I have a feeling that the book, which the movie was based on, is a lot better than this film. Was many of what made the book special lost in the adaptation? I am reminded of "Green Zone," the 2010 movie with Matt Damon about the life inside a US occupied zone within enemy lines. That book was an incredible account of what it was like to be a soldier living in those conditions. The movie was just a Bourne identity clone. Did the same thing happen here?
shareI haven't seen the film yet (thanks Paramount for pushing the UK release date back) but I have read the book and I found it complete bore-fest tbh.
==============================================
Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it is empirically not good.-Tina Fey
I read the book and loved it since I like satire and learning about the military, Islamic and Middle Eastern culture. The movie is just as satirical and informative but that's it.
She has like 5 boyfriends in the book and they get like a paragraph each and don't have anything to do with the plot. There's no Van der Poel or General characters. The relationship with that Middle Eastern politician is different in the book.
There's also like 2 or 3 Middle Eastern people who help her out professionally who she argues with sometimes and umpteen nameless military people who escort her and that's all they do.
I think she only goes to like 1 or 2 parties and it's only with military people and she's able to hold her liquor.
Her relationship with her boss is hardly mentioned in the book.
Those are the only differences I can think of off the top of my head.
It was a good book and good movie. But the movie wasn't anything like the book and more "Hollywoodized" for lack of a better word.
Just for clarification big_guy20, Afghans and Pakistanis are not Middle Eastern. :)
shareI went to see the movie because I loved the book - a black comic/tragic look at the hopelessness of Afghanistan - the movie bore almost no resemblance to the book and because it is a movie it can't deal with the soul destroying complexity of Pakistan and Afghanistan so a bit of a let down
shareAccording to President George W. Bush, both Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of the Greater Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Middle_East
shareI know, but he put Afghanistan and Pakistan in the extended definition of the Middle East just for political reasons. I'm Afghan myself and most of us don't identify as Middle Eastern. Most Pakistanis don't identify as Middle Eastern either.
shareI know but most Americans don't (or can't) differentiate among the various countries in that part of the world, and many of its residents don't either. Many of the nations, such as Iraq, Syria, or Jordan identify with an ethnic group and not their nationality. Pakistan and Bangladesh are Indians but they have a different religion. It's slightly confusing for everyone since it's become all political over there and things are still changing.
shareWhat do you identify yourselves as then?
I would think that Asian is hardly appropriate nor do I even for a moment think you'd wish to be classified as (sub continent) Indians. Muslims is far too general as they virtually live over the whole globe. Persians/Iranians will certainly not do and by now I am out of options and ideas.
So, please say what the most appropriate term would be.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I liked the film, it was very well put together and acted and filmed. I felt the weak point of the film IS the story itself. I mean literally nothing happens, and she dates that doofus. I have not read the book. And though I liked the film, it's not one of those I'd make an effort to read. ... unless someone having actually read the book swore the film was nothing like it.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
I just finished reading the book. As most others have noted, the book and the film are not very similar at all. Only in general lines.
But, the book is also almost as hilarious and wacky as the movie, but perhaps a little less fast-paced as Kim Barker does intersperse a lot of interesting observations, historical tidbits, predictions and faits-divers into the book. And a lot lot more happens in the book. She takes part in or observes historical occurrences, bombings and elections mostly and meets up with a number of important politicians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The movie introduces new characters, or maybe amalgamations of several of the book characters and does tend to make these characters out to be just that little bit more crazy and odd, than in the book.
But still, I would predict that if you saw the movie first then you will probably love the book as well. But if you'd read the book first, the movie might feel just a tad too Hollywood and streamlined and dramatized for compelling storytelling.
But whatever the small faults or large differences, I always had the mental image of Tina Fey as Kim Barker in mind while reading the book. She is the perfect fit for the movie, almost as if she isn't acting at all.
I am in a club that reads a book then sees the film adaptations.
I would give the book about 3.5 stars out of 5. It's a personal memoir that the author originally intended for herself (according to the acknowledgement section). I get the impression that a lot of people on Goodreads were expecting an in-depth history lesson. It is not that.
The memoir feels scattershot, less focused on presenting a coherent start to finish. It's her experiences from event to event. Occasionally Baker interjects some relevant local politics and history.
The film only covers her time in Afghanistan, ignores that she spent a substantial amount of time in Pakistan and met numerous famous politicians including Benazir Bhutto.
She only has two boyfriends not five - the guy at the start and an English guy. Her boyfriend was not captured but her friend and colleague Sean Langan was... months later.
Key differences:
* lots of name changed eg Sabbit to Sadiq, Farouq to Fahim
* added characters such as Margot Robbie, Billy Bob Thornton, the New Zealand guy - I think almost EVERYTHING they do is only in the movie
* no Pakistan in the film
* totally different ending (eg the visit the the marine, the entire kidnapping, blackmail and rescue)
* a lot less of people such as Farouq/Fahim and Sabbit/Sadiq
***** Contains Spoilers *****
A very good comment on the differences between the book and the movie in the above comment. Some thing I noticed were that movie Kim is in television while book Kim is a newspaper reporter.
Book Kim is actually based out of India for the early part of the book but goes to Afghanistan quite often. Book Kim's original boyfriend does not cheat on her while staying behind in the United States and actually comes out to India to be with her.
Book Kim does not have a security contractor.
The butt pinching is a Pakistan thing not an Afghan thing.
In the book only about a paragraph is spent on being Kabul cute and the higher rating system while the movie seemed to keep hitting on that.
The movie story is much tighter and more focused. As other people have said, events and persons are often combined while the book tends to be more free flowing like a river bending here and there, sometimes without a lot of focus. The second half of the book deals more with the interactions of Nawaz Sharif than the Farouq/Fahim relationship.
It should be noted that this somewhat misbegotten film stole its title from David Schafer's critically acclaimed 2014 debut novel. Not a copyright violation, of course, but still pretty sleazy, in my opinion.
shareYeah, either that or, you know 'What the ****' is a REALLY common phrase and 'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot' is a REALLY common substitute for it. You can't steal a common phrase from anyone. I could say that David Schafer stole the phrase from someone who had said it before him but I understand how ridiculous that would be.
==============================================
Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it is empirically not good.-Tina Fey
Oh, snap, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" is a REALLY common substitute for "WTF"... it's even a cliche now! What was I thinking?
share