Slightly off-topic: Movies to go with - or against - the books
Talk Folio Society Devotees
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1BorisG
I've just finished watching The Secret of Kells, which was one of the most inspired non-CGI animation movies I've seen in years. It connected very well with the Irish Folk and Fairy tales, and made me want to re-read the book (it also made me wish for a facsimile of the Book of Kells, but the price is exorbitant. And besides, the book looks more magical in the movie than in real life :P).
In the production process the books usually inspire the movies, but as a reader/watcher, the opposite can also be true (Master and Commander is a recent example for me, while Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow was my first, and very successful, encounter with Jane Austen.)
The opposite transition can be tough for me sometimes :) I hated Stardust as it had basically nothing to do with the book and I hated every single change they did (those of my friends who watched the film without reading the book found it good fun at least); I also liked the LoTR movies less and less the more Peter Jackson deviated from the text and turned towards Hollywood-ness (the Fellowship was the highlight for me, the Return of the King an overdone sentimental mess).
And some books seem to be unfilmable - Master and Margarita comes to mind; there were several attempts, including a 10-episode mini series with a really good cast, but most were left uncompleted (spurring rumors about a dark curse lying on anyone who tries to film it), and the rest were nowhere near the spirit of the book.
Do you have any good stories about books-to-movies-and-back transitions? (The Secret of Kells is highly recommended, by the way.)
In the production process the books usually inspire the movies, but as a reader/watcher, the opposite can also be true (Master and Commander is a recent example for me, while Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow was my first, and very successful, encounter with Jane Austen.)
The opposite transition can be tough for me sometimes :) I hated Stardust as it had basically nothing to do with the book and I hated every single change they did (those of my friends who watched the film without reading the book found it good fun at least); I also liked the LoTR movies less and less the more Peter Jackson deviated from the text and turned towards Hollywood-ness (the Fellowship was the highlight for me, the Return of the King an overdone sentimental mess).
And some books seem to be unfilmable - Master and Margarita comes to mind; there were several attempts, including a 10-episode mini series with a really good cast, but most were left uncompleted (spurring rumors about a dark curse lying on anyone who tries to film it), and the rest were nowhere near the spirit of the book.
Do you have any good stories about books-to-movies-and-back transitions? (The Secret of Kells is highly recommended, by the way.)
2Django6924
Hollywood, it seems, does very well by the pulpier kind of fiction--Double Indemnity as a movie is much superior to Cain's novel. Howard Hawks version of To Have and Have Not is the most satisfying Hemingway adaptation ever made, and one of the most purely entertaining films to boot, but it jettisons about 85% of the novel (to good effect--even Hemingway thought it was one of his worst efforts).
Gone With the Wind is equally satisfying as novel and film, though again much of the novel had to be streamlined in the interests of length; both seem indispensable. On a higher intellectual plane, Robert Bresson's film of Diary of a Country Priest is about perfect, and Kurosawa's "High and Low" takes Ed McBain's King's Ransom, a standard 87th precinct procedural and turns it into one of cinema's masterpieces.
A few interesting adaptations that never were made, despite attempts to do so over the decades, are Werfel's Forty Days of Musa Dagh, Malraux's Man's Fate, and Graves' I, Claudius. True, the latter finally was made into a celebrated TV series, but the short documentary "The Epic that Never Was" offers fascinating glimpses of the Alexander Korda film starring Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon, and Emlyn Williams, and directed by the great Josef von Sternberg, that had to be canceled in mid-production--ostensibly due to an accident involving Oberon, but probably because egos were at odds and the budget was ballooning. The other two movies were never made due to political pressures being brought on the filmmakers who attempted to bring them to the screen.
Gone With the Wind is equally satisfying as novel and film, though again much of the novel had to be streamlined in the interests of length; both seem indispensable. On a higher intellectual plane, Robert Bresson's film of Diary of a Country Priest is about perfect, and Kurosawa's "High and Low" takes Ed McBain's King's Ransom, a standard 87th precinct procedural and turns it into one of cinema's masterpieces.
