stimpy_tr

After searching for the greatest books of all time, I encountered this book ranking in top ten in multiple lists. In one of them it ranks number one where Dostoevsky ranks only 15, while in some others there is no Dostoevsky at all. I wondered how good it could be. And I was not wrong. It is the most overrated book I have ever read. The story is meaningless, scattered and aimless. The author most probably made up disjointed stories inspired from his own life and then combined them to make a book. I was bored reading it. The representation of places are unrealistic. Characters are all shallow, undeveloped and unrelatable. With all these downsides how good can a film adaptation be even if there is Leonardo DiCaprio in it? For this film, the problem is not about acting or directing but about the book it is based on.

There are also some issues with the filmmaking. They strangely blended Jazz music with techno and pop. Moreover, the film involves excessive usage of CGI leading to an unattractive photography.

As for comparison with previous film adaptations, this one is slightly better than the 1949 version because the latter involves the most plot modifications. For me, 2013 version is the second good adaptation. The best one is the 1974 version which is almost perfectly loyal to the book.

This is the remake of a French classic. As I have seen the original movie La Cage aux Folles (1978), I can compare the two movies. The most obvious deviation is the acting. The cast is much better in the original movie. To compare one by one, Ugo Tognazzi is much better than Robin Williams, Michel Serrault is much better than Nathan Lane, Michel Galabru is better than Gene Hackman but a different text is written for the latter and he plays that pretty well. A lot of effort is spent on the settings and costumes, but the script is modified in several places. Especially, the modifications in the last parts were completely unnecessary and dissapointing. It offers some comedy but could have been much better.

The 1990 adaptation of Lord of the Flies has a rewritten screenplay that is not so loyal to the book and includes some updated content. It deviates from the book in many places; such that there is a glowstick, no parachutist but a surviving captain. There are also helicopters and children calling each other "colonel". Some violent scenes are depicted unlike the 1963 adaptation. Unfortunately, that was also disappointing.

I don't understand why anybody would want to modify the script of a film that is based on a famous book. All in all, the 1990 version is watchable but fails to meet my expectations. I hope they make another one that is totally loyal to the book.