![]() ![]() “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” takes about twenty minutes to read, while the movie is a little less than two hours. The reason I enjoy, say, the Godfather book more than the movie is simply because it has insight from the Don, with just more substance and different artistic elements that simply make it appealing. The preference is so opinionated that any analysis is not truly worth anyone’s time. I almost want to categorize the movie and book as two different entities, related only in title. However, in the case of “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs,” I am split. ![]() Therefore, the reader will almost always be upset in some regard. I will admit that the movie is at a disadvantage of having to pick and choose which elements will be committed in the book to movie translation. There is just more satisfaction, more detail, and more imagination that comes from reading. Hell, even “The Shawshank Redemption”, which is the #1 film on IMDB movies, was a better book, at least in my opinion. The Godfather, Water for Elephants, Harry Potter) I have almost always liked the book more. For most longer books that I have ever read that are also movies (e.g. It is so funny, and even this line–that I disagree with– had me convinced simply on its humor. ![]() Universe” show, I highly encourage you to see it. If you have never listened to Jim Gaffigan’s “Mr. ‘Ah, the book was much better than the movie.’ Oh really? What I enjoyed about the movie: no reading. You ever talk about a movie with someone that read the book? They’re always so condescending. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |