TMR continued movie
i agreed that matt damon was the best ripley, but i haven't seen ripley's game. i think they should make a movie that continues right after where the talented mr. ripley ended (when he killed peter).
shareActually they should ignore the Damon-Minghella version, remake TMR faithfully to the book, and recasting the title role with an actor more suited to the role.
It's problematic to adapt the second book in the series as a film when the first movie didn't stay true to the first book. (See the Bourne series for reference on that. They had to make up a whole new plot for Supremacy since the first movie ignored much that was in Identity.) Why bother adapting a book to the screen if you're not going to base the movie on the book? Doesn't make much sense.
I kind of agree, but there have been other movies that have totally different plots than the book, like The princess diaries 2. I'm not saying that's the best movie, (i've seen it) but it did work...and I didn't read the PD books either, but someone told me about them.
I didn't read the bourne series, but I probably will some day.
I understand that there are changes to be made when adapting a book to film... from one medium to another. However, if the change are so drastic (primary character motivations, etc.), then change the title and character names. That was done correctly with so so Simon Birch... very freely adapted from the beautiful novel A Prayer For Owen Meany.
I don't understand why Minghella (a prime offender in this area) insists on taking well-written and structured novels and changing them so much when he brings them to the screen. (I mean, if he dislikes the book so much why does he make a movie of it? Why not let someone who appreciates the novel adapt it instead?) He should be honest about it and rip off the basic story, change names, etc. That way those who liked the novel won't be mislead into thinking that the movie is a faithful adaptation.
To be fair, there have been some movie adaptations in which the problems of the literary version were corrected for the film version. For instance, the ending to A Simple Plan is better onscreen than in the book. Interestingly enough, the author of the book also wrote the screenplay.
I totally agree.
I watched "Shining Through" first, then read the novel by Susan Isaacs. Her heroine does not go to Nazi Germany before page 300 (out of 400 pages), the movie director however came to the same conclusion as I did and put more weight on her trip to Nazi Germany which resulted in a much better movie than the novel is.
I wish Isaacs' book would be twice as long and the trip to war town Europe more than just the mere 100 pages in the novel!
I thought Minghella's 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' was superior to the book (with the exception of the characterisation of Ripley, which was vastly more interesting in Highsmith's novel). It was suspenseful, byzantine, and clever. The book felt like a bit of a missed opportunity in terms of Hitchcockian terror. Besides, the film wasn't that unfaithful. It just added things. A sequel could very easily be made. He gets rid of Kingsley's body, and seven years later, Ripley is now vastly more sociopathic. The plot of 'Ripley Under Ground' can begin.
share