Atonement
discussion
I HATED this movie is the book worth reading?
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
May 25, 2009 08:46PM
I hadn't realized it was a book or I would've read it first.
reply
|
flag
That depends. What did you hate about the movie? The movie follows the book pretty closely, but where the book is such an introspective book it's hard to translate to screen. I thought Keira Knightley rushed her lines, but James McAvoy did a good job. I do know people who liked the movie better. I liked the book, but it is very slow in the beginning. I'd wager a guess looking at the books you read, but your profile is set to private.
In my opinion, the book is worth reading. It is substantially different from the movie. The theme is deeper, less of a love story, more of a questioning of the right of an author and the innocence of childhood. Ian McEwan has such a way with words it would be a shame not to read the book because you hated something with Keira Knightley in it.
Not a book I liked, but I don't generally "like" McEwan, yet find he is worth "listening to" (I do mean reading, since I haven't used audio for his works) if I will just put up with him. I find myself thinking about what he has had to say years later.
I thought this was one of the best books I'd ever read - the movie was only so-so. The book has three parts, each from a different point of view, and I really enjoyed each section, but the middle one the most. It took me about 100 pages to get into the book, but after that I couldn't put it down. Why not give it a try?
I loved the novel, thought the movie was okay (not terrific but not terrible either). But the novel is one of the best novels I've read the last 5 years.
Maybe give it a try? :)
If I had seen the movie without first having read the book, I wouldn't have liked the movie either. I wouldn't have understood the movie.If you didn't like the book, either, I think that may be because it's hard to understand in places. I had to reread paragraphs.
If someone doesn't like Ian McEwan books, I think that may be because he doesn't usually say what he means right out in plain English. He says what he means, though. You may need to reread paragraphs.
Rereading McEwan's paragraphs is, I think, a pleasure. He writes beautiful sentences.
Beth wrote: "If someone doesn't like Ian McEwan books, I think that may be because he doesn't usually say what he means right out in plain English. He says what he means, though..."LOL! I'll have to test whether that perspective is helpful! I do agree with your last sentence quoted above. I suspect that is why I can hear his messages years later.
Yes, I understand they really ruined things in the film. The book is top-flight though. Brill, as the Britisher's say.
I really enjoyed the book - not so much the movie.
The book is brilliant. I didn't see the movie, as I very rarely see the movie if I've read the book (and I've likely read the book).
The movie was okay. I liked the score. There were some changes made and, but they were not really detrimental. Maybe it was more to do with scrunching everything into less than two hours.
I like to read a book before I see the movie. The film followed the book closely, and I enjoyed both, except for the sound of typewriter clacking away in the background. I found the end very moving.
Nope. I am sick and tired of McEwan. The guy`s got serious suicidal/homicidal tendencies.
Although it took me a while to get into the book, once I did, I found it to be top-notch. And I do not understand why the cinematic translation seems so unpopular here. Squeezing any novel into such a limited time-frame is a huge challenge and I thought it was carried off successfully. It looked great. It sounded great. The performances were quite good. I thought it was the best film of the year. And the book is worth the effort.
While the book was very well written, I felt cheated by the title and description (see my review), and I thought the movie was worse.
I say no. I loved the movie, then liked the book. I forced myself through the first third of the book before it really picked up. I may not have stuck with it if I hadn't seen the movie, first. The one thing that always draws me to a rerun of the movie is the five minute continuous shoot on Dunkirk beach - great!I admit to (frequently) reading a book AFTER I see the movie. No apologies.
Rae wrote: "I say no. I loved the movie, then liked the book. I forced myself through the first third of the book before it really picked up. I may not have stuck with it if I hadn't seen the movie, first. ..."The Dunkirk scene is a classic!
I love this book. I have just finished reading it for the second time and have picked up more of the clever literary references. I like the self-reflexive aspect of this book - a book about writing and writers. It fits in so well with the epigraph from Northanger Abbey. It doesn't deliver happy endings - you actually feel cheated by the revelation at the end of the book - and you end up wondering whether any of it really happened but that may well be the case with any book. Movie was good in that it picked up on mood etc and the plot was reasonably similar but there's no way it could include all the detail.
When I finished this book I thought "Meah?" But, the theme and question has tugged at my mind for years. Can a person truly atone for a mistake that is so grave that it costs people their lives? Can we forgive Briony for her lie, since it was out of a child's mouth? One small lie leads to the dramatic change of everyone's life. The book helps point out that one cannot chose the what the consequences are or how long they last. The movie while beautifully done, does not capture what the author has laid out in words. Can you imagine a different ending if the truth at been told? Read the book, it is much deeper than the movie
I wasn't crazy about either one.
I did think the actor who played Paul Marshall in the film was terrific and captured the sleaziness of the character really well.. Why do you think they made him English rather than American like in the book?
As is normally the case, the book is better than the film. I think that this is always a problem - translating a book into a film means you always have to decide what to leave out.I love filmm but in general I think books should not be turned into films. This is of course unlikely to happen,as the film prodicers can alos see the £($) signs when a book has done well.
I think the only way a book can make a good film is if the book is very short, and therefore the film can go into a lot of details. An expample of this (and the best example in my view) is Brokeback Mountain, where an average book was turned into a superb film.
I think that books should be turned into films because if they didn't we'd lose a lot of great stories. We just have to accept that when a book is turned into a film it is a totally different type of story - the medium is different and it is always someone's interpretation of the book. You really can't expect it to be the same because that's impossible. We should be happy if either a) the essence of the original is captured or b) we're told a great story that the book started. It's a bit like every book is interpreted by every reader slightly differently - as it should be.
