![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ok. so. i knew it wouldn't hold up to the book. couldn't. but, lord have mercy, it didn't need to suck this badly. (we're talking about possession of course) i think - though i can't be entirely sure - that it doesn't matter how many times i've read the book and how much i love it, the movie would suck regardless.
anyone out there read it? anyone? bc you know what they did? they made roland american. AMERICAN! what? and kept referring to his american-ness throughout the movie like it was some funny joke. wrong. they made him american and this kind of swaggering rogue. SO not roland. nothing to do with roland. i love roland. he is my favorite thing about the whole book. arrrhh! they made him stupid. and maud. ugh. i really think gwyneth paltrow could have made a good maud, if they had written it well. no surprise, they didn't. she was all soft and flirty where she should have been icy cold. most of their interactions were completely rewritten and rather poorly.
the ash-lamotte parts were much better... though i think they had christabel all wrong. and jeremy northam would have made a much better roland than ash. at least they didn't make so much shit up. they more or less stuck with the story - even the parts with blanche, which i feared they would write out.
i could go on and on and on. fear not, i won't. i just don't understand... why would you undertake the making of a film based on a book if you don't care at all about the book? just... why? and it's blatantly clear that he didn't care about the book... i mean, roland! nuff said. they took this gorgeous novel and made it into a sappy romance. an extremely sappy romance with constant, overdone string music. oliver said, "i thought it was romantic." ugh. why are we always on about this manly men stuff? boys are sappy. sappy sappy sappy. and so was this stinkin movie. please, don't waste any money on this. stay home and read slash.
anyone out there read it? anyone? bc you know what they did? they made roland american. AMERICAN! what? and kept referring to his american-ness throughout the movie like it was some funny joke. wrong. they made him american and this kind of swaggering rogue. SO not roland. nothing to do with roland. i love roland. he is my favorite thing about the whole book. arrrhh! they made him stupid. and maud. ugh. i really think gwyneth paltrow could have made a good maud, if they had written it well. no surprise, they didn't. she was all soft and flirty where she should have been icy cold. most of their interactions were completely rewritten and rather poorly.
the ash-lamotte parts were much better... though i think they had christabel all wrong. and jeremy northam would have made a much better roland than ash. at least they didn't make so much shit up. they more or less stuck with the story - even the parts with blanche, which i feared they would write out.
i could go on and on and on. fear not, i won't. i just don't understand... why would you undertake the making of a film based on a book if you don't care at all about the book? just... why? and it's blatantly clear that he didn't care about the book... i mean, roland! nuff said. they took this gorgeous novel and made it into a sappy romance. an extremely sappy romance with constant, overdone string music. oliver said, "i thought it was romantic." ugh. why are we always on about this manly men stuff? boys are sappy. sappy sappy sappy. and so was this stinkin movie. please, don't waste any money on this. stay home and read slash.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-08-29 04:20 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-08-30 06:47 am (UTC)and shame indeed. uck.