Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I agree, Silence of the Lambs was an excellent translation and an amazing film. Books to film are so difficult to do that it's easier to pick out the good ones and assume everything else is bad. It's not even that the movie leaves out parts of the book -- that's just going to happen unless the original is less than 100 pages or so. It's that the movie hits the same tone as the book, has the same rhythm.

    I usually don't even bother seeing the movie if I've read the book because I know I'll be disappointed.

    • by ziggy (25) on 2002.05.02 8:06 (#7869) Journal
      I agree, Silence of the Lambs was an excellent translation and an amazing film.
      Yep. I think the only thing that was changed in the movie was that Hannibal's cell was on the other side of the hallway, and had iron bars instead of a plexiglass wall.

      Hannibal on the other hand was a different matter all together. I read it as soon as it came out, and I could never shake the sense that this book was explicitly written to not be made into a film. It was way too gory, even by hollywood standards. Nevertheless, I saw the film, much as I tried to avoid it. At least Ridley Scott got the flick, and he did some interesting things with the cinematography to convey a sense of horror in some places without actually being graphic about it.

      Then again, he also took massive liberties with the story line, but not as drastic as he did with Blade Runner.