The book on which this is based, "A Man Called Ove," by Fredrick Backman, is great fun, but I must mention, so is the 2015 Swedish movie of the same name, of which this is presumably an American remake. If you have read the book first, the Hanks version, good as it might be, may be hard to reconcile.
This certainly must be a remake, and thank you for the background info! I am not going to read the book first, I've been far happier many times to just watch a movie instead of reading the origin book.... Movies sure can't keep everything from the book, often add or ignore important things, but I can't be upset with movie people, they have to carve a 2 hour movie from the material, and an author? Doesn't have to deal with sets, locations, internal monologues, etc. Writers don't even have to consider how difficult it might be to personify a character for an actor, and that's fine. I enjoy books as much, probably more, than movies, but just relaxing in the recliner with a movie for a couple hours is one of my great pleasures in life. Especially now in high def on my cheap 4 k flat screen. Damn, I am looking forward to buying a bigger flatscreen some day! Anyway, The Hobbit was amazing in book, and movie, I really don't give a damn about the differences, because the movie relaxes my brain from trying to image the splendorous glory of the dwarves domain, and the dragon. Incredible. The Harry Potter books can't be matched by the movies, but those movies are incredible at visualizing the material. Coincidentally, I just was talking about Hogwarts with my sister, and started watching the movies again. The first movie might be the best, and they all have amazing visuals. Contact, with Jodie Foster, is great, and I read the book only a month before the movie was released, utterly surprising me, because that was pre-internet, and we didn't know about upcoming movies years ahead, like we do now
In general I'd agree on movies being enough different from the book that one might do better not to read the book, or at least not to read it first. There are a few movies that I think ended up better than the books, too. Just trying to cast my mind on a couple, I realize that the two that spring first to mind both star Juliette Binoche, which I think is a coincidence, but maybe it isn't. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" was virtually unreadable, but a good movie. And "The English Patient" as a book was a muddle, but made some sense as a movie. I don't think my crush on Binoche made the real difference (and that's my story and I'm sticking to it!).And I can think of a few stories that were so different between versions that you'd be a fool to compare them, as they were both good though different. Just about any Hitchcock movie qualifies for this, as by the time he was finished there was little left of the original but the title, and sometimes not even that (Sabotage, for example, a great old movie, was a hugely streamlined version of Conrad's "The Secret Agent," a great book but barely recognizable. He later made a movie called "Secret Agent," but it wasn't that book.
And I certainly hope the new movie is as good as it ought to be (which it might be with Hanks). But for all that, I think if you ever run across either the book or the Swedish movie, you'd enjoy them. Ove is a lifelong tinkerer and a man of intelligence but not conventionally intellectual, and among other issues in his life is his lifelong loyalty to Saabs, which led, in part, to his estrangement from one of his neighbors, who insisted on driving an Audi. Anyway, I think Ove is the kind of character a car guy might find appealing.
The English Patient is a book I'll never take the time to read, but the movie was effective in getting the story across, and damn, that ending hurt. It was slow at times, and I'm certain that the book would be even slower. I've read 1000 page books, and then watched the 2 hour movie, and been disappointed, but happy to get a real visual on the scenes, instead of imagination, but movies just cut too much to enjoy like when I've enjoyed a movie. Stephen King books for example, are better than their movies, Christine, It, Misery. And sometimes the smallest books make better movies, like the Green Mile. The SAAB Audi quarrel?! I love that! But I really get a lot of laughs from cranky old men humor, like Grumpy Old Men 1, 2, Up, and others. I have about 4 books shelves of books to read for fun, and never find any time, as blogging is so much surfing the web for fun, and just sharing the stuff I find cool, or newsworthy
I liked The Lincoln Lawyer movie better than the book. and sometimes its better if you havent read the book so you dont realize what got changed.
what I dont like are the remakes, Red Dawn, and Total Recall and 3;10 to Yuma were fantastic movies, and their remakes were extremely lame, as most remakes are. and the rebooted TV shows are totally lame. Just shows how little creativity is left in hollywood. I think Elmore Leonard had 25 or so books made into movies, almost all of which, the movies were far better than the books.