A few interesting adaptations that never were made, despite attempts to do so over the decades, are Werfel's Forty Days of Musa Dagh, Malraux's Man's Fate, and Graves' I, Claudius. True, the latter finally was made into a celebrated TV series, but the short documentary "The Epic that Never Was" offers fascinating glimpses of the Alexander Korda film starring Charles Laughton, Merle Oberon, and Emlyn Williams, and directed by the great Josef von Sternberg, that had to be canceled in mid-production--ostensibly due to an accident involving Oberon, but probably because egos were at odds and the budget was ballooning. The other two movies were never made due to political pressures being brought on the filmmakers who attempted to bring them to the screen.
3justjim
Despite the absence of huge chunks of the text, the Jackson movies of The Lord of the Rings were superb. I'm really looking forward to The Hobbit although I can't (yet) see why it needs to be two movies.
4leonb
All of Kubrick's novel-based films are masterpieces, because he reinvents rather than slavishly adapts. If I had to pick one, then A Clockwork Orange, but they're all revelations.
6boldface
If you enjoyed J. L. Carr's A Month in the Country (FS, 1998, but reprint still available in the Summer sale @ £12.00), it's worth seeking out Pat O'Connor's film of the same name. It follows the book very closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Month_in_the_Country_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Month_in_the_Country_(film)
7Texaco
There have been several excellent screen adaptations of Somerset Maugham including: Of Human Bondage; The Letter; The Painted Veil; The Razor's Edge; Being Julia, that one with Helen Mirren whose name I cannot remember and probably others whose titles currently escape me.
8DeusExLibrus
Doesn't the 1990 version stick an adult crew member on the island with them or something? Seems like that would defeat the whole point of Golding's novel.
11vat1sem
>4 leonb: I re-saw A Clockwork Orange and read Anthony Burgess's book at roughly the same time a few years ago.
The movie left the book for dead in terms of achieving its objective. As a satire on the cynicism of all types of public figures, no matter how idealistic, it is spot on. I think the book suffered from Burgess not being sure what he was trying to achieve.
The movie left the book for dead in terms of achieving its objective. As a satire on the cynicism of all types of public figures, no matter how idealistic, it is spot on. I think the book suffered from Burgess not being sure what he was trying to achieve.
12CurrerBell
One book that I read years and years ago (and in the past couple years bought in FS on eBay and do have to get around to re-reading) is The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, one of my all-time favorite movies. I happen to worship Jane Fonda but nevertheless agree that Maggie Smith deserved the Oscar even more than J-Fo (who was nominated that year for "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" which I think is one of her greatest performances, and I really do have to get around some day to reading the novel by Horace McCoy). And as to the "Jean Brodie" movie, I think one of the biggest Oscar outrages is that Pam Franklin wasn't even nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Sandy (and bless that year's winner, Goldie Hawn, but Pam Franklin deserved an Oscar far more).
13Willoyd
>6 boldface: I would totally agree with you about A Month in the Country - one of my favourite books transposed to become one of my favourite films. I also rate The Hours, Sense and Sensibility and A Very Long Engagement really highly - all films which reflect the spirits of their respective books (all amongst my favourites) beautifully.
I think the secret is that they don't try to keep all the book in - you just can't do that with film without slowing everything down and overloading the comparatively brief time one has got to watch. All these films had writers and directors who understood the meaning of sticking to the spirit rather than to the letter.
Talking of the spirit of the book - I really enjoyed Master and Commander. Nothing like the book (it sort of merged two other titles together), but certainly caught the style of the Aubrey books for me. But one should never think one was seeing a film of the book!
I think the secret is that they don't try to keep all the book in - you just can't do that with film without slowing everything down and overloading the comparatively brief time one has got to watch. All these films had writers and directors who understood the meaning of sticking to the spirit rather than to the letter.
Talking of the spirit of the book - I really enjoyed Master and Commander. Nothing like the book (it sort of merged two other titles together), but certainly caught the style of the Aubrey books for me. But one should never think one was seeing a film of the book!
14Witchylady333
13- I agree whole heartedly with A Very Long Engagement it's an excellent book and an equally good film, you've reminded me that I lent that DVD out a while ago and I must ask for it back....
84 Charing Cross Road has a beautiful little adaptation with Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins which includes The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street. It captures the sentiment of the original perfectly which is a must read for any bibliophile, especially as both books take no more than an afternoon to read.
