic. And I'd certainly hold the movie up as great.
It's in my TBR pile, but I love the movie, too.
Oh, the novel is endless. And it's about so many more people than Dr. Zhivago and wassername. It's in no way an epic romance, it's a political novel.
Just so you know: don't have any illusions. In order to make a movie out of it they cut out about 70% of what happens in the book.
The movie Dr. Zhivago is full of pretty pictures, but the story just doesn't quite jell somehow. Haven't read the novel.
Wow. The movie was like 36 hours long even so...
In order to make a movie out of it they cut out about 70% of what happens in the book.
Heh. Is there any Russian novel in which this is not the case?
But--but--The Last Starfighter as a musical? Without Robert Preston? How cruel.
Is there any Russian novel in which this is not the case?
Fathers and Sons, if it's ever been made into a movie.
(ETA: Yes, it has. But apparently not in English.)
I prefer to see movies before reading the books they're based on (on the rare occasions when I'm interested in both) because the book is always going to include scenes and characters that aren't in the movie. If I read the book first, when I see the movie I will know what's "supposed" to happen (or what I expect) and I'll be distracted by that and annoyed when they change anything. I'm setting myself up to be disappointed, basically. If I see the movie first, I'm more likely to enjoy it on its own terms, and I can then enjoy the greater depth of the book.
Strega is me on this issue. In fact, I said almost this exact same thing to someone the other day.
Of course, this means this is an issue on which Broomy is not me. Those are fun.
I like reading the books first.
LOTR was great in both forms. As was TKaM.
I love love love the third Harry Potter movie and book, but I somehow think that calling them great is going to lead to lots of arguments I don't want to get into.
I want to see a miniseries adaptation of Pullman's "His Dark Materials."
t /two cents