When I read "the Cider House Rules" I was blown away by how great the book was. I watched the movie for that reason alone... and was so bitterly disapointed! Why does Hollywood take great books and turn them into second rate movies? They did the same thing with "The Chamber".
share[deleted]
I disagree. I loved The Cider House Rules, despite John Irving's irritating need to separate two sentences with a semi-colon and filling the book with what I felt were extraneous characters, but that's beside the point.
I, too, watched the movie because the book was so good, and I was a little surprised at the differences considering Irving also wrote the screenplay, yet I thought it worked very well onscreen. I thought the casting was great, with Tobey Maguire being the perfect Homer Wells. Anyway, I liked this movie a lot, and I don't think you should expect movies to be as good as the books, except possibly with Fight Club.
What's wrong with semicolons? They're perfectly acceptable for connecting two related sentences. Proper punctuation is nice; I find it to be a break from what appears on message boards. :p
shareThere's nothing wrong with them. I just think that in practically every single sentence they become a little excessive.
shareBwahaha...
Anyway, I think the book is just too long for a movie...but the book is awesome, and the movie is just ok...
Steph
I thought it was a great film. If people expect every movie based on a book to be exactly like the book then everyone will be disappointed.
Just except the movie for what it is, not what it's based on. If you do that I think you'll really enjoy this movie.
Is it just me, or has use of the word "pretentious" gone up 150% in the last 5 years?
I saw a documentary about the making of the movie and John Irving said that he had to leave out many details because the movie would have been too long. It makes sense. For instance, if you've read the book, the character of evil Melony (who was Homer's first sexual encounter at the orphanage, and then obsessively hunts him down after he leaves) would have been impossible to add to the story in the movie. John Irving had to simplify the screenplay and I think he did a great modification.
shareI have to say that I was disappointed in this film as well. I probably wouldn't have been if I hadn't read the book 600 times, but since I knew the story, it was a disappointment to see how much was changed from the novel to the big screen.
While I appreciate the need to cut out a lot of the story in order to make it fit into a 2 hour film, so much of the essence of the story and the characters was lost. For example, Candy and Homer's relationship in the movie comes across as far more sinister and selfish than it was in the book, but without telling the background story of Homer's warped relationship with Melony and the close friendship shared by Candy, Homer, and Wally the summer before he ships out (not to mention Angel), their love story becomes something else entirely. In fact, the character of Wally didn't figure into the movie very much at all, other than to serve as an obstacle to Homer and Candy being able to continue their relationship, but he was much more than that in the novel.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!!
I actually saw the film before I read the book and I was very disappointed in whatg had been a highly recommended film, and this was from someone coming fresh to the plot. I found it far too sickly sweet for my liking, which was due mostly due to the awful music score which was far too sentimental. However, I did think the film improved in the last half hour or so, where it seemed to grow up and finally face the harsh realities of life.
I have now started reading the book and am immensely impressed by it, there is a bewildering sense of hunmour unavailable to find in the movie and the characters are more interesting. I am looking forward to reading the rest of it.
Regarding the semicolon discussion before, it's funny that Kurt Vonnegut, a close friend of Irving's, encouraged his students to never use semicolons.
Last Film(s) Seen - The Painted Veil - 8.7/10 [IMDb: 7.7]
Did I miss something? Was Homer sexual assaulted in the movie?
I cannot tolorate reading or watching sexual abuse - is it detailed in the book?
[deleted]
Some of the greatest movies of all time are adaptations, tho.
"Gone With the Wind"
"West Side Story"
"Giant"
"Lawrence of Arabia"
"The Graduate"
"Midnight Cowboy"
"Lord of the Rings"
"MASH"
The list goes on.
I loved this film. I liked the treatment of the material better than in the book. John Irving did an excellent job adapting his own book. The main difference I noticed between the book and the film is that in the book, Homer was portrayed as a kind of simpleton. I thought this was one of the rare instances where the film was better than the book.
shareCurrently reading the book (again) and looking forward to watching the movie (again).
Of course, a 2-hour movie never can capture all the character development or detail that a 300+ page (masterpiece) novel can.
I think they're both great. The movie, imho, is hardly disappointing, let alone bitterly. The casting of Dr. Larch and Homer Wells couldn't have been better.
Also, I hardly think Homer is portrayed as much of a simpleton in the book. In the book, there are several instances where Larch comments on how quickly Homer picks up on obstetrics. Candy's father also finds Homer to be a quick study on all things mechanical. He also has the highest capacity for humanity, beyond Larch, the nurses or Candy. In this way he's a bit Forrest Gumpish. But he's no simpleton.
One of my 10 favorite books. One of my 50 favorite films. Top 10% in either media.