I vote to skip the movie entirely. The flick was alright, but the book goes into so much more intimate detail, describing things in ways the movie doesn't even come close to. Robin Williams was amazing, as was John Lithgow, but I felt the rest of the movie could have been done a great deal better. Definitely, always read the book first, then the movie. Books are always better.
While I would not "skip the movie entirely", I would ALWAYS recommend reading the book first for pretty much ANY movie out there.
Unfortunately, this particular movie only encompases anbout one third of the book. However, IF the entire book were to be used in the movie,, I would have been a saga of EPIC proportions! (Which, IMHO, would not have really been a bad thing) I agree that Robin Williams and John Lithgow were BOTH wonderful in their roles, as well as Glenn Close. I remember reading this book back in the 7th or 8th grade, before I even knew it was a movie (Possibly even before the movie came out...I dont really remember) and thinking "Robin Williams would be PERFECT as the part of Garp. Lo and behold, when I realized there WAS a movie, I was pleasantly surprised that Williams had the lead role. Unfortunately, Lithgow's character was somewhat "under-done" when compared to the book, which unfortunately happens to many books that are made into movies!
Take some of John Irving's other novels, and see how badly they were made into movies....
The Cider House Rules....EXCELLENT book, S**tty movie.....
The Hotel New Hampshire....Again, EXCELLENT book, but just not believeable as a movie, IMHO, too "artsy fartsy", and just not enough detail!
Simon Birch....Once again, EXCELLENT book.....but they claim the movie was "suggested by 'A Prayer for Owen Meany"....I mean, COME ON!!!
I absolutely REFUSE to see "The Door In The Floor", because the book it was a short story in, "A Widow for One Year" was SO wonderful, I simply do not want to see how they ruined it!
Just my opinion...thanks for letting me rant!
reply
share