That was my problem with the movie, too. When someone starts narrating, you know you're in trouble.
A great novel badly portrayed.
Well, at least on that account the movie got it right because the book is full of the character's thoughts represented in italics. Movie-wise it was annoying because I think in part, the movie significantly diverged from the book.
That was my problem with the movie, too. When someone starts narrating, you know you're in trouble.
A great novel badly portrayed.
Well, at least on that account the movie got it right because the book is full of the character's thoughts represented in italics. Movie-wise it was annoying because I think in part, the movie significantly diverged from the book.
Often what works in a novel will not work well in film.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
That was my problem with the movie, too. When someone starts narrating, you know you're in trouble.
A great novel badly portrayed.
Well, at least on that account the movie got it right because the book is full of the character's thoughts represented in italics. Movie-wise it was annoying because I think in part, the movie significantly diverged from the book.
What works on paper seldom works on film. That's why they have screen writers. In this case, the screen writer or the director really let us down.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
bcspace wrote:I had heard they had 9 or 12 hours of film to squeeze down into three for the 1984. Have you seen the 2000 version with William Hurt as Duke Leto?
I saw it a few years back. It was okay, not consistently good. Some of the effects were pretty bad (Paul & Jessica running on the sand), but I liked it overall. I actually don't remember much about it, now that I think of it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.