Have you ever noticed how people are always going on and on about how you should read the book before you see the movie for some nonexistent reason, like the protagonist’s boyfriend’s third cousin had a different name in the book?
Well, I find this practise completely fallacious.
You see, whenever you read the book before the movie, the movie always seems craptastical in comparison–but when you read the book after you see the movie, both the movie and the book turn out to be not that bad!…Unless you’re talking about the Eragon film, which is crappy no matter when you watch it.
I only bring this up because I watched Brief Interviews with Hideous Men last night and I thought to myself: “This is super awesome! It’s a film editor’s dream!”…And then I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes and the consensus was, and I quote: “…John Krasinski’s adaptation of David Foster Wallace’s Brief Interviews with Hideous Men…doesn’t match the depth of the book.”
This got me to thinking: How do you compare a film with a book? In a book, you don’t have to worry about camera angles or art direction. Similarly, in a film you don’t have to worry about detailed description. Trying to compare the film version of a book with the book itself is like trying to compare a flash drive with a painting of flash drive. It doesn’t work, and it never will.
So, here’s to illogical systems of judging films, may they be shot in the back of the neck!
Now, you all can complain about how David Foster Wallace’s collection of short stories kicked the crap out of the movie,but not me. No, I’m just going to watch the awesome montages.