I also enjoyed the adaptation of The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery and very young Christian Slater. It would have been impossible to include all of Umberto Eco's intellectual ramblings, but film has its own charm with grossly exaggerated ugly features on the monks and they obviously had a fantastic location for filming.
Finally the adaptation of Like Water For Chocolate is very amusing, the book is fantastic and very surreal and the film manages to pull this off without looking too fake or unnatural. By contrast the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera failed miserably and completely bastardised the original book.
Awful adaptations include; all the Harry Potters, Northern Lights (as 'The Golden Compass'), Timeline, Inkheart, Chocolat, the list goes on and on...
84 Charing Cross Road has a beautiful little adaptation with Anne Bancroft and Anthony Hopkins which includes The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street. It captures the sentiment of the original perfectly which is a must read for any bibliophile, especially as both books take no more than an afternoon to read.
I also enjoyed the adaptation of The Name of the Rose with Sean Connery and very young Christian Slater. It would have been impossible to include all of Umberto Eco's intellectual ramblings, but film has its own charm with grossly exaggerated ugly features on the monks and they obviously had a fantastic location for filming.
Finally the adaptation of Like Water For Chocolate is very amusing, the book is fantastic and very surreal and the film manages to pull this off without looking too fake or unnatural. By contrast the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera failed miserably and completely bastardised the original book.
Awful adaptations include; all the Harry Potters, Northern Lights (as 'The Golden Compass'), Timeline, Inkheart, Chocolat, the list goes on and on...
15drasvola
The video BBC collection of Shakespearean works (in many cases like a filmed version of the stage setting) is in my view an excellent interpretation of the written text. Uncompromising and faithful.
16BorisG
>15 drasvola:
That sounds interesting+. Which plays would you particularly recommend?
>14 Witchylady333:
I've seen the movie without having read the book and enjoyed it a lot. Probably same scenario as with Stardust, just in reverse.
From the movie-to-book transitions, I'd also mention Fantastic Mr. Fox. I've first seen the movie, last winter, and then read the book, well, in a bookshop. :) I've found in the book all that was in the movie, but there were a lot of things in the movie that I enjoyed and which were Anderson's addition and absent in Dahl's original (particularly the inter-family interaction and the characterization of Mrs. Fox and Ash).
That sounds interesting+. Which plays would you particularly recommend?
>14 Witchylady333:
I've seen the movie without having read the book and enjoyed it a lot. Probably same scenario as with Stardust, just in reverse.
From the movie-to-book transitions, I'd also mention Fantastic Mr. Fox. I've first seen the movie, last winter, and then read the book, well, in a bookshop. :) I've found in the book all that was in the movie, but there were a lot of things in the movie that I enjoyed and which were Anderson's addition and absent in Dahl's original (particularly the inter-family interaction and the characterization of Mrs. Fox and Ash).
17elmaynard
My absolute favorite book turned movie (though in this case BBC mini series) is Pride and Prejudice (the version with Collin Firth and Jennifer Ehle). Also a big fan of To Kill a Mockingbird.
18Texaco
This http://www.amazon.com/Othello-Keeley-Hawes/dp/B00005YUND/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&... screen adaptation of Othello was briliiant brilliant brilliant!!!
And Eamoon Walker was delicious!!
And Eamoon Walker was delicious!!
19drasvola
> 16
The 37 videos are sold as a set, not individually. The set is frequently on sale at the online BBC shop and it's worth its price (whether full or reduced). I have enjoyed the historical plays, Macbeth, Othello, The Tempest and, very much indeed, King Lear.
The 37 videos are sold as a set, not individually. The set is frequently on sale at the online BBC shop and it's worth its price (whether full or reduced). I have enjoyed the historical plays, Macbeth, Othello, The Tempest and, very much indeed, King Lear.
20boldface
Another favourite of mine is Joseph Losey's The Go-Between and, of course, L. P. Hartley's novel.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067144/
I actually like it for the very reasons the reviewer on the above page dislikes it.
And while I'm on the subject of L. P. Hartley, what about a Folio edition of the Eustace and Hilda trilogy. There was a British tv adaptation (?BBC) in the ?1970s/80s.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067144/
I actually like it for the very reasons the reviewer on the above page dislikes it.
