It makes no sense to judge the movie or its director by the plot since the movie was a book first. I think it was pretty true to the original story, and that's all you can really ask for with a remake like this.
shareExactly, what a bunch of losers.
shareUm, no. I think the movie is great and I wish I could stand with you to defend the movie but your argument just doesn't make sense. It's like saying Doom is a good movie, but you have to play the games first. No, the movie just has to stand on its own.
My opinion is that the movie is fine, the public isn't. Anymore.
I like the movie but that's a nonsense argument, all films need to be able to stand on their own or else whats the point in making them. Film need to be able to deviate from the source material to fit the medium.
shareThere's a difference between judging the film and judging the plot. People are giving this movie low ratings based on the story, which is ridiculous. I have yet to read one negative review that discusses specific elements of the filmmaking, rather than just bashing the story itself.
shareAgain I liked the film but the filmmakers chose to stick to the plot of book so it's totally legitimate to criticise it. If you don't like a films plot you're going to have a hard time getting into the movie no matter how competently made the rest of the film is.
shareMy biggest problem was the fact that there was zero sense of danger. We're told that the bigger giants are dangerous to our world and yet we never once see them pose a threat to us. Fleshlumpeater goes after Sophie in giant country and they toss BFG around so I get that they are mean giants but the whole point of the final act is to get rid of them and for that to work we needed to be given a genuine reason and we weren't.
Marlo Stanfield is NOT a man for this town - Omar Little
My biggest problem was the fact that there was zero sense of danger. We're told that the bigger giants are dangerous to our world and yet we never once see them pose a threat to us. Fleshlumpeater goes after Sophie in giant country and they toss BFG around so I get that they are mean giants but the whole point of the final act is to get rid of them and for that to work we needed to be given a genuine reason and we weren't.Did you miss/forget the fact that they ate human beans? share
No. I didn't miss being told that they do. But I didn't see them doing any eating therefore I felt no danger from them. They weren't menacing or anything, they were just goofs.
I felt no sense of danger at all as a viewer of the film. The film doesnt capture the magic of the novel. It was terrible vision, which is surprising because thats what spielberg specializes in- but he failed here. It happens.
I mean there was no conflict really here in this film.
The book is vastly different and shows the conflict much more than the film is able to do.
Fair enough. The animated film from the 80s was much more scary and actually showed Fleshlumpeater on the verge of eating a child (which he presumably did).
shareI couldn't agree more. From what I remember of the book, the movie was a pretty faithful adaptation. If you didn't like the plot, hate on Roald Dahl's original book, not the movie.
shareI'm giving this low ratings because it's a bad movie.
The CGI was really bad, the film's pacing was terrible, the climax was a dud.
A film isn't just bad because of technical film *beep* like editing, shots, angles, and acting. A film can be bad because they adapted the story bad.
It was a bad adaptation. Even if you don't consider the book, the story is still bad.
The story in the book is *beep* excellent dude. But the film story which conceptualizes the book story is bad. It's bad vision.
There was no sense of emotional connection with Sophie. No wonder. No curiosity. I had absolutely no empathy for any character in this movie. The score, bad. The rushed pacing, bad.
The film didn't capture the magic of the novel.
It happens. Let it go. It was a bad film.
What you're doing is you're trying to say the story in the book is exactly the same as the story in the film. It's not. These are two different delivery systems, two different mediums with which to tell the story- each was distinct and different. As media ecology teaches us, media connects us all different. The medium is the message. And here, the film was just bad. The book isn't bad, it's great. But they are not one and the same. And that's your primary problem.
Thedudeabides is right: zero sense of real peril from the giants caused the BFG and Sophie's 'heroism' at defeating them to fall flat. At least in the Cosgrove Hall adaptation we were shown multiple instances where the giants weren't just mean, but terrifyingly dangerous. Simply telling the audience that the giants are man-eating monsters isn't enough - we have to see it (not necessarily in a gory way, but certainly by direct implication).
shareThis was not be a remake but an adaption. And as an adaption you can not bring it word by word to the screen. What may work in the book can look stupid in a movie.
I sadly did not read the book yet (but now I will), but as someone who reads a lot I can say that maybe the biggest problem here was that they brought every single word that was writen to the screen. By that I don´t mean the twisted words with which the gigants speak (that was fun), but the "bully scene" and "breakfast with queen" could have been cut out, and still the movie would make sense. I would even say the movie would be much better if they did it.
The best part of the movie was easily Mark Rylance's performance as BFG. The mispronunciation of words never failed to raise a smile and I actually thought his CGI was pretty good as well. Shame about Spielberg's need for saccharine sweetness trumping his well proven ability to direct tense, exciting scenes. This should have been fantastic but sadly, it seems, Spielberg and co. seemed to miss the fact that Roald Dahl was actually quite dark for a children's author which is precisely why he is so loved.
Marlo Stanfield is NOT a man for this town - Omar Little
I have just seen the movie and I agree with the post above. It was great visually and true to the original story (which I read many times in my childhood) and Mark Rylance did an excellent job as the BFG. But I missed the dark/scary part; it was all a little to tame, to sweet and the danger of the other giants was not brought forward enough. In the book the giants are really terrifiying and I was very scared of them (as a kid ;) ). The movie did not managed to do that which is a huge loss. But I still give it a 6/10, it was not a bad movie imho.
Movie and books are two different things bro ;)
shareAbsolutely, and, as a movie, the lack of suspense killed it for me. If this was a completely original work and not an adaptation I would still have the same complaint.
Marlo Stanfield is NOT a man for this town - Omar Little
read the book about 10 times in the 80s as a child, had the audio book, watched the 1989 animated film numerous times.....and loved every adaptation, even recently when i re-watched the cartoon as an adult.
I hated this movie. The BFG was the only part that was even remotely respecting the legacy of Dahl's original.
Shame on you Spielberg.....shame on you.
1) Actually a movie review is ONLY supposed to judge the movie, NOT the source material. That's why it's called a MOVIE review and not a book review.
2) I never even heard of the book. But I loved the movie. Having not read the book I have no idea if Spielberg was faithful to it or not. So I had to enjoy the movie on its own merits. I only wish it had come out when my kids were little.
Sonny: Is there a country you'd like to go to?
Sal: Wyoming.
Side note: I have read the book.
I think a movie should stand on its own two feet. There should be no pre-requisite for watching a movie such as reading a book, unless of course the movie is a sequel to another movie.
The reviews are for the film not the book idiot.
share:sigh: once again, I have to explain what I mean. What my post was saying was reviewing the film based on its PLOT makes no sense since many of the complaints are based on scenes that were already in the book. A film, in my opinion, should be as close as possible to the book. The negative reviews I read seemed to be critiquing plot points, not film or cinematography aspects. But it's really sad that I can't express my opinion without you resorting to name-calling. Referring to me as an "idiot" is more indicative of your character than mine.
shareI don't think a film "should be as close as possible to the book" at all. They're two different mediums and an adaptation does not need to be boxed in to the constraints of a novel. Further to this, a movie is not a just a filmed novel, it's a completely separate art form.
shareBut if it's a classic, fans of the book might be disappointed if certain areas are left out or completely rewritten.
shareA lot of things were re-written or cut from the Lord of the Rings trilogy but in the end the movies were masterpieces. Same goes for the Harry Potter franchise. It's all a matter of how you use the source material, not what you use. The books and the movies will always be different things and they should both be able to stand on their own.
shareOut of curiosity Imshortok06, have you seen and read The Shining? If so, what are your thoughts?
Marlo Stanfield is NOT a man for this town - Omar Little