Yeah, hat one was the worst. I stilll like it, but def the worst in the series.
Overrated movies
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
Yeah, hat one was the worst. I stilll like it, but def the worst in the series.
#2 most certainly certainly sucks. #3 is passable but that may only be by comparison to the first two.
Heh-heh -- that's the fun of these types of topics; "Say Anything" was on my list in the recent Underrated Movie thread.
(And I was correct, of course)
wink:(And I was correct, of course) :realmad:
This is going to be a long list if we're counting factual inaccuracies :twitcy:
For me, its mostly books turned into movies.
Da Vinci code was horrific. Angels and Demons was even worse. Both did a terrible job of conveying the stories Dan Brown wrote.
Also, the Lincoln Lawyer was horribly done after a great book.
Da Vinci code was horrific. Angels and Demons was even worse. Both did a terrible job of conveying the stories Dan Brown wrote.
Also, the Lincoln Lawyer was horribly done after a great book.
Agree. This is the one and only movie I enjoy Christian Bale in because he is playing a total d-bag (which is exactly what he is in real life.) He is the worst choice to play Bruce Wayne since Val Kilmer.
The two Dan Brown movies were just awful. Especially Angels and Demons. I think the thing about books to movies is that they have to leave so much stuff out, otherwise every one would be 3 hours long. It could also be that Tom Hanks, while a great actor, is a terrible Robert Langdon...
To be fair, when you're dealing with a great author like Dan Brown, it's hard to get it just right.
I'm just saying, there's so much nuance and detail, how are you supposed to get that all on the screen.
You are right. There is a lot going on in the books, and there is no way to get it all in there.
Lord of the Rings, even though the movies were all 2+ hours, had the same problem.
Come on. I'm not going to lie and say I didn't enjoy the books. But if I was able to polish off Angels & Demons in one shift manning the front desk at the local pool, it's not an unfilmable work of great literature. It's a pretty simplistic beach-reading thriller.
That's why Stephen King books make terrible movies. There is just too much going on to compress it to 90-120 minutes. The best movies based on Stephen King stories were adapted from short stories.
IMO there is a lot of little things that make the book fun, not trying to say that they are genius literature, but you can't put that kind of stuff into movies. It happens with a lot of books, not just these.
The Hobbit trilogy will go the other way, there will be WAY too much "filler" from the book to make 3 movies, that they will seem bloated. Which is exactly what they will be.
Yea, but that book is like 90% plot, and a pretty straightforward one at that. You don't need a bunch of background for the story to work.
I read the Da Vinci Code and saw the movie, and from what I remember it seemed like the movie was a step by step re-telling of everything that happened in the book. More so than about any movie adaptation I've seen. There may have been one stage of the treasure hunt that was left out but it seemed like most everything was there. I've only read the book once though.
But I will agree that Tom Hanks was not a good Robert Langdon.
But I will agree that Tom Hanks was not a good Robert Langdon.
