Chabon would be rolling in his grave (if he were dead, or if this adaptation doesn't kill him). Yet another example of a great book that had its plot and characters butchered, completely mis-cast, and in general poorly executed.
WHO'S WITH ME????
chabon would be rolling in his grave? and he's still alive, man. you're not saying anything worth attention, yet democracy has it's way of letting boring, uneducated people write their opinions wherever they like. as of the movie, it's not a masterpiece, but it's a fair way to adapt the book.
wow, your post sucked
doctormd - give me a break. read my post, I KNOW chabon is alive, it was a JOKE. Your braindead response only serves to support your assertion that "democracy has it's way of letting boring, uneducated people write their opinions wherever they like."
You're a douche Doctormd, You need to dismount from that massive horse you're sitting on.
shareIt was like a bad remix of Garden State with some homosexuality thrown in. Garbajjjjjjjjjjj
shareHey! What if someone hasn't read the book? And, anyway, which book you literary police talk about? The one you read, the one I read, or the book the author wanted to put out?
This is a movie, not a book. If it's good, it is so on its own merit. If not, it's not the books fault, it's the (bad) storyteller's fault. So, please, get real (or make your own *beep* i n g m o v i e). Comprende?
Sheesh!
Wait a minute, there is more than one version of the book? Maybe that explains why this movie turned out the way it did. Thurber read the other version that exists.
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" Obi-Wan
I'm with the original poster on this one. I get it that books and film are two different forms of media. I get it that the details in a book can NOT be in the movie. I'm generally one of those people who doesn't get pissed because the book is better, because all I want is for the "spirit" of the movie to be true to the book.
But holy *beep* The Mysteries of Pittsburgh the movie was just terrible. Just an awful AWFUL movie.
How the hell do you completely REMOVE a main character from the book? Combining Cleveland and Arthur Lecomte into the movie-Cleveland was a terrible move. It made the movie-Cleveland neither the "evil incarnate" of the book, nor was he the sweet and slightly misguided Arthur Lecomte. He was a terrible mixture of the two. Phlox's character was used completely wrong, though they did portray her neuroses quite nicely. Jane's character was basically a brand-new fabrication with none of book-Jane's charm. And they guy who played Art, was just awful. Way too monotone and mild-mannered. And did anyone ever think Nick Nolte could act?
I just watched this film tonight. I didn't know it was adapted from a book until the credits rolled. I wish I could disagree with the OP but I can't, this was a very bad film. The dialogue was strange, Foster's acting was stiff, and basically it dragged on and on with some pretty music between the scenes. Me no likey
Life is tough. Its tougher if you're stupid
Hi. I'm from the Philosophy Police.Ixnay on the Star Wars quote unless you're under 12 years old. Or at least admit almost all of the dialogue from intelligent creatures in sci-fi was copped from philosophers such as Kierkegaard or Nietzsche. You know like the way Christians try to do it from Buddha et al.
shareI'm with you! This movie is really bad...
share