The book on which this is based, "A Man Called Ove," by Fredrick Backman, is great fun, but I must mention, so is the 2015 Swedish movie of the same name, of which this is presumably an American remake. If you have read the book first, the Hanks version, good as it might be, may be hard to reconcile.
ReplyDeleteThis certainly must be a remake, and thank you for the background info!
DeleteI am not going to read the book first, I've been far happier many times to just watch a movie instead of reading the origin book.... Movies sure can't keep everything from the book, often add or ignore important things, but I can't be upset with movie people, they have to carve a 2 hour movie from the material, and an author? Doesn't have to deal with sets, locations, internal monologues, etc. Writers don't even have to consider how difficult it might be to personify a character for an actor, and that's fine.
I enjoy books as much, probably more, than movies, but just relaxing in the recliner with a movie for a couple hours is one of my great pleasures in life.
Especially now in high def on my cheap 4 k flat screen.
Damn, I am looking forward to buying a bigger flatscreen some day!
Anyway, The Hobbit was amazing in book, and movie, I really don't give a damn about the differences, because the movie relaxes my brain from trying to image the splendorous glory of the dwarves domain, and the dragon. Incredible.
The Harry Potter books can't be matched by the movies, but those movies are incredible at visualizing the material.
Coincidentally, I just was talking about Hogwarts with my sister, and started watching the movies again. The first movie might be the best, and they all have amazing visuals.
Contact, with Jodie Foster, is great, and I read the book only a month before the movie was released, utterly surprising me, because that was pre-internet, and we didn't know about upcoming movies years ahead, like we do now
In general I'd agree on movies being enough different from the book that one might do better not to read the book, or at least not to read it first. There are a few movies that I think ended up better than the books, too. Just trying to cast my mind on a couple, I realize that the two that spring first to mind both star Juliette Binoche, which I think is a coincidence, but maybe it isn't. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" was virtually unreadable, but a good movie. And "The English Patient" as a book was a muddle, but made some sense as a movie. I don't think my crush on Binoche made the real difference (and that's my story and I'm sticking to it!).And I can think of a few stories that were so different between versions that you'd be a fool to compare them, as they were both good though different. Just about any Hitchcock movie qualifies for this, as by the time he was finished there was little left of the original but the title, and sometimes not even that (Sabotage, for example, a great old movie, was a hugely streamlined version of Conrad's "The Secret Agent," a great book but barely recognizable. He later made a movie called "Secret Agent," but it wasn't that book.
ReplyDeleteAnd I certainly hope the new movie is as good as it ought to be (which it might be with Hanks). But for all that, I think if you ever run across either the book or the Swedish movie, you'd enjoy them. Ove is a lifelong tinkerer and a man of intelligence but not conventionally intellectual, and among other issues in his life is his lifelong loyalty to Saabs, which led, in part, to his estrangement from one of his neighbors, who insisted on driving an Audi. Anyway, I think Ove is the kind of character a car guy might find appealing.
The English Patient is a book I'll never take the time to read, but the movie was effective in getting the story across, and damn, that ending hurt. It was slow at times, and I'm certain that the book would be even slower.
DeleteI've read 1000 page books, and then watched the 2 hour movie, and been disappointed, but happy to get a real visual on the scenes, instead of imagination, but movies just cut too much to enjoy like when I've enjoyed a movie. Stephen King books for example, are better than their movies, Christine, It, Misery. And sometimes the smallest books make better movies, like the Green Mile.
The SAAB Audi quarrel?! I love that! But I really get a lot of laughs from cranky old men humor, like Grumpy Old Men 1, 2, Up, and others.
I have about 4 books shelves of books to read for fun, and never find any time, as blogging is so much surfing the web for fun, and just sharing the stuff I find cool, or newsworthy
I liked The Lincoln Lawyer movie better than the book.
ReplyDeleteand sometimes its better if you havent read the book so you dont realize what got changed.
what I dont like are the remakes, Red Dawn, and Total Recall and 3;10 to Yuma were fantastic movies, and their remakes were extremely lame, as most remakes are. and the rebooted TV shows are totally lame. Just shows how little creativity is left in hollywood.
I think Elmore Leonard had 25 or so books made into movies, almost all of which, the movies were far better than the books.