And while I'm on the subject of L. P. Hartley, what about a Folio edition of the Eustace and Hilda trilogy. There was a British tv adaptation (?BBC) in the ?1970s/80s.
21Willoyd
>14 Witchylady333: Witchylady
Yes, would definitely agree about 84 Charing Cross Road, and The Name of the Rose (don't know Like Water for Chocolate - must investigate). Also agree about the bad adaptations too, although I didn't think The Golden Compass was that bad. The first Harry Potter certainly fell into the trap of trying to include everything, and was just ponderous.
Yes, would definitely agree about 84 Charing Cross Road, and The Name of the Rose (don't know Like Water for Chocolate - must investigate). Also agree about the bad adaptations too, although I didn't think The Golden Compass was that bad. The first Harry Potter certainly fell into the trap of trying to include everything, and was just ponderous.
22coynedj
I'm glad someone mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird, one of the few cases where I've found a movie to be on par with the superb book it was based on. I also recently watched (with my daughter, who is trying to see some of the classic movies she has somehow missed) The Maltese Falcon, which not only has an excellent Folio presentation but has dialogue that follows the book very, very closely.
A very interesting one is the book Heart of Darkness, and the movie Apocalypse Now. Obviously very different in setting and story, but with enough similarities to make the pedigree clear. Other excellent adaptations are Black Hawk Down, The Leopard, and Cold Comfort Farm. The Haunting (adapted from Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House) qualifies both as an excellent adaptation and as a wretched one - the 1963 version for quality and the 1999 version for hilariously bad movie-making. At my house, we consider the latter version to be a comedy rather than a horror movie.
A very interesting one is the book Heart of Darkness, and the movie Apocalypse Now. Obviously very different in setting and story, but with enough similarities to make the pedigree clear. Other excellent adaptations are Black Hawk Down, The Leopard, and Cold Comfort Farm. The Haunting (adapted from Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House) qualifies both as an excellent adaptation and as a wretched one - the 1963 version for quality and the 1999 version for hilariously bad movie-making. At my house, we consider the latter version to be a comedy rather than a horror movie.
23vat1sem
> 22
I'm glad you reminded me of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. One of the greatest books in the canon and one great movie. In some ways, possibly the best adaptation of all precisely because it is not an adaptation.
In adopting only the themes of the book in a totally different context, Coppola demonstrated their universality and what the book says about the corrupting nature of absolute power.
I'm glad you reminded me of Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. One of the greatest books in the canon and one great movie. In some ways, possibly the best adaptation of all precisely because it is not an adaptation.
In adopting only the themes of the book in a totally different context, Coppola demonstrated their universality and what the book says about the corrupting nature of absolute power.
24StunnedTuna
I've come to the conclusion books and movies sharing the same title must tell a different story.
We own an inflatable Car's (the Pixar movie) 'kiddie pool' and I would suggest it has the same relationship to the movie as the novels of Tolkien have to the movies they engendered.
#23
I like what you are saying. I wonder what a 'kiddie pool' built to demonstrate the "corrupting nature of absolute power" would look like?
We own an inflatable Car's (the Pixar movie) 'kiddie pool' and I would suggest it has the same relationship to the movie as the novels of Tolkien have to the movies they engendered.
#23
I like what you are saying. I wonder what a 'kiddie pool' built to demonstrate the "corrupting nature of absolute power" would look like?
25P3p3_Pr4ts
Solaris both adaptations were good: each on its own terms...And two directors as Andréi Tarkovski and Steven Soderbergh!. some novels get all the luck
26vat1sem
>24 StunnedTuna:
For a start, it would have 'The horror! The horror' emblazoned around it.
Never too young for kiddies to learn a few of life's realities.
For a start, it would have 'The horror! The horror' emblazoned around it.
Never too young for kiddies to learn a few of life's realities.
27leonb
>25 P3p3_Pr4ts:
C'mon, you can't compare the two - Soderbergh's was the utterly unnecessary, utterly inevitable remake of a masterpiece!
C'mon, you can't compare the two - Soderbergh's was the utterly unnecessary, utterly inevitable remake of a masterpiece!
