MovieChat Forums > Enduring Love (2004) Discussion > Worst book-film adaption ever?

Worst book-film adaption ever?

posted 18 years ago by goatlover
32 replies | jump to latest

Certainly the worst that I have ever seen, I rather thought it completely missed the point of the book; there didn't seem to be any discussion of the secular vs. the spiritual, science vs. religion etc., and there was absolutely no suggestion that it was Joe who was mad and that Jed might not be entirely real. I would have though that surely most directors would see that as a prime opportunity to at least make themselves look clever?
I did think that it was well-acted (Daniel Craig, Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans are, in my opinion three actors that are always good) but the film itself seemed to be little more than a poor, vaguely psychological thriller: man is involved in tragic accident and as a result feels bad and is stalked by another man involved. Anything more? I also massively disliked the fact that they cut out significant parts of the book that, personally, I considered to be very important.
I'd be interested to know, does anyone who has read the book think that this was a successful adaption?

[–] English_Cookie 17 years ago

Frankly I think the book and the film are awful. The film is worse than the book and is a very poor adaptation.

I have to read it for my English A level and I just can't get into it.

zzing is my speciality

[–] franlovessushi 17 years ago

i am doin this book also for my AS levels and, in my opinion, the book is absolutely brilliant. the film is just pants cos it missed out tons of important scenes, like the hippy gun scen, and the assassination attempt in the restaurant. also, why the hell did they change clarissa's name? what was wrong with clarissa? and why didnt they put the love scenes in to show how close joe and "claire" are, then it will be a bigger contrast when their relationship deteriorates. and also, why were their jobs changed? i jus don't understahnd why the film couldn't be more faithful to the book. and the gay kiss scene was just unneccessary. but, for all that the film lacks, the acting was brilliant, as daniel craig is always on fine form, but i just felt totally let down as a fan of the book. they're right, the bokk realy is always better than the film.

outside every thin girl is a fat man dying to get in...

[–] cozmogrl1-1 14 years ago

THANK YOU! I agree with everything you said. I mean, I can see changing some things for time's sake, or "artistic interpretation" but to change her NAME? Their JOBS? The nasty KISS? Her getting STABBED? Dumb. The whole reason Jed was there in the first place was to hurt or kill himself in front of Joe. He was completely deranged. Clarissa (sorry, claire) *cough* didnt have anything to DO that scene except to get Joe to come to the house. Argh.

[–] ashley_bashley_crashley 17 years ago

yes indeed film was hopeless.

i too am doing the book for A level - i am writing cw on it as we speak.

just wanted to ask -

does anyone remember if joe made balloon sketches etc in the book... i know he does in the film, but i just cant remember if it is in the book too!!

would really appreciate some help!
xxxxxxxxx

[–] jaimebien 17 years ago

I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any sketches. I remember being vaguely surprised when I say those sketches in the trailer (haven't seen the movie yet).

JustJosh.org

[–] travisbickle89 17 years ago

I watched the film last night, it was incredibly boring.

[–] KTswaz 17 years ago

Actually it's one of the better ones I've seen. Scarlett and Queen of the Damnned has to be by far the worst.

[–] zicofirol 17 years ago

very boring and pointless and it felt it had enough missing, they never let claire and joe's relationship develop or show us why it falls apart, so you just dont care about that relationship and just want to see what jed does, then we eventualy find out jed is just crazy and that is, I couldnt care less if any of the two died in teh stabbings, terrible movie...

[–] FeelGoodHit-OfTheSummer 17 years ago

and there was absolutely no suggestion that it was Joe who was mad and that Jed might not be entirely real. I would have though that surely most directors would see that as a prime opportunity to at least make themselves look clever?

GOOD! How many films do we need where it 'might be in his head'? It doesnt make a director look clever anymore, it shows lack of imagination because its been used so many times!

Welcome,fool.You have come of your own free will to the appointed place.The game's over.

[–] 4megh 17 years ago

I thought the book would have translated perfectly into a screenplay and couldn't understand why they changed so many critical details.

