A good book whose movie version's ruined by poor acting
930332
I give it a 3 as I liked the book.  You don't have to be religious to find the premise and the writing interesting.  I guess it's the consequence of a low budget: like the Atlas Shrugged movies, the acting's just too weak, and the special effects are lousy, too.

Do the story justice and  read the books.
4289314
Skip the book, watch the movie.
Everything that made Hidden Figures: The Movie so great, the antics of Dorothy, Katherine and Mary so entertaining to watch, is glaringly absent from these true stories.
Mary's boy crazy attitude, Dorothy "stealing" that library book, Katherine's breakdown, even Kevin Costner's character ripping down the colored bathroom sign-NOT IN HERE.
This was supposed to be "the phenomenal true story of the black female mathematicians at NASA." Instead, Margot Lee Shetterly gives us pages and pages of pre-NASA, 1950's history when NASA was the NACA. Trust me, there's nothing "phenomenal" about it.
The narration structure jumps around. Just as the author is about to dive into the three main characters' familiar movie plotlines, she veers off into other post WWII subjects and people. Katherine gets married and corrects the IMB calculations for Glenn's flight within just a few pages of each other. The colored bathroom sign simply disappeared. Dorothy learned FORTRAN and was able to advance her career. Mary never did battle with a white judge to become a female legacy in the engineering field. Maybe the fictional drama in the movie wasn't necessary but a few "tall tales" never hurt anyone and should've been included in this book.
Read these twenty-three dry and boring chapters at your own pace and risk. The subject matter is admirable but the stories the author was trying to promote are hardly inspiring.
1356684
The book was just better and i wished they had chosen better actors then those in the movie.  They skipped many parts and jumped around more, and that was not pleasing either.  Some of the best parts to help understand things i felt was truly missed in the movie.
1245471
I read Scarlet Pimpernel in high school and then again several years later.  I was sooo excited to see it made into a movie (and by A&E, who usually do a very good job of sticking to the book.)  Alright, I know one should not compare literature to cinema, but the book was superb- lacking nothing... romance, action, surprises... It was all there, all A&E had to do was bring it to the screen.  Well, the plot deviates so far from the book that it's painful.  All the amazing disguises and clever tricks that Pimpernel used to rescue the aristocrats... GONE!  And they were replaced by mediocrity.  And then Margurite's character was completely wrong!  I was upset to say the least.  It had the makings of a classic but failed terribly.  Even if I could have gotten past the fact that it wasn't anything like the book I still have to say that it wasn't a good movie.  I wasn't draw to the characters or their plight at all.  It had little feeling... very surfacy.  There is a much better 1982 version with Jane Seymore that is more faithful to the book.  Of course, it too has its flaws and gets lots of things mixed around... but Anthony Andrews does an excellent job as Pimpernel and the plot is not as wholly rewritten as it is in this newer version.  My advice to you is to read the book and then watch the 1982 version!  Skip this one!!!
4000518
I must fervently disagree with the many positive reviews shown here, for 2 major reasons.  First, the writers took great 'liberties' with the novel that detract, rather than enhance, the characters.  The best two examples involve the main characters of Mr. Rochester and Jane.  In the book, Rochester is a brooding, singular figure who is very much a victim of the cruel plotting and vices of others.  But in this film version, he is cruel and vindictive in and of himself.  Vengeful, plotting, and profane, you have little reason to see why Jane would ever attach herself to such a worthless creature.  Jane of course does fall in love with him, but because he is so repugnant, the viewer can hardly see any reason why.  Thus, Jane is herself reduced greatly from a woman who loves unconditionally - -as was shown in the book- -to a strange, misguided young woman racked with a codependent psyche.  The second area in which this version is inferior to the book, and the other far superior film versions (particularly the William Hurt version) is its brevity.  It is only 90 minutes long.  It leaves out so many of the small aspects that would normally give vitality and life to the characters.  Being that it is such a poor version, this is not necessarily all that bad, but willing to give the film chance after chance to redeem itself, it falls terribly short on nearly every measure.
423944
This movie is awful. The acting, the script, the way it was adapted from the book (scenes cut out, adapted). I listened to the audiobook and while I found the content kind of cheesy, the writing was decent and made it a worthwhile read for the commute home. The movie, however, included all of the terrible parts of the book and left out all of the promising aspects. Two stars because if you are really bored, it will at least help you kill time; if you are looking for something to equal the experience of the book this movie is not even palatable.
2707962
Quick Change is one of the few instances in which a movie is much better than the book. Without Bill Murray to breathe life into the character of Grimm, the protagonist becomes an uninteresting vehicle to hold the plot together. The book is humorless, but lacks intensity. I felt the story lacked tension, but that may be due to the fact that I watched (and liked) the movie first. The characters were in general more like generic petty criminals and dirty cops than the more memorable characters from the movie. The ending is different, unpleasant, and reminds me of the way the novel version of the Princess Bride ended (also poor in my opinion). Jay Cronley's introduction to the book, written post-movie, irritates as well. In short, I would not recommend this book to anyone who liked the movie, or really to anyone at all. There are far better "caper" books out there, and far better crime books in general, with Quick Change seemingly stuck between gritty and light-hearted with nothing to really characterize it at all. Two stars since the story is at least written coherently with no glaring holes.
2390778
I realize that I run against the grain when I call this book merely good.  I realize I run equally against the grain when I say I found the film version of it flawed.  But that's my frank opinion of both the book and the film.  Honi soit qui mal y pense -- and all that.