Excellent book, fantastic movie. I love Joe Wright films. Though there are some subtle differences between the two, I can't imagine liking one and absolutely hating the other.
i enjoyed both the book and the film,mcewans view of the way we interact is always worth having and christopher hampton.s view of the english is as frightening as ever.
I could not get through the book and hated the movie equally...passionately.
I saw the movie before I realized it was a book too. I did like the book better. I find my self just contemplating the theme often and usually at the strangest of times. At first I thought the book was okay though not the best thing I've read. But now I find that it really was good. I would recommend it.
The book "Atonement"is okay but if you haven't already done so you should read Ian McEwan's "Enduring Love" which is excellent.
I thought the movie was awful because it didn't capture all the descriptive scenes of the book. The movie barely has any dialogue because the book is mainly description. I think that the book was totally worth it because of the ending, I was not expecting the damage that a little 12 year old could do. So that emotional blow of, "oh wait, so that didn't happen and the most painful or sad thing did happen" I really liked.
I really disliked the book, but I am finding I really just don't care for Iam McEwan's writing.
Like others on here, I enjoyed both for what they were. I saw the movie first and loved it, and when I found out it was based on a novel, I decided to give it a go as well. The first part of the book where McEwan's laying the foundation for the story was very tedious. I felt like it was too wordy and I admittedly had a difficult time getting through it. The section I loved the most was Robbie's (the middle part, I believe). I loved his description of the war, and it give it bit more of a descriptive picture of the war than the movie (although the Dunkirk scene was fabulous).
I also favor the ending of the book more than I do the movie (not literally the closing scene - that was beautiful - but how Briony's revelation was handled).
Overall, I think you would find the book more enjoyable than the movie unless you just dislike the premise in general (that doesn't change).
This is a wonderful book, the movie quite simply did not do it justice.
I think the first part of the book was long and detailed on purpose, although I didn't find it tedious. It took a while to get all the main characters' perspectives on the different events and enter into each of their different consciousness, set up the 'crime' and attempt to replicate the earlier writing style of Briony - that creeps in "the leonine yellow of high summer" etc which echoes Woolf. It's pretty complex what he's doing and some would say he's trying to be a bit clever - but I loved it. I thought the film did a good job of representing the first part of the novel but the detail that was left out meant it couldn't be as complex.
I didn't enjoy the book. It didn't engage me and I wasn't excited to pick it up to read. I found it dragged on. As a result, I am not inspired at all to see the movie any more.
I loved this book. I read it twice, which is rare for me. I thought the movie was very good.
I read the book before I saw the movie. I found that if you hadn't read the book and watched the movie that you might not have appreciated or understood the characters in the movie. I found that they included all the necessary parts of the book in the movie. I really liked how they did the ending in the movie. I liked that they stated in a round about way that they did change the movie ending from the book.
I thought the book and movie were very similar. If you didn't like the movie I wouldn't bother with the book. There's millions of others out there to read!
I haven't seen the movie, but didn't care for the book, in particular. My guess is, if you hated the movie, you might not like the book that much better.
I hated this movie too! I walked into the movie a minute or two late and thought maybe I missed something important that makes this movie interesting or make sense, so I bought the book. I was wrong. The book was just as uninteresting and meandering as the movie. I felt like people were playing a joke when they would talk about how much they loved either. If it were me, I would keep moving on to another book that is worth your time.
I am a big fan of McEwan and loved Atonement. When I am reading, I see still and moving images in my mind. For instance, I had a very clear mental picture of the scene at the beginning, in the garden and of course the scene in the library. And then the movie came out and ... it showed exactly what I had seen in my mind. So, I would say, if you hate the movie, you will probably hate the book also. Don't read it.
The book was way better than the movie. I did not like the movie either.
I couldn't get through this book. I thought that the movie was alright.
I loved the book and was impressed by the movie so I don't think I can give you a good answer :-)
I disagree, I think the movie was very well done. The director Joe Wright, along with the cast, did an amazing job.I watched the movie before reading the book, but I think it is totally worth checking out. Since you are familiar with the plot line however, the twist in the end wont be the same.
Just so you know, the book is divided into three sections. The first part, which is also slowest part to get through, takes into account many different perspectives of the same night. This is were the reader really explores the character of Briony. So it really isnt a love story when you get down to it. It just explores a child's over imaginative mind and touches on elements of jealousy. This part sets the basis of her progression throughout the book.
It is quite a thick book, but regardless I would recommend it.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the book I did enjoy. I only read it because I needed to for a school project, and during the project I was getting sick of it. But now that I'm done and I look back at it, I really did enjoy the book.
i did not like the movie and don't think i can read the book now since iam already biased. will give this book a skip.
Lots of different opinions here. I loved the movie and liked the book. But I do think the movie was better than the book, although it was a bit confusing at the beginning.
If you "HATED" the movie proberly not but it depends on what you didn't like, if it was the polt itself not bother is not very didn't. If it was the acting and how some of the characters where protrayed then it may be worth giving a go as some characters are very different. For example in the movie I couldn't stand the child Briony's character and even less the teenage Briony but I really understood adult Briony. In the book however as the author focuses on her motivations for telling the lie and for why she opened private letters you begin to understand her motivations and why she did the things she did. But again the story is not too different it does however focus more on the inner thoughts of the chacter which perspective is being told. Espically in the scenes where Briony sees Ceclia and Robbie by the fountian and when she opens the letter, tells her cousin and lies about who see saw. However I found Ceclia was less likeable in the book as like everyone else she believes it was another servant who was the rapist and not someone from her own class and when told different she found it hard to accept.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Atonement (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Rules of Civility (other topics)Atonement (other topics)