29P3p3_Pr4ts
>27 leonb: Hey, you cannot be always in the mood for difficulty and sublimity.. good acting, good direction. It worked at the emotional level..Delivered all the goods.. Some viewers might be even tempted to watch the first version. Fair enough
30spacmann
>17 elmaynard: I'll second that. During that time there was a surge in Jane Austen movies - P and P, Sense and Sensibility (Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet) and Emma. I think Persuasion may have snuck in there somewhere too. I wrote my senior paper on these interpretations. I think that the P and P with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle is the best, but critics say that they look too old. That aside, I still think it's probably one of the most faithful adaptations and perhaps captures the essence of the book.
As for Harry Potter, I think these would have to be TV mini-series in order to do them justice.
As for Harry Potter, I think these would have to be TV mini-series in order to do them justice.
31StunnedTuna
#26
Nice start. I'm having trouble making the piece work as a stand-alone. But I can imagine a delightful, innocent, little, plastic pool located on the grounds of a seminary. 'Kiddie Pool' scholars could argue if it was a statement for or against continued trust in the priesthood.
#30
I think the later Potter movies far surpass the books. My wife thinks this is because in order to distill the volumes down to movie size, someone has decided just what each book is about. She does not credit my suggestion that books 5-7 are actually performance art demonstrating the importance of good (well, any) editing.
Nice start. I'm having trouble making the piece work as a stand-alone. But I can imagine a delightful, innocent, little, plastic pool located on the grounds of a seminary. 'Kiddie Pool' scholars could argue if it was a statement for or against continued trust in the priesthood.
#30
I think the later Potter movies far surpass the books. My wife thinks this is because in order to distill the volumes down to movie size, someone has decided just what each book is about. She does not credit my suggestion that books 5-7 are actually performance art demonstrating the importance of good (well, any) editing.
32coynedj
>23 vat1sem:
Along the same lines:
Movie: Clueless
Book: Emma
Movie: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Book: The Odyssey
Along the same lines:
Movie: Clueless
Book: Emma
Movie: O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Book: The Odyssey
33featherwate
> 3
"..I can't (yet) see why it The Hobbit needs to be two movies"
To maximise the profits: two lots of first-run box office returns, two DVDs (four with the inevitable director's cut variations), two cinema re-releases to catch a new audience, twice the merchandising opportunity...
34boldface
And don't forget the book of the film (in 2 volumes, available separately) and the film scores double album.
36justjim
Well, yes, I knew all that! That all goes without saying. I hear tell that they're* making 'Humpty-Dumpty' as a trilogy soon.
*Not any specific 'they', just the usual anonymous, treacherous, guv'mint controlled 'they'. Probably a secret cabal called "Masters of Scion" or something.
*Not any specific 'they', just the usual anonymous, treacherous, guv'mint controlled 'they'. Probably a secret cabal called "Masters of Scion" or something.
37ceburaska
I admit to lack of knowledge, not having read Lem's original, but I understand he wasn't a great fan of Tarkovsky's effort. Personally I like the Soderbergh version on its own terms.
On the subject of Heart(s) of Darkness, I would highly recommend the documentary of that name by Eleanor Coppola. Fans of the film will find plenty to love. Fans of the book too, maybe.
I think the LotR adaption was as good as could ever be expected from film. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was far better than I hoped. And please, do you think it would have been better if Tom Bombardil and Sharky had been kept in? Really?
>33 featherwate: and I thought I was cynical. Speaking as an accountant, double the costs, but only 50% revenue guaranteed. if word of mouth is crap, who will watch part 2? (yes, I know, the same people as watched revenge of the sith, sigh. caveat emptor.)
>31 StunnedTuna: I admit upfront to an anti HP prejudice. Only read book one. utterly unmemorable. The films at least only take a couple of hours. Perfect for watching (and sleeping through) on planes. Any relationship between Rowling and literature is entirely coincidental. Although maybe the later books are better. They are certainly bigger, which doesn't fill me with hope.
Boris G - I'd obviously forgotten the Stardust novel, as I rather enjoyed the film. Must re read it if only to understand why it wasn't good. Is that nuts? :)
On the subject of Heart(s) of Darkness, I would highly recommend the documentary of that name by Eleanor Coppola. Fans of the film will find plenty to love. Fans of the book too, maybe.