A modern-day odyssey by any other name should smell as sweet.  I don't fault the book for its storyline whatsoever.  I simply fault it because Mr. Frazier seems not to be able to make up his mind whether he wants to do his reader in with a feathered quill or with a bludgeon.  His language is at one extreme poetic; at the other, macho con brio.

And the film version of the story?  Jude Law's performance as Inman was beyond reproach.  Nicole Kidman's as Ada Monroe was adequate.  Rene Zellweger's as Ruby Thewes was a tad over-the-top.  (Charlie Hunnam's as Bosie, by the way, was terrifying; if they ever do a re-make of "Natural Born Killers," he's your man.)

What more can I say?  I'm a cynic, through and through.

RRB
04/16/11
Brooklyn, NY, USA
<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Trompe-l-oeil-or-The-In-and-Out-Of-Love/dp/B004OEKBIE/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Trompe-l'oeil (or, The In and Out. Of Love.)</a>
4367478
"Timeline" is a textbook example of how a Hollywood action director can butcher a fine sci-fi book by Michael Crichton, who by now must be used to such atrocities (e.g. "Congo").  Donner wastes no time on the book's careful buildup to the journey back through time to Hundred Years' War France, and introduction to the technology, "transcription errors," and the corporate Gates-clone who seeks to exploit time-travel as a high-tech business ("Lost World" redux).  Instead, we get a ticket to a rollercoaster, and a rickety one at that.
Despite the retread themes, Crichton's book delves into both medieval technology and society which is actually interesting - it sounds good, at any rate.  Needless to say, there was character development.
The film largly consists of a 90-minute chase scene through castles and forests, substituting English knights for dinosaurs.  The book emphasized the grace and speed of the better warriors; in "Timeline", they are just as clunky as the knights in Monty Python's "Holy Grail."  (About halfway through, I found myself wishing these guys would break out in a song while doing a witles stomp-dance on a table.)  And how the main quartet of characters maneuver skilfully through 14th century customs and language (a major theme in the book) is of course a complete mystery.
Look for this turkey on the budget rack.  Why is it so hard for Hollywood to make a decent medeival movie since John Boorman's "Excalibur"?
Harmless fun for kids but even they caught the film's many flaws.  Read the book instead (highly recommended).
4575894
While I loved the book enough to read it twice, the movie version was, as I feared from the previews and casting, was far weaker.  Sadly, most of the characters were too stiff, especially Ford and Kingsly.  I was not surprised to find that Ender's trainer (a British actor) had depth and personality that his American counterparts lacked.  Ender himself was decent and despite a storyline that was poorly paced (too fast and skipped so much development) he did a good job of holding it together.
4973456
I think that this book deserves a better movie than this. Recently on a road trip I rented this movie for the car ride. I am glad that I rented it and not bought it because I would probably never watch it again. Although they may be good actors, they still fall short of my expectations. They may do well in other movies but in this particular movie the rolls demand sincerity, seriousness, and emotion. I do not think that all the actors and actresses conformed to my standards. One main example would be with Alec Newman. Although he gives an outstanding performance (note the three stars not one) with his beautiful body and thoughtful speech, he could have given a better performance by talking slower and actually pretending to care. This would help it be more like the book because the book portrays Paul as being cautious and unsure of himself and his decisions and unlike the movie's sure, defiant, and self-centered Paul. Overall this was an okay movie and I hope that you enjoy it more than I did.
2039926
I hope Marion Zimmer Bradley made good coin for the rights to her amazing book, because the movie stinks. The costumes are great, the music is great, the acting is ok, but the adaptation is horrible. Morgaine is entirely changed in her focus and drive, which spoils the whole story. Your time and money would be much better spent on the book - It is amazing.
4082858
I know that a movie can never be as good as the book and if you've watched the movie, I would seriously suggest reading it. This movie felt more like someone skimming through the pages of a good book. Seriously, a good movie but to do it justice, it would have had to be at least 4 hours long. There are so many things left out. The Japanese were monsters and they did monstrous things to the gi's. They made the Nazis look like pacifists. This film is really sanitized. There was one point in the book where the Japanese made some GI's lick feces off their boots. That's just one of many, many acts of torture in the book. Don't take my word, just read it. Whether you're a liberal or not, you will actually be cheering Hiroshima being destroyed, (Which isn't shown in the film), since it's the only thing that changed the Japanese decision of killing all the GI's if they were to lose the war.
3991027
First, the very opening of the movie is fantastic - almost worth the discounted purchase price by itself.

The special effects are really quite good.

The acting ranges from good to poor but, is generally passable.

The story development and character interactions are OK if one hasn't read the book.

However, if one has read the book there is such a distortion of both characters and their interactions and loss of sophistication and nuance as to be quite maddening.

Ah, for what might have been!
147617
Wish the movie featured the misspelled "brakes." The breaks should be a major feature. Contrasted with the book, the woman was way too tough and self-sufficient. The star was not believable as a former very bad robber gun slinger. The pack horses were extremely important in the book but ignored in the movie. Would be interested in a modern-day remake. Google images really show how the breaks are necessary for showing the book's roost. As a hollywood historic offering, this movie is worthwhile but nothing compared to the book. Actually briefly shed a tear on finishing the book when the hero got the girl.
4337332
The special effects are good but the acting is terrible, except for the kids. Also as an adaptation of a book it is one of the poorest and sloppiest I have ever seen.
3634358
Disappointing rendering of a really good book. Left out subtleties.  I guess I should know by now, books are usually better than their movie versions.