3 ms·

On another recent HN thread someone also gave a glowing impression of the film adaptation of this work. I went ahead and rented out the movie and I have to say

On another recent HN thread someone also gave a glowing impression of the film adaptation of this work. I went ahead and rented out the movie and I have to say, for me personally, I really wish I could get back the time wasted.

dkarl 9y ago
I thought the movie was okay, but I suspect it worked for me by evoking the experience of reading the book. Maybe it doesn't have much to offer on its own. I would recommend giving yourself a year to forget the movie and then trying the book. You'll know within the first hundred pages if you're going to like it or not.
scrumper 9y ago
Wasn't aware there was a movie. I'd have thought it'd have been a tough adaptation. To me it's quite an impressionistic piece of writing, not something that would easily translate well to cinema.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andyjohnson0 9y ago
I posted something complementary about the film adaptation - so if it was my comment you read, my apologies! For what it's worth, I think it was beautifully filmed and well acted - the actor who played Tommy did an exceptional job in my opinion.
- qualitytime 9y ago
  No thats alright. I'm just very tight when it comes to creative works. Personally, on a bad day, a work that is ONLY beautifully filmed and well acted makes me spew a torrent of curses at the makers, with strange looks from those around me who don't get why I'm getting so passionate about using the word "sht" in every sentence. And I get very annoyed when others don't acknowledge that there is some truth in what I'm saying. I realise it's the way it comes out from my mouth but seriously, cannot others agree and say "Yeah, that was sht but beautifully filmed and well acted". Really, it was beautifuly 'filmed', good 'acting', beautiful 'actors' with promising futures but ultimately, and its ok to say it, this movie was a pile of sh*t. If you liked this movie you will love "The Lobster (2015)", but you should never ever watch a movie with me.

dkarl 9y ago

I thought the movie was okay, but I suspect it worked for me by evoking the experience of reading the book. Maybe it doesn't have much to offer on its own. I would recommend giving yourself a year to forget the movie and then trying the book. You'll know within the first hundred pages if you're going to like it or not.

scrumper 9y ago

Wasn't aware there was a movie. I'd have thought it'd have been a tough adaptation. To me it's quite an impressionistic piece of writing, not something that would easily translate well to cinema.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

andyjohnson0 9y ago

I posted something complementary about the film adaptation - so if it was my comment you read, my apologies! For what