Bridge To Terabithia Report
The books are usually better than the movies. This is why I am usually reluctant to watch any movies based off of books. Some movies don’t meet the standards set by the book, and fall extremely below the expectations of movie watchers and book lovers alike. Some movies meets the standards of the book, but there is some disappointment here and there. The film adaptation of Bridge to Terabithia is one of these movies. It certainly meet the standards of the book but there was a little disappointment among moviegoers.
Although the film adaptation met many expectations, it failed to capture some important emotions shown in the book. In the novel Bridge to Terabithia Jess finds that Leslie has been cremated. This makes Jess extremely malcontent for he believed that Leslie belonged to him, and that they only were crying for themselves not Leslie. Katherine Paterson uses his thoughts and feelings to express how angry he really was at Leslie’s parents, Bill and Judy . Showing that the character is thinking something in a movie is hard, but I have seen many movies that managed to pull it off. Without those thoughts in the movie, that important scene became dull and pointless. And In the movie Jess doesn't even learn that Leslie gets cremated, this really takes away from the story. And sadly, that isn’t the only disappointment in the movie. When Jess was in the first stage of grief in the book, denial, he woke up in the middle night thinking about
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
I recently read the book Bridge to Terabithia, then watched the movie. They are about a boy, named Jess, who makes friends with a new girl, named Leslie at his school and together they create a whole new world called Terabithia. The book was written by Katherine Paterson and published by Trophy Newbery. The movie was made by Disney and was directed by Gabor Csupo and starred Josh Hutcherson as Jess Aarons, AnnaSophia Robb as Leslie Burke, and Zooey Deschanel as Ms. Edmunds.
In the novel “Bless Me Ultima” many things are learned from all of the different characters. In the movie many things are taught. The comparison between both is significant. Many things are missing from the movie because it would not have gone into it or because it would have made this movie way too long. In the novel many things are found out by the readers. In the movie viewers can definitely tell the difference between the novel and movie because of what has been left out and changed from the original story. Differences between the story and the movie can change the opinion of people who view them because the film needs to have a certain time, some scenes are sensitive to children, and because some things are more important than others.
Despite having many differences the film remains faithful in capturing the novel and putting on film. While one may not get everything from the movie as from the book, the majority of it is there. So for die hard fans of the book there is no need for disappointment. All the main parts of the book are there, the characters, the plot, the setting
- This book is a really good book not a very good movie because they have so many differences if they would have not started in the middle of the book then it would have been really good and entertaining but it just doesn't give me the vision in my head of the whole book . A movie to me is where a book comes to life and, but it still was a good movie but could have been
Finally there are lots of differences between the book and the movie. They also show that the movie was a lot weaker then then the book. I can see the movies aren't always better than the books. The books go more into detail than the movie. I enjoined the movie because it is more visual. The book was a little
“The Princess Bride” was one of my mom’s favorite movies when she was little. Because of this, I have seen the movie with her several times. However, I had never read the book. I have always been told that books are better than movies but with this story, I do not agree. I liked the movie much better.
With many scenes taken away because some characters are never mentioned took away a lot of the overall meaning of the story. I didn’t feel to relate to the movie as much as I did with the novel. Leaving an apt amount of scenes out, took away some of the anticipation I was building up to. Which made me a bit disappointed.
The film is better because rather than a book, which most people would rather to read, they are more likely to watch a film that turns up on T.V. Most people don’t pick up a book after high school but a film is something that people frequently watch. In addition to the massive range of the film, it, unlike the book, is presented with audio cues and visual images that the book lacks. Individuals, who don’t have the time or patience to read a book that is only words, can watch an animated and indulging film that diffuses the same message as the book and perhaps, even more because of all the characters that come to play in the
When making a distinction between movie and novel, it is not acceptable, in my opinion to talk about the differences between the two versions in terms of "better" or "worse." You may like how the artist creates a scene in the movie or how another artist plays with the same scene in the novel, but these are subjective preferences; neither speak to the quality of the work. You cannot critically compare different media, because you do not have a common set of terms with which to comparatively discuss the works.
'A view from the bridge' by Arthur Miller is a tragic intense play about family struggle, lust, passion and deceit. My aim is too look at the relationship of Catherine and Eddie. To understand the relationship, we must understand the atmosphere and culture. To do this we need to know why Miller wrote the play, background history and why this is significant to understanding the relationship between Catherine and Eddie.
Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to leave an impact on an audience. However, movies and books have different roles. They each have different strong points wherein books give better characterization, stronger revelations, and inner conflict, but movies create a better mood with music and visuals, showing much more emotion. It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, is essentially a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience, which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. Utilizing its verbal medium, Clarke is able to explain his narrative, whereas Kubrick creates a visual and audial experience, through means of ambiguity, in which the viewer sees everything, is told nothing, and in which one cannot detect the presence of the film as one at all.
Jesus of Nazareth was a beautiful movie recapping the life of Jesus Christ. This film had no bareness, no vulgarity, and no sex scenes. It was ideal for both the young and the older audiences. I do not recall anything that may have gone against the word of God. Jesus of Nazareth embellished the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It remained true to the four New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
A View From The Bridge examining tension and conflict within the play. The two scenes that I have chosen for my coursework, which I think are exciting and interesting are: 1) End of act one Pg 38-42 2) End of play Pg 59-64
My impression of The Crossing was that an interesting yet an educational film of American history. Additionally, I was amazed at how the actors played each character, how they portray Washington was an original thinker, and how important his decision was to the American Revolution