Very articulate and well put, Adolsecent. I can't believe you thought you were a clumsy writer. You are far from it.
I too agree about trying to condense a book into a film, but I am a big film buff, so I try to appreciate each one and let them stand alone, most times. Of course. one always does compare and evaluate according to the original written word. I too thought that "Gregory Peck visually personifies Harper Lee's memorable Atticus Finch". He was amazing in the role - one of his all time greats.
I was wondering if you liked the "Grapes of Wrath". I thought that a good adaptation - such a totally sad film though and so hopeless at the end. I felt Fonda did a good job in the role and the other characters, as well.
I have never seen this older version of "A Tale of Two Cities", so I can't honestly judge. I do think the newer Masterpiece Theater Presentation version was great and happened to see it a few night ago, for about the 4th time. It really sticks to the original plot and the characters fit their roles well. Also, it is a miniseries, so the director and screen writer took the time to include more details than could have been achieved in a mere two to three hour movie.
I saw the "Count of Monte Cristo" - the newer version you speak of. I happen to like Jim Caveizal very much, but I don't have a clear recollection of that film now. I think it was a little deviant of the original plot and a little Holywood. There have been several discussions on this thread about this particular film. I saw the Richard Chamberlain film years back. I think that one was longer and closer to the original story, but terribly sad. That also has been mentioned earlier on the thread - maybe a few pages back. You might want to check out the former comments on both.


"It's so mysterious, the land of tears."
Reply With Quote
10/10