The book is okay, but McEwan basically took a case study of that particular mental illness and turned it into a novel. If you read the notes at the end you see that he has lifted many details right from the case study. It's an interesting look into the disorder but also a bit sensationalized.

I'm one of those few non-fans of McEwan, but the book was well done wheras I found the movie unlikable. They had a perfect outline and just went way off course from the very beginning--Joe does NOT kneel down to "pray" with Jed. That's an important starting point. It seemed like the movie wanted you to think maybe Joe has some ambivilent feelings and might even be attracted to Jed which is a very different take than the book.

[–] amudad 17 years ago

I gotta say that i'm a McEwan hater (his books make fall asleep every 5 pages) and i completely adore this movie.

[–] pan_troglodyte 17 years ago

I can't say I've read too many Ian McEwan books, but I absolutely loved Enduring Love. One of the most powerful and most disturbing psychological thrillers I've seen in a long time.

[–] leafygranule 17 years ago

"The book is okay, but McEwan basically took a case study of that particular mental illness and turned it into a novel. If you read the notes at the end you see that he has lifted many details right from the case study. It's an interesting look into the disorder but also a bit sensationalized."

Actually, the case study isn't real - it was fabricated by McEwan solely for the purpose of the novel's appendix.

http://www.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/21/mcewan/

[–] TjcCBB 17 years ago

I agree with the philosophy of your point but what the film lacked asthetically as well as narratively, was a bit of bum action. Was Jed a man who was a bit batty or just a bit of a batty man? Discuss.

[–] pan_troglodyte 17 years ago

Was Jed a man who was a bit batty or just a bit of a batty man?

Lol

[–] rmouts 17 years ago

Saw it when it came out in 2004 and to this day I think it's one of the worst I've seen. Boring, yes, just plodding along to the bloody end. Didn't know there was a book, but it's easy to understand how it was better than this cinema drek. Here's a typical scene, as I remember it: (Opens with husband and wife in kitchen) Wife pours husband coffee, asks "Would you like cream?" Eight seconds go by, husband responds, "Yes."

And that, my friends, was how this one lurched along....

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

Not in the least; the worst adaptation was "The Bible". Pure piffle.

What is the meaning of meaning?

[–] stylishkaty 17 years ago

Da Vinci Code?

[–] cronoyuha-1 17 years ago

Well I haven't read the book, but I do know there was discussion of religion vs. science

[–] manicmeuk 17 years ago

rah im so miffed at this film. mostly because anyone who hasnt read the book will now think they know it all and decide not to read it!

this movie BUTCHERED the book. doesnt matter if u like the book or not (personally i think its a very intelligent and crafty book that has so much depth you can read it ten times and still notice some new angle)this film is an INSULT to the book and should never have been allowed to be called by its title.

rah.

honestly im so miffed i am quivering in my bedsocks. saw it again after thinking hey maybe i missed things and it cant have been so off.

WRONG

geez. if i hear one more person use enduring love as a reference to artsy film making that drips intellectual depth i will personally shove the book down their throat.

it was not an intensely moving deep psychological thriller, it was an unimaginative RIP OFF of a brilliant story. godsakes i could take a flipping fantastic book, completely mess it up and still have an oki story if the book had the content in the first place.

its like making spaghetti with the posh sauce. doesnt take any skill, but if the sauce is good u got yourself one impressive meal and everyone pats you on the back and says "oh god this is delicious you masterful chef you!"

sorry to rave just got back from work so am tired and grumpy.

READ THE BOOK!!!!!!! so fed up with movies fecking up books. obviously talented scriptwriters are non exsistant now, either that or they are writing the marvelous literature that the stupid soddin directors decide to pee all over.

[–] RainingCatsAndBlogs 16 years ago

Worst book-film adaption ever?

Less Than Zero wins that award easily

[–] hppg 16 years ago

I disagree, I found both book and film to be good and I didn't think the adaptation came across too badly. Now I think about it more I can see some negatives, but I definitely enjoyed both.