I think the LotR adaption was as good as could ever be expected from film. No, it wasn't perfect, but it was far better than I hoped. And please, do you think it would have been better if Tom Bombardil and Sharky had been kept in? Really?
>33 featherwate: and I thought I was cynical. Speaking as an accountant, double the costs, but only 50% revenue guaranteed. if word of mouth is crap, who will watch part 2? (yes, I know, the same people as watched revenge of the sith, sigh. caveat emptor.)
>31 StunnedTuna: I admit upfront to an anti HP prejudice. Only read book one. utterly unmemorable. The films at least only take a couple of hours. Perfect for watching (and sleeping through) on planes. Any relationship between Rowling and literature is entirely coincidental. Although maybe the later books are better. They are certainly bigger, which doesn't fill me with hope.
Boris G - I'd obviously forgotten the Stardust novel, as I rather enjoyed the film. Must re read it if only to understand why it wasn't good. Is that nuts? :)
38P3p3_Pr4ts
>37 ceburaska: I've read the book Solaris. You can not say that the novel has been deformed. The same characters-plot. BUT images say much more that it is not in the text. Tarkovski a russian christian mystic- Lem a rationalist from Poland. They were on a collision course..about the point of f the story , methinks
Clueless-Enma . Absolutely!
Clueless-Enma . Absolutely!
39ceburaska
Pepe, you only make me more intrigued to read the book!
I've seen the Sacrifice, so may have an idea of your comment re Tarkovsky's mysticism.
Must order Solaris on amazon!
Unless anyone from Folio wants to start a sci fi series?
Now that I would pay LE money for.
I've seen the Sacrifice, so may have an idea of your comment re Tarkovsky's mysticism.
Must order Solaris on amazon!
Unless anyone from Folio wants to start a sci fi series?
Now that I would pay LE money for.
40petertemplar
My pet peeve is people who complain when a movie isn't "true" to the book. It's a movie, not a book reading on film.
"Romeo + Juliet" was "true" to the play which is what made it so awful.
As far as adaptations I've enjoyed...
Clueless
Beowulf
LA Confidential
EDIT: 3rd Harry Potter movie is the only one the holds up since it isn't overly concerned with cramming in every plot detail.
"Romeo + Juliet" was "true" to the play which is what made it so awful.
As far as adaptations I've enjoyed...
Clueless
Beowulf
LA Confidential
EDIT: 3rd Harry Potter movie is the only one the holds up since it isn't overly concerned with cramming in every plot detail.
41celtic
>40 petertemplar:
Good point!
After the book and before the movie there is a screenplay and that is what seems to determine the difference between success and failure. For me the greatest screenwriting team will always be Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder.
Also, some 'styles' of book seem more suitable to becoming good films than others. You mention LA Confidential (which I think is a tremendous movie) and that made me think of many American Crime/Detective novels that are also great films.
Good point!
After the book and before the movie there is a screenplay and that is what seems to determine the difference between success and failure. For me the greatest screenwriting team will always be Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder.
Also, some 'styles' of book seem more suitable to becoming good films than others. You mention LA Confidential (which I think is a tremendous movie) and that made me think of many American Crime/Detective novels that are also great films.
42Django6924
>40 petertemplar:, 41
Wilder and Brackett at their best improved tremendously their original material. "Double Indemnity," the movie, is a masterpiece--Cain's novel is disappointing in comparison.
Wilder and Brackett at their best improved tremendously their original material. "Double Indemnity," the movie, is a masterpiece--Cain's novel is disappointing in comparison.
43celtic
>42 Django6924:
I love that movie - don't know how many times I've watched it.
There seemed to be a 'golden period' of crime/noir films around the time of Double Indemnity. When they 'pop up' on some obscure movie channel they are invariably great to watch and the characterisation puts a lot of the movies of today to shame.
I've never actually read Cain's book!
I love that movie - don't know how many times I've watched it.
There seemed to be a 'golden period' of crime/noir films around the time of Double Indemnity. When they 'pop up' on some obscure movie channel they are invariably great to watch and the characterisation puts a lot of the movies of today to shame.
I've never actually read Cain's book!
44Django6924
>43 celtic:
It's very short--check it out and read it and be prepared to be bewildered by the differences between the two.
It's very short--check it out and read it and be prepared to be bewildered by the differences between the two.
