Terrible Movie....Good Book
nm
share[deleted]
I'm sure your right...he does have a better understanding of the novel, and a better judge of a film adaptation
but MY OPINION still remains that it was a terrible movie
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) Discussion > Terrible Movie....Good Book
Was this movie a joke? The book, a literary masterpiece, is chopped down and destroyed by the directors attempt. Capatilism is put on a pedestal, sex and lust takes a front seat, and it is almost completely void of the 'children's crusade'. I feel one of the most important themes of the book is that you are you, always, more or less. War is humans killing humans, regardless of what uniform you wear. The movie adds a car chase/ crash scene (what a shock...) and just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Was anyone who read the book as completely disappointed as I feel??
"The best time to wear a green sweater, is all the time."
I think the car crash scene was well-made, but irrelevant, because it's the one scene that Billy is not in time-travelling. And that actress playing his wife was awful; never seen her in any other movie.
sharedang now i'm hesitant to see this.
shareNah, you should see it but also read the book. What's the worst that happens? You see it and go, "eh, it's not as good as the book." Everyone has an opinion; that doesn't mean everybody's right. The movie ain't great but it's pretty good.
sharethanks. i'll check it out!
share[deleted]
I have to say I completely agree. I was so disappointed by the movie. It's the only George Roy Hill movie I've seen that I don't like very much.
shareI was a huge fan of the book, and it's the reason why I saw this movie. I was bitterly disappointed.
Now, the performances were right on target, and even the screenplay was handled as well as could have been expected. So why was I disappointed? I couldn't pinpoint it right away, but after giving it some thought, it dawned on me.
The book's greatest strength, and simultaneously the film's greatest weakness, is Vonnegut's narration. His witty delivery carries on its shoulders what would otherwise be a relatively dull and lifeless story. The ever-present "So it goes," the attempts at explaining the differences between Tralfamadorians' and humans' concepts of time, the deadpan one-liners... just a few examples of what made the book such a fast-paced and bittersweet read. It's absolutely one of the icons of modern literature and one of my favorite books.
But, absent the benefit of Vonnegut's voice, the movie just simply falls flat.
"That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book."
In reading this board, it seems like the people who dislike the movie do so because it is different from or not true to the book. For movies which have been adapted from books, this would seem to be the biggest reason for people disliking such films. In most cases, I feel this is an invalid reason for disliking a film simply because of the impracticality of making a film just like the book. It simply cannot be done, converting a several hundred page novel into a two hour film! A good director captures the spirit of the book but needs to change some things to make the film more easily understood, give it better pacing, etc. The biggest challenge any director has is the editing . . . what to leave in and what to leave out . . . and they always want to leave more in then they end up being able to. Alot of you don't seem to understand how films are made and the difference between writing a novel and adapting a film from said novel.
LoganSwift, you say that without Vonnegut's narration the film falls flat and imply that the film should not have been made without it. But it would not have been practical to include the narrative in the film, so I guess you're advocating that the film should have never been made. If so, many people would never have been made aware of this great work of literature and subsequently motivated to read the book.
I feel that the films stands on its own as a powerful, effective presentation of what Vonnegut's novel was all about. Apparently, Vonnegut felt this way also:
Vonnegut wrote about the film soon after its release, in his preface to Between Time and Timbuktu:
"I love George Roy Hill and Universal Pictures, who made a flawless translation of my novel Slaughterhouse-Five to the silver screen ... I drool and cackle every time I watch that film, because it is so harmonious with what I felt when I wrote the book."
I guess you guys know more about "Slaughterhouse Five" than Kurt Vonnegut did.
Well, I'm not one to always unilaterally eschew filmed versions of books. I loved the film adaptations of Palahniuk's "Fight Club," McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men," Kafka's "The Trial," and Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange," among many others.
But, I suppose I am advocating that this film should never have been made. It was vastly considered unfilmable beforehand anyway. As far as no one being made aware of this great piece of literature, I'm not sure if even the movie made much of an impact in this area. You have to understand that the general public is filled with the kind of idiots whose only reading material is People magazine. Even if they do watch a movie that's based on an iconic literary work, they still won't go read it.
And with all due respect to Mr. Vonnegut (R.I.P. and S.I.G.), the vast majority of literature is seen and interpreted differently by the readers than it is by the author. This is the rule more often than it is the exception. The whole "is Gregor Samsa really a bug?" syndrome rears its ugly head all the time.
One of the best films of the 70's. Especially when you know about filmmaking: a great achievement in directing, editing (Dede Allen), cinematography, acting.
Those who like to compare 'the book' with 'the film' see it different of course. I never do that. A book is a book is a book. Film is another medium.
I watched it the other night again after so many years and it gets better an better. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen for more than two seconds. #
Taking them separate from each other, the movie adaptation is a quite pleasing to watch. The biggest problem (with comparing the book with the movie) was that the screenplay could have been SO much better. It would certainly be a hard task to pull off Vonnegut's narration on film, but even the adaptation of Billy's 'fictional' story did not capture the true essence of characters in the novel.
In the first chapter, Mary O'Hare is upset with Kurt for him coming to find out stories from his war buddy Bernard because the book will turn to a glamorous Frank Sinatra or John Wayne Hollywood representation of these "babies fighting a war." Although Sinatra or Wayne did not shine their face on this film I think she was almost a little right. The book may have been duly called 'The Children's Crusade," but the movie certainly was not.
The actress name is Holly Near, and she's had a reasonably successful career as a folk musician.
shareThe car crash scene wasn't from the book?!! What the hell was it even doing there?
I was quite upset with how his wife seemed to be put forward like a bad joke. She's this ridiculous weak-willed figure who keeps promising to lose weight, hates the dog and who, in a hysterical fit of grief, drives so recklessly that it would warrant a long stint in prison. She's the one character in the film who never feels like a real person.
I don't know that the actress was that bad. This was the character she'd been told to play and she delivered the lines with conviction. I just think that she had a horrendously badly written role in a movie which wasn't terribly well directed.
whats the car chase crash scene they added ? cause the only one in the book was were the wife is rushing to the hospital and misses her turn and gets rear ended and her muffler gets ripped off and she gets to the hospital and dies from carbon monoxide poisoning.
OH SPOILER ALERT!
Don't know about the book, but the movie is awful either way.
I gave it 30 minutes (a VERY generous amount of time for a story to pull you in) before giving up on this detached, incoherent mess.
The Doctor is out. Far out.
I haven't read the book, but now I want to. I saw the movie years ago, I liked it then and I finally got a copy of it on DVD. If you haven't read the book, and you're a fan of surreal, psychological, well directed films, then this film is for you. Now I'll probably read the book and enjoy it even more, as from what I've heard here, it's far more descriptive.
I can however, sympathize with those who have enjoyed the book, and then later were dissapointed by the movie. That is all too common. But If you take the film on its own, it's pretty good.
I think the movie was far more simplified than the book. In the movie, I especially liked the World War 2 scenes and vintage 1960's, WASP, upper-middle class New England . The atmosphere and photography were awesome, except the Tralfamadore scenes are pretty tacky.
As for the actors, I don't know where they came from. Except for Valerie Perrine, Perry King, and John Dehner in small parts, the rest of the cast are pretty much unknowns.
[deleted]
Seems like the kind of book you can't properly adopt. At least they tried, like with "Naked Lunch", but it feels unrewarding in disjointed in a bad way. You could just label it today as those weird 70s sci-fi movies.
shareNot terrible, but not great. I'd give it a 7/10.
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.