currently reading? v2.0 (3 Viewers)

[P. Littbarski]

I didn't think that was very good. An airport novel with literary pretensions, mutton dressed up as lamb. The bizarre coincidences were too much for me, and the silly discussions between characters about The Plight Of The Peasant. Also the Charles Dickens cameos were just fucking dumb.
Some nice writing, some morsels of goodness but no insight, no vision. Joe O'Connor has a long way to go before he's the writer he wants to be. His essay about how the Boomtown Rats saved his life, and his short story about the girl marrying the alien, are still the only genuinely good works of his that I've read

it was the first book I read by him and I have to say I disagree. I'm not saying it was a masterpiece, but I really enjoyed it. It's an easy read, the story has pace, and I never found myself getting bored as the narrative shifted from the past in Ireland to the time spent on journey across the atlantic itself. I thought the jail/escape scence was one of the best in the book. I really liked the Newspaper articles, excerpts from other books etc. in between the chapters as it added another dimension to the story and enhanced the feel for the era the book was set in.

I must confess though I read it after having spent the previous months reading nothing but biographies, fact based books and shtuff like that so it was a breath of fictional fresh air...all in all i found it great bubblegum for the brain.

 

[Catwoman]

American Psycho would be one of my favourite books ever
film is disappointing though

I love American Psycho too, definitely one of my faves. The film was very disappointing. The best and funniest bits of the book are what's going on in Bateman's head. That doesn't transfer too well on screen.

 

[Alan Remorse]

also, you cant show a man biting chunks out of a woman's feek in a hollywood movie.

 

[broken arm]

John Gray : Straw Dogs

not the movie, this http://www.granta.com/shop/product?product_id=979

 

[Catwoman]

also, you cant show a man biting chunks out of a woman's feek in a hollywood movie.

Actually one of my friends was disappointed that it wasn't as gory as the book. He thought that was the whole point .

 

[LMD64]

currently, reading Digital Fortress by Dan Brown. got for 3.50 in Luton yesterday, going pretty good, but a big negative point is the fact that the blurb ends with...

"Betrayed on all sides, she finds herself fighting not only for her country, but for her life, and in the end, for the life of the man she loves."

which just sounds soo Mills and Boon it's embarassing

 

[Catwoman]

currently, reading Digital Fortress by Dan Brown. got for 3.50 in Luton yesterday

My condolences for you being in Luton. I used to live there.

 

[Super Dexta]

I love American Psycho too, definitely one of my faves. The film was very disappointing. The best and funniest bits of the book are what's going on in Bateman's head. That doesn't transfer too well on screen.

I haven't read enough of the book to compare them, but I did think that the best bits of the film were the bits like "I had a spasm of panic as I realised his apartment was more expensive than mine" and the obvious distress caused to him by high-quality business cards. I thought the humour was conveyed pretty well.

 

[Catwoman]

I haven't read enough of the book to compare them, but I did think that the best bits of the film were the bits like "I had a spasm of panic as I realised his apartment was more expensive than mine" and the obvious distress caused to him by high-quality business cards. I thought the humour was conveyed pretty well.

Yeah, that's pretty much the humour I'm on about. There's a lot more in the book than in the film. It's hard going to start with (the book I mean) what with all the constant designer-name checking. You can pretty much skim through those bits. I thought Christian Bale did an excellent job as Bateman. I don' think the director was up to the job mind. She used to go out with Tony Blair y'know.

 

[Alan Remorse]

yeah, those were my favourite parts of it, and there are way more in the book than in the movie. Anybody see the sequel? its got william shatner....

 

[jane]

Yeah, that's pretty much the humour I'm on about. There's a lot more in the book than in the film. It's hard going to start with (the book I mean) what with all the constant designer-name checking. You can pretty much skim through those bits. I thought Christian Bale did an excellent job as Bateman. I don' think the director was up to the job mind. She used to go out with Tony Blair y'know.

Oooh, that's a good piece of trivia there.

I thought the book was great, but I agree about the movie. I couldn't understand how the descriptions could translate to the screen, and they didn't. As a book, it was a very funny satire of the young yuppie generation, it was less about the satire, and more about the psychology of Bateman, which, though interesting, was not what I liked best about the book.

Although a lot of books are difficult to convey as dramatic performance, that one was particularly difficult.

I didn't see Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, for pretty much the same reason. I heard it was supposed to be really good, but I like the pictures I formed in my own imagination about what went on.

It's funny, when I was a kid (I don't think I need to explain that I was, am now, and always will be a nerd), I tried to make a play out of a book I liked. It took ages, and I found it really difficult to translate description into action and dialogue. Even though it was a pretty simple kids' book, and I was only nine, it started me on that cynical road when it comes to film adaptations of books. I never finished it, by the way. I think I got a new Barbie or something.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

problem with film adaptations of books is that they leave out too much

e.g. Trainspotting

good fillm - 90 mins long / left out loads

better option - if the film was 4 hours long and left out fuckall

 

[nlgbbbblth]

problem with film adaptations of books is that they leave out too much

e.g. Trainspotting

good fillm - 90 mins long / left out loads

better option - if the film was 4 hours long and left out fuckall

before you disagree and say "that wouldn't work"

has it ever been done?

if not - how do you know?

 

[Super Dexta]

I wouldn't disagree with the 4 hour thing per se. I just don't think that films have to be completely faithful to the books they're based on. "Based on" being the operative bit here. If you think of 'Trainspotting' as a film, say, "inspired by" or "as an adaptation" of the book, rather than literally the film of the book, does that raise it in your estimation any? I don't think media as different as the film and the book should be measured using the same criteria.

 

[Ed]

The theatre version of trainspotting was much more faithful to the book, anyone else go see it at the olympia? 'twas very good.

 

[egg_]

I thought Trainspotting the film was better than the book
Saw the film before I read the book, mind

 

[Catwoman]

I thought Trainspotting the film was better than the book
Saw the film before I read the book, mind

I think they're both excellent. You couldn't possibly squeeze every character's story into one film, and I don't think a 4 hour film about junkies would appeal to that many. Oh I dunno though...

The only film I thought was better than the book was The Godfather. Thank God Coppola didn't put everything that was in the book in that film...

 

[sarah]

I actually tried to read one of those godfather books, got about a chapter into
it and had to give up, unbelievably badly written!
Same goes for the book Deliverance was based on, really bad trashy
womens magazine style writing. With plastic characters.

 

[Catwoman]

I actually tried to read one of those godfather books, got about a chapter into
it and had to give up, unbelievably badly written!
Same goes for the book Deliverance was based on, really bad trashy
womens magazine style writing. With plastic characters.

Only a chapter into the Godfather? Lucky you, you missed the plot about Sonny's mistress's huge fanny that needed operating on.

 

[Latex lizzie]

..whoa.