MovieChat Forums > Beautiful Creatures (2013) Discussion > Great movie if you haven't read the book

Great movie if you haven't read the book

posted 11 years ago by THEWeepingWidow
46 replies | jump to latest

I didn't expect much from this adaption but when they left out so many key parts that I really looked forward to and that just made the whole movie depressing to see. I don't understand why you would ruin such a great story and I'm sure other fans feel the same but the worst part was the ending... Omg! Look at the movie and you'll know what I mean.

But it wasn't all bad. The acting was great and I totally fell in love with the Ethan he portrayed and his awkwardness.
I loved the mix of darkness and humor throughout the movie but sometimes I wished they had went by the book because it's a great book and made it a bit more serious.

But it's definitely worth seeing and please think about the people that worked with this movie before you call it Twilight...

[–] mountaindewslave 11 years ago

I don't doubt the book is great too, but you're right, I never read it and I absolutely adored this film.

If i go crazy will you still call me Superman?

[–] TheSecretLegacy 11 years ago

There, fixed the title of your thread for you. I mean I'm sorry but whether it stays true to the book does NOT in any way determine the quality of the film or if its any good. Even fans of the book should go see the movie and be unbiased and judge it separately from the book. This is what people should do even if it was completely true to the book.

Whether a movie was good or bad, it's quality isn't determined by how true it stayed to the book. So stupid how people have gotten into the mindset of bad adaptation= bad movie, because that's the wrong way if thinking.

[–] tjhester 11 years ago

The movie is good, if you don't go in expecting it to be like the books. I understand that movie adaptions have to change/alter things, but they just completly rewrote more than a few plotlines. Twilight wasn't the greatest, but they made sure they stuck as close to the source material as possible.

[–] all-things-otherworldly 11 years ago

Twilight's source material was a girl moping after a boy and smelling good, and then he stalks her, and there's a couple other things. Not that difficult to stick close to.

"There was a time I didn't know you." "That was in the third grade!"

[–] THEWeepingWidow 11 years ago

I agree with you a 100% and I'm sorry if you thought I didn't like the movie. In fact I loved that they made it different from other teen movies today and I've seen lots of bad adaptions so I wasn't expecting very much from the beginning but when half of the exciting parts of the book doesn't even make it to the screen you start to wonder what happened. Perhaps those parts looked awful and if that's the case I think they did the right thing because that would have destroyed the whole movie for me.

But again I loved this movie as a movie and I think it's great that the actors were picked for their acting skills and not their looks.

[–] allancup 11 years ago

If we are to judge this movie separately from the book they should have not used the book title

[–] saramacg09 11 years ago

Why not? It's still an adaptation of the book, it's just a loose adaptation.

[–] fluffset 7 years ago

so why bother adapt the book, they can just say, "inspired by". Its not an adaptation anymore when they change a whole lot of thing.

THRILLER IS MY FOOD!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 11 years ago

I read and hated the first book. Could I still enjoy the movie or is it hopeless?

[–] TheSecretLegacy 11 years ago

Um, well, the movie is a lot different from the book...so, no one can really say if you'd like the movie better. If you need any help clearing up whether you'll like the movie, you'll need to be more specific about why you didn't like the book.

[–] Seymour-Pats 11 years ago

I suspect if you hated the book you won't like the movie. There are quite a few changes, but the basic premise is the same and the pacing is similar. I think it's extremely unlikely for someone who hates a book to love the movie, unless the movie completely ignores the book and basically just uses the title and character names.

For example, The Last of the Mohicans is one of my all-time favorite movies but I HATED the book. But the movie has nothing in common with the book, aside from that there are two sisters and a guy named Nathaniel. As another example, the original Twilight screenplay turned Bella into a track star and had them on the run from the FBI (no joke). That's a movie I could have gotten into - and I hated the Twilight book. Again, that's pretty much just using the book's title and the characters' names.

I don't think this movie strayed so far from the book that people who didn't like the book would enjoy it. But I think it strayed far enough so that some book fans didn't like it.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] swansonben 11 years ago

loved both. even the authors didn't mind the changes. I read an article about it. they said they loved the movie and didn't mind the changes,

[–] RASlater 11 years ago

I'd say it was better than "Jack and Jill" with Adam Sandler playing a guy and his sister. And I think it was a little better than Centipede 2.

[–] lucero65 11 years ago

I saw the movie on Thursday and I liked it. I also got the Kindle version of the book yesterday. (And I'm much older than the target audience). It was cheap and maybe I'll look it.

[–] dmlumb 11 years ago

This is how I felt about Hunger Games.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StefaniePeytonfan13 11 years ago

I read the book but I still loved the movie too.

[–] boudica-of-inceni 11 years ago

Even though I have not seen the film yet, I believe you. I have read the books including the last one. It is hard to really make a movie from a book because when it is shown on the screen, a lot of significant things are left on the editing room floor due to time constraints. There have been some great adaptations such as "The Green Mile" but it was not a long story. When it comes out on DVD, it might be worth a watch if it is an extended with deleted scenes or directors cut.

I don't blame them for trying. Sometimes I think a miniseries type thing would be best for a novel like this because they add things that help you to understand why this or that happens, who the people are and what they do and why they are significant, why or what happened to make a particular person this way or that way, etc.

I guess they do the best they can. But, I think an extended version will come out that will make more sense.

[–] monstermayhem32 11 years ago

I will admit that I loved the love story between Ethan and Leah. I also admit that Ridley was rather hilarious.

[–] BuckinghamAlice 11 years ago

I was surprised by how much the movie deviated from the book. I go into any movie adaptation expecting differences, but this was so different I thought that "adaptation" was the wrong word for it... I described it as being loosely based on the book.

That being said, I didn't hate it. I rather enjoyed it, actually. There were quite a few things from the book that I would have liked to see in the film, and there were a few times when I found myself taken out of the movie by wtf moments, but I still liked a lot about it. I liked the acting and thought it was pretty well cast, and the movie was beautifully shot. While I do prefer the book, I think it's possible to like the film as well, even if you did read and enjoy the book.

And when the movie was ending and people were filing out of the theater, I heard several people saying how good the film was and how much they enjoyed it, and I can't remember the last time I was at a movie when that happened.

Daria: We are now entering Hell. Please keep your hands and elbows inside the car.
JBOP 2635467