This is just an appeal to everybody that saw the movie but hasn't read the book. The book is about a million times better than the movie. I looked forward to the movie for months, even though I was not exactly thrilled with the choice of Matt Damon to play John Grady, only to be crushed with disappointment. I just don't want people to ever think the book is as bad as the movie, because the book is amazing.
sharedamn... i have to read the book for english next year and i was planning on just seeing the movie. guess thats a bad plan
share[deleted]
Thanks for that. I just saw the movie and enjoyed it, so now I will read the book.
shareRead the book after seeing the movie and must say this was a succesful attempt.
Thought Matt Damon did well. Had no problem with Penelope Cruz either. Lucas Black was exceptional - he always is.
Have not read the two sequels having been advised against them by someone I respect. Am rethinking that.
if you liked the movie you'll like the book...the book is WAY better than the movie...if you like this McCarthy book read his other ones, they're amazing! i highly recommend child of god and blood meridian, i've read them both and liked them more than all the pretty horses. i'm also looking forward to reading suttree (supposedly his best work) and his newest no country for old men. they're sure to please, he's an amazing author and the movie did not do the book justice (and the book doesn't do mccarthy justice)
shareCould someone explain to me why the book was so good? I read this and The Road and couldn't believe they were from the same author. The Road made me keep turning pages and caused me to lose sleep because it was so good. When I read All the Pretty Horses, it felt like the book was dragging on and on.
Analog players in a digital world
I loved both books. In both cases, I just got lost in McCarthy's lush, poetic language. And I don't know what to tell you: All the Pretty Horses didn't drag on at all for me. Great characters. Humor, And plot tension almost all the way with the romance, the violence and struggle for survival in the jail, and then the daring retaking of the horses and fleeing back to Texas.
share*beep* books.
shareGo to the Internet Book Data base to talk about novels.
*beep* *beep*
Yeah, I like the movie but felt somewhat disappointed. Some of characters act really blank. However, I thought the storyline/ plot is interesting so i will buy book soon from Half Price Books store of course.
share
Go work at Waffle House if you insist on being illiterate.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/
I agree. This cinematic adaptation of a McCarthy classic was an abomination.
shareIt just goes to show you (or shows to go you), opinions are like, what was it again? I loved the book and everything about it. I felt almost as strongly about the film. I'd love to see the "Director's Cut," but loved the theatrical version anyway. Both the book and the film will always be very dear to my heart. Judge for yourselves, people.
share[deleted]
The first mccarthy novel I read was this one. Saw the film well after. The next of his books that I read was the road, and then blood meridian. There are others since (no country for old men, child of god, outer dark), but blood meridian /instantly/ cemented itself as one of the greatest novels I have ever read, alongside les miserables, michael crichton's historical novels, and robert a. Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress*.
*I /NEVER/ use caps when typing. Anything capped is an auto-thing that android does. Even the bible doesn't get that honor... in other words, read that book, or forever be a vagrant on the sidewalk of life!
"Cinema was made for fantasy, rather than normal types of stories." - Ray Harryhausen
[deleted]
I was apprehensive about the film, as well. Even though I'd seen this movie earlier, before reading the book, I didn't remember a lot about it. I've just rewatched it and share your opinion of it. The book, like all McCarthy's, is amazing. It both breaks your heart and lifts you up with its poetic narrative.
But at least, in the film, they kept most of McCarthy's fantastically real dialogue. I winced when they added some -- so unnecessary! -- but was grateful for what we got.
On the whole, the film just doesn't have any heart. I never felt John Grady's love and yearning for Alejandra. Nor did I feel his pain and shame over the prison killing or about Blevins, or Rawlins' pain over Blevins, as you do reading the book. I like both Matt Damon and Henry Thomas and think the casting is not the problem...though some of the acting may be, particularly from Damon, who has since improved his acting chops. Thomas is always believable, I think.
A pretty film, and maybe Billy Bob did the best job he could -- especially considering the film was so drastically cut -- but the feeling is just not there. Unlike The Road, which portrays the book as well as it could have been done, in my opinion. A lot of that goes to Mortensen's portrayal and that amazing child who played the boy, I think.
I first viewed this film in the theater upon its release. I saw it in the company of my father-in-law, a fellow lover of the cinema. Upon leaving the theater, we spoke to one another almost simultaneously. He said, "I hated it," just as I said "I loved it!" Neither of us had read the book, or any book by McCarthy at the time. As a result of seeing the film I soon read All the Pretty Horses, and followed with The Crossing and Cities of the Plain. I've since read most of McCarthy's novels. I still love this film. I would love to see the Director's version but that appears unlikely. Anyway, our responses to any film are just that...our own. Consequently I don't try to tell anyone to see or not see a film. It's also why I avoid reading what critics say until after I've seen a film. Vive la difference.
share