Charles Portis’s famous novel True grit published in 1968 was the basis of both the 1969 and the 2010 movie. The 2010 movie by the Coen Brothers covers a lot of stuff from the book, but I think they made the character Mattie a lot different then the book. In the book Mattie was a 14 teen year old girl who wasn't afraid of anything, and was not afraid to take revenge on her fathers killer Tom Chaney. Some of events in the movie made her look tough but the actor was too nice and cute to play Mattie. They also made her way more emotional than in the book. Even though they covered most of the events of the book I still don't like the way they made the movie.
Mattie is a main character in the book so I thought that she would stay the same for the book and the movie. I had pictured Mattie as a stubborn hard headed 14 teen year old with true grit. But when I watched the movie I think it changed Mattie it made her character soft and not the same as in the book. She also was told she was ugly a couple time during the book so I had a clear picture in my head what Mattie was like. I liked the Mattie from the book better then the Mattie from the movie, but in the move I think it makes her look soft. Hailee Steinfeld is the person that played Mattie in the movie and if you look at a picture of her in my opinion she was to pretty to play Mattie.
In the book there is no romantic connection between Mattie and La Boeuf. However in the movie when La Boeuf leaves them the second time Mattie and La Boeuf are talking and Mattie does not want him to go. You can see the connection between them and the anger between them disappears. In the book Mattie is always made at La Boeuf and they fight a lot and she thinks he is a dumb Texan and does not trust...
... middle of paper ...
... the one from the book better. In the movie she just falls into a pit and gets her leg stuck in roots in the pit. In the book it was more intense and she was stuck in a hole and was falling through and her arm was broke and she needed something to stop her from falling the hole. This scene added more to how brave Mattie was and how determined she was to prove to them she could do it.
In the end I liked the book way more then the movie. I like how there was more to describing the character. I liked all of the events in the book and how they showed Mattie’s determination to catch her dads killer. I did not like the movie because of how they changed some of the main events and how they changed some of the characters in the book. If the movie was just a movie then it would have been a good movie but it was created from a book so I think in should be just like the book.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The movie like the book expressed Janie’s life as she grew up and started to search for her identity through relationships. Some parts that were different in the movie and not in the book was when she ran from Nana and went into the pond after kissing Johnny Taylor, when Joe Starks abused her infront of the community, when Joe embarassed her and she almost walked out on him, and the corset dress that Joe purchased for Janie. When Janie bathed in the pond, this was not in the book, rather in the book she was under a peach tree dreaming of her love life. The difference in scenes from the movie to the book provided peole with more connection to the characteristics of Janie, Joe, or even Tea Cakes. The pond scene was symbolic because it showed rebirth and cleansing, just as when the church baptises someone to remove all sins, and this was important since she had kissed Johnny and so the water was a sign of her starting over and not being put down by what Nana had told her. While the peach tree in the book expressed how she was starting to develop and mature, since she was masterbating and describing her desires. A scene different in the book than the movie was when J...
As we read we learn she is very outspoken and strong willed, she always wants things to be her way. Mattie shows us a great example of being very independent at the age of fourteen, but after her journey does she truly change as a person? “I was just fourteen years of age when a coward going by the name of Tom Chaney shot my father down in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and robbed him of his life” (Portis 11). Mattie Ross goes on a journey to find her father’s killer with the help of two companions, Rooster Cogburn and Leboeuf. Leaving Fort Smith, they set out into the Indian Territory to track down Tom Chaney and seek revenge for killing Mattie’s father, she claims, “I would not rest easy until that Louisiana cur was roasting and screaming in hell!”
When Bonnie first spots Matt, he is in disguise and it becomes a critical moment in the book showing how even if Matt looks different she could still determine it was him. Bonnie’s faith led her to keep searching for Matt even if she was not certain it was him. “ The first Mariner’s game of my life, Bonnie thought, and I’m missing the best part, because I’m on a wild-goose chase after a kid with black hair and glasses who looks a little bit like my brother. But she didn’t look back”(Kehert 157). There are also a lot of visionary tactics that are used to capture all of the emotions in this
One difference from the movie is the way Maxwell and Freak meet each other. In the original novel, Maxwell meets Freak when they were younger, in a daycare. However, in the movie Freak moves into Maxwell’s town and moves beside him. Though that may be the same, the movie makes this scene the first time Maxwell and Freak ever meet each other. Also, in the book, it has details on when Kevin (or Freak) moved into the town. Such as what he said, did, and reacted. While in the movie, this scene is completely cut out and forgotten.
