MovieChat Forums > Asylum (2005) Discussion > Movie Vs. Book (Spoilers)

Movie Vs. Book (Spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by aliminx
2 replies | jump to latest

I just finished this book a few days ago, and I was super excited to find out that there was a movie made of it. So, of course, I watched it immediately.

And, I'm so, so disappointed.

So many things about the movie were so different than the book. Cleave was made so much more obvious, much earlier on, as a bad guy. It was so much better in the book, more vague, you had to read into it. On screen, it was just, "Oh, hey, he's a bad guy."

And, man, the movie was just terribly rushed. One of the best things about the book was this languorous, drawn out quality of it. It read slowly, the details of the surroundings and people so vivid, but drawn out so slowly. At least for me. There was time for Stella to fall for Edgar - I believed it. In the movie, though, it was just too quick and too forced. I knew there was supposed to be a spark between them, but I never felt it on screen. And, both of the actors in question were excellent with what they'd been given, but the pace and writing didn't allow for me to really get a feel for them - it was just shoved in my face.

And, I felt that Max was a way more sympathetic character - I found that I pretty much hated him all thoughout the movie.

And, don't get me started on the ending and Stella's suicide. As soon as I saw her climbing the stupid steps to the bell tower, I was rolling my eyes. And, the horribly fake SFX that showed her plummeting to her death. What was wrong with her just taking the pills, like she did in the book? They had to take a thoughtful scene and make it all flashy and bloody. I was so pissed off at the ending. The ending of the book showed that she had been collecting her pills, instead of taking them, which showed that she knew she was going to kill herself. It was premeditated. Instead, she throws herself off of a tower? Had I loved the rest of the movie, the ending still would have ruined it for me.

The movie was rushed. Why not take it to two hours and allow for some further character development? There were a few scenes between Cleave and Max that weren't in the book, vilifying Cleave...what was the need to turn him into an obvious villain so early in the movie? The book made me trust him, for at least half of the story, and part of the punch of the ending was...well, it was the ending. It was the cover pulled completely off of Cleave's real motives and feelings, and it was one of the best aspects of the book. Instead, we have scenes inserted into the movie (that weren't in the book) making Cleave a villain early on, and there was no surprise factor.

Ugh, I dunno. I didn't care for the movie much. Rushed, too changed, lacking the magic of the book and the way the book was written.

http://www.intervocative.com/dvdcollection.aspx/aliminxdvd
My DVD Collection

[–] Yinky 12 years ago

Oh, I so totally agree with you. I loved the pacing of the book. All that longing and boredom...her descent into madness. Brilliant, just brilliant.

I thought Natasha Richardson was the perfect choice for Stella, and she did a great job, BUT! The character, Stella's, recklessness wasn't portrayed at all. One of the things I LOVED about her affair with Edgar was that from the beginning they both got a perverse sort of thrill out of all the sneaking around. Every time they almost got caught, she would laugh her a** off. In the movie, every time they had their clandestine coupling, she always had this terrified, horrified look on her face. This has been done a MILLION times, ho hum. What made it interesting in the book was that kick she got out of it.

And yes, the rest of the characters were pretty cookie-cutter. Max was such an a-hole--who wouldn't cheat on him? In the novel he seemed pretty boring, but at the same time he was sympathetic and I got the feeling he did love her, but he loved psychiatry more. Still, I felt he didn't really deserve what Stella did to him. (And actually, Stella was a lot LESS of a sympathetic character in the book--I thought she was actually pretty selfish and quite bitchy.)

And what's with the whole thing with Charlie seeing Edgar leave the bedroom and escape? IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR????? Why did they change that? There was no reason to involve Charlie. It made no sense.

AND! In the book she really didn't know, concretely, that Edgar was at the hospital. Her anticipation of MAYBE seeing him, and then realizing that no, he was in fact NOT there (even tho he was) and she would never see him again (and the "wedding dress") crippled her to the point where she committed suicide. And the saving of the pills! That showed that she had been planning her suicide for a long time...that seeing Edgar was the ONLY thing that mattered. Oh, they ruined it, they absolutely RUINED IT.

AND! It seems like the movie turned out to be more about Creepy Dr. Cleave. I saw Cleave as a really damaged, unhinged individual by the end of the book, but very early in the movie I got creep-vibes from Cleave. And I don't think Cleave was a creep, I think he was just...sad. And I think he was probably more in love with Edgar than Stella. She was his consolation prize.

Though I'm glad they tried. Too bad they felt they had to mainstream it up...or something. Still, good performances and the sets were gorgeous. And that guy who played Edgar...I will always remember that first kiss with Stella. Whew! Hot stuff.

[–] poettesse 9 years ago

Wow, now I MUST read the book!!