The 2007 film of, No Country for Old Men, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen it’s an adaptation of the 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy. The story is about a guy named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who was hunting for antelope, then comes across a crime scene with several dead bodies he then follows a trail of blood and finds drug money that then gets Moss and is wife Carla Jean Moss (Kelly Macdonald) into trouble with people that want to kill them. One of the them is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardam), Chigurh is a cold-hearted killer and kills anyone that comes into contact with. I thought the movie and the book were very close and that the movie help explain the book more and it help show who was talking at different times. The character that stood out the most to me was Anton Chigurh Javier Bardam did a very good job playing his character you could she how crazy and unstable he was and how anyone that came into contact with him would be killed.
The film a really good job showing how crazy Chigurh was. The first time you see Chigurh in you movie you can see that he is crazy. When the deputy has Chigurh in the office he is sitting in the corner of the office with his hands cuffed behind his back. The deputy was sitting at his desk calling Sheriff Lamar to ask about the weapon that he found with Chigurh. The deputy was sitting in a swivel chair talking to the Sheriff then deputy put down the phone and bent over to get the jail keys and you can see in the background that Chigurh was slipping the hand cuffs from his back to his front it looked like he practiced it. Chigurh but his arms over the deputy’s head and choked him with the cuffs. Chigurh pulled as hard has he could trying to kill him, the deputy fought back trying to escape but the c...
... middle of paper ...
...e room and starts looking around. He walks to the bathroom and looks around then walks out of the bathroom and sees the air vent open and knows that Chigurh was there and that he took the money. The whole time Chigurh was in the room and Bell did not see him. Chigurh is like a ghost and can never get caught he is unstop able and it shows how crazy and unstable he is.
The film and the book were a lot alike and for me the movie helped bring the book to life. Reading the other book I did not like the movies because they were different then the book. But this film was almost the same as the book. I like how the film showed how Chigurh is very dangerous and that he is a scary criminal the kills anyone he comes in contact with. I liked the book but in the beginning it was confusing in who was talking but the film helped me understand and it brought everything together.
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
...d coloring of certain images. The novel, however, puts much greater emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and on the main character Tita. The novel really makes the reader feel Titas pain and grow with her as she discovers her freedom, whereas the movie failed to achieve this. Moreover, the movie tends to ignore the significant of 3 integral motifs, cooking, tears and sensuality.
The film was a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used.
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
Bitter about the evolution of the corruption of society, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell plays the official hero clinging to old traditions and reminiscing about the old days in No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy. Delusions of a peaceful utopia during the time his grandpa Jack was a sheriff has left Bell looking at the world through hopeless eyes; a world on its knees with only one explanation for its demise: Satan. Not necessarily a religious man, Sheriff Bell, when asked if he believes in Satan, remarks: “He explains a lot of things that otherwise don’t have no explanation. Or not to me they don’t” (218). Throughout No County for Old Men, Sheriff Bell is determined to save Llewellyn Moss in order to prove that justice can be served in a world now drenched in decay. Throughout the book and the film adaptation, the audience can see Sheriff Bell, a tormented old man, sink deeper into his bitterness and his hope sizzle away in the Texas heat.
The movie Children of Men is directed by Alfonso Cuarón. This movie seems difficult to understand and enjoy without the back ground knowledge from original novel version of Children of Men and easily people misunderstand that this movie is boring movie but, this movie is well thought to articulate the original novel world and well condense in such a short play time. Honestly, this movie’s plot it self is not interesting as a entertainment. Moreover, this movie provide abstract and not informative about the setting and event which people might confuse while watching but, when focus to the moving image it self, this movie capture one of the most beautiful moving image. I think, this movie’s significant is beautiful moving image and expression
It has been said that the Declaration of Independence was more democratic and for equality and the Constitution was more for a republic that benefited only some people. The Declaration was idealistic the Constitution realistic. That 1776 gave us liberty and 1787 gave us order. Although as unfair as it may sound this seems to be true. After gaining liberty this country had to establish a system that would have order.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
On March 3, 1915 the movie The Birth of a Nation was released at the Liberty Theatre in New York City. This film was financed, filmed, and released by the Epoch Producing Corporation of D.W. Griffith and Harry T. Aitken. It was one of the first films to ever use deep-focus shots, night photography, and to be explicitly controversial with the derogatory view of blacks.
The old proverb “the Pen is mightier than the sword” (Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy) still holds significance in protecting of public rights. Words such as freedom, and liberty engendered the idea for democracy. Such words formed into sentences and paragraphs enlightened the public to take action against tyranny and corruption. Freedom of the press is what ensured the general masses of their public rights. The exemplary case in which the freedom of the press played a role was the endeavors of Woodward and Bernstein to unravel the corrupted politics behind the Watergate Scandal. The movie All the President’s Men depicts the proceedings of the Watergate scandal, the scheme to attack the crux of democracy: “ the open election”. Also how the two journalists of the Washington Post progressed to unveil the relationship between the Watergate Burglary and the White House. On one hand, the movie represents the role of the media in its obligation to convey the truth to the masses. On the other hand, the movie reflects political corruption and conspiracy. The accomplishment of Woodward and Bernstein presents the importance of the interaction between the media, the government, and the general masses of society. The role of the media is not only to intervene between the State and the public, but also to take account of public ideas and to apply those ideas to new policies. Also, the media acts as a safeguard to prevent the corruption of the State. Thus, the Watergate scandal signifies the significance of the media as an intermediary between the government and the public mass.
The film that I watched was Michael Collins, Directed by Neil Jordan, I found this film to be a very interesting film regarding Irish history. I was interested in the movie from beginning to end. The actors and actresses in the movie did an outstanding job representing the roles that they were playing. Liam Neeson was an excellent Michael Collins and even bared quite a resemblance. Aiden Quinn played the role of Harry Boland and Julia Roberts played the role of Kitty Kierman. An important stand out role of Eamon de Valera was played by Alan Rickman. This film portrays Michael Collins as an Irish Patriot fighting to gain independence from the British Empire. The film breaks down the different significant events that took place between the Easter Uprising and the time of Michael Collins death.