ilovefuzz.com

yes, every group i cite is a group i would probably enjoy a whole lot if not for the vocals. and not a one of them knows how to shut the fuck up.

American Psycho the movie > American Psycho the book

If only the movie had the jellyfish scene

I've not seen the movie. Enjoyed the book and felt I didn't need to ruin it with a movie version. Which is how I feel about most movies based on books

Jurassic Park movie > Jurassic Park book

American Psycho and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are probably the two closest adaptations I've ever seen. Very spot on, minus a couple chapters.

calfzilla wrote:American Psycho and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are probably the two closest adaptations I've ever seen. Very spot on, minus a couple chapters.

I mean, how would they even get away with filming the cheese scenes?

Bassist_Diver wrote:

calfzilla wrote:American Psycho and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are probably the two closest adaptations I've ever seen. Very spot on, minus a couple chapters.

I mean, how would they even get away with filming the cheese scenes?

I mean, we had tree rape via Sam Raimi and then the whole butchering of a pregnant woman from Inside... Not to mention the ridiculous shit that Troma does. Unless you're putting the stipulation of "being rated for theaters" on it, you can pretty much film whatever you want as long as you fund it.

lordgalvar wrote:Jurassic Park movie > Jurassic Park book

Crichton is the only author I can think of who can both write very good books AND direct very good film versions of those books to critical and box office acclaim.
I mean...he made some real stinkers too, but there aren't many directors who haven't.

Wasn't that Spielberg?

Sonaboy wrote:

lordgalvar wrote:Jurassic Park movie > Jurassic Park book

Crichton is the only author I can think of who can both write very good books AND direct very good film versions of those books to critical and box office acclaim.
I mean...he made some real stinkers too, but there aren't many directors who haven't.

*ahem*

repoman wrote:

Sonaboy wrote:

lordgalvar wrote:Jurassic Park movie > Jurassic Park book

Crichton is the only author I can think of who can both write very good books AND direct very good film versions of those books to critical and box office acclaim.
I mean...he made some real stinkers too, but there aren't many directors who haven't.

*ahem*

OOOOH, ya got me. lol.

On the other hand, I should probably actually watch that.

BetterOffShred wrote:Wasn't that Spielberg?

I was just speaking about Crichton's other films - not Jurassic Park.

Goblin Truck! I watched that movie way too much as a kid.

Both Jurassic Parks sucked outside of a great casting choice in Goldblum.

Crichton: I liked his stuff a ton as a kid. Sphere and Andromeda strain were great in the 6th/7th grade. I guess I just grew out of them and don't really have any desire to even revisit them. I've tried, but they just feel like a drag.

Give me Philip K Dick

Or even George Requires Revenue Martin.

The fractal shit in Jurassic Park blew my 11-year old mind.

I rewatched the movie when it was on HBO or Netflix, it's so much better than any of the sequels. The pacing threw me a bit, in my mind there was more time between getting to the island and everything going to hell, but the effects still look outstanding with the use of practical effects/robotics instead of just green screening everything.

If I sign up for a free trial of Starz I could watch Congo, that's tempting. I assume it's terrible now but I was all about great apes and sign language when it came out.