BOOK WAS SUPER, MOVIE WAS OK
I loved the book, dident think much of the movie.... still very exciteing!!!
Sacrifices with the details have to be made when doing a film based on a book. On a related note, does anyone know of a film that is better than or at least as good as the original novel?
All that comes to mind is 'Gone With the Wind' and perhaps 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.
Didn't anyone of you notice how close ''V for Vendetta'' came to the atmospere of ''Fatherland'' ?
Not that surprising that V was similar to Fatherland.
Alan Moore (author of V graphic novel) is a big fan of Phillip K Dick so quite likely had Fatherland in the back of his head when he first sat down to write V.
And of course, the Wash brothers are as bad, if not worse, than Tarratino in ripping off (sorry, paying homage to) old movies.
Alan Moore (author of V graphic novel) is a big fan of Phillip K Dick so quite likely had Fatherland in the back of his head when he first sat down to write V.I know this post is over three years old, but I have to point out that Philip K. Dick didn't write Fatherland. Perhaps you're thinking of The Man In The High Castle. share
On a related note, does anyone know of a film that is better than or at least as good as the original novel?
The Ninth Gate. Better than the original novel by Arturo Perez-Reverte.
share
fight club was equally good as the book and had the better ending...
share"The Godfather" might qualify. Awesome book--Movie twice as good.
shareThe Shining might be better as a movie than as a novel.
shareJaws...film that was FAR AND AWAY better than the original novel!
shareMovies that are better than the books (or at least as good) IMHO
The Poseidon Adventure and the Ox-Bow Incident.
I agree about "Jaws"
Movie was much better!
I read "Fatherland" and I think both the book and the movie are good, but in different ways.
I read this book (Fatherland) when it first came out; moved a couple of times since and lost my copy. I forgot the specifics of the end in the book, but I seem to remember March in the woods, where he found a brick (presumably from a demolished and erased-from-history concentration camp)? That wasn't what happened in the movie...
One thing I am glad the movie changed from the book is that it left out the totally unnecessary sex scenes between March and "Charlie". I think they did it two or three times in the book and each time was written identically and very annoyingly. So bad, in fact, that I remember it for that specific reason. Other than that, Fatherland is a great read and seeing it on film captured the scenery very closely to what I imagined when reading it, although Charlie seemed way more annoying in the movie than in the book.
Charlie seemed annoying in the book as well. She was a young woman who had a Freudian fetish for middle-aged men. The book says that as a university student she had sex with her professor who was apparently a father figure for her because he was about as old as her father.
Maybe Charlie's character was a bit loose because the sexual attitudes were starting to change in America in the 1960's.
March was attracted to her because he was kind of a rebel within the SS.
Absolutely.... here, here!
share