Some of the characters in the novel, like Lennie, are portrayed differently in the movie. In the novel, Lennie is said to be “a huge man” (2), but in the movie he isn’t very big, although he is bigger than George and some of the other characters. In the movie he is stronger and bigger than the others, but not to the extreme amount that the book portrays him to be. Also, Lennie is depicted as very mentally challenged, which is shown by the way he speaks. Whereas in the book, Lennie is said to have a mind of a young child instead of being disabled. As well as Lennie, Curley’s wife is represented a little bit differently. In the movie,...
Also, it shows the Valmont character as being more heroic, which in Dangerous Liaisons, he was not quite so heroic. In the movie, it does not really say what happened to Ronald (Danceny). He fights with Sebastian, and that is the last we see of him. Catherine (Merteuil), like in the book, also has her reputation ruined, but she gets humiliated in a more dramatic way (in front of the student body and faculty). Also, there is the issue of drugs.
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.
...the 2012 film. And unless you are paying close attention you would completely miss Myrtle Wilson played by Karen Black in the 1974 version and Isla Fisher in the 2013 version besides the party scene in the apartment and her getting killed she is barely noticeable. Jason Clarke played a less wimpy version of George Wilson and he was abusive towards Myrtle. And looked capable of murder and if it wasn’t for the book he would probably flee instead of killing himself. Scott Wilson looked like a sad puppy throughout the movie and very pitiful and it seemed as if Myrtle was abusive towards him. He looked incapable of murder but also as if he would snap at any moment and would commit murder. In the end actors in the 2013 film I would say showed a lot more emotion through and through instead of concealing it and that is something that I enjoyed more than the 1974 version.
The second difference of this character in the movie and in the book is that in the movie version, she was far less believable as a real character compared to the book version.
The movie also switches stuff up, because in the book the first sense or diary they got chase after they got off the bus from school, which in the movie they got chased walking on their way to school. Hilary Swank play Erin like if she was actually her, like if she knew her life story and what she had been through. In the movie she lost her husband for wanting to let go of the kids, and in the book it never states she has a
The decision of the screenwriter and director to cut out what I felt were several story arcs and scenes from the novel was very disappointing. For example, in the movie there is no mention of Beth's shyness, or of her overcoming that shyness to become friends with Mr. Lawrence. The scene in the novel where she gathers her courage to walk over to his house and thank him for giving her his piano is one of the most defining moments for Beth. Overall I found Beth and Mr. Lawrence to both be sadly underdeveloped in the movie. Mr. Lawrence appears in only three scenes, while many of Beth's key moments also vanished. Jo's wonderful tomboyish nature is also severely tone-down for this version. She does not say "Christopher Columbus"; nor any of her other slang words. We never see the scene where she longs to go be a soldier fighting in the war and wishes she were a man. They transformed the character of Meg from someone who longs for finer things and tends to be snobbish into the wise older sister who does not care about such things. Lacking is the wonderful moment when she realizes that she does not care about Mr. Brook's poverty as she staunchly defends her love of him against Aunt March. While Amy's quest for a perfect nose is mentioned twice, there is never a scene showing some of her efforts such as her wearing the clothespin on it at night to make is straight, nor do we get enjoy watching her artistic endeavors such as her attempts to make a plaster cast of her foot.
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.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
People always say that the book is better than the movie, and though they think they might be right, this isn't always the case. People like having the background knowledge of why a character is doing something in a specific case or why the events are happening and seeing the movie cut out all this extra information may upset them, but that doesn't mean that the book is better. It just means they're more informed reading the book. What is a bad movie? Not having enough information or just not being entertained. I happened to watch the movie before I read the book and I thought it was amazing, but after I read the book the movie just didn't compare to the book. Sure they had the same storyline but I was just more entertained reading the book. That doesn't mean that the movie suddenly wasn't as amazing, because it certainly was, it just means that the two different forms of art have their own unique way of being good. The Hunger Games, a story of 24 kids chosen at random to compete in a Game where they must fight to the death, can be told in different ways. Whereas the book is written in Katniss’ point of view, we get more in depth detail of Katniss’ thought process and characterization, in the film we lose the sense of what makes Katniss a hero, since it focuses more in the technological point of view and how it is used to control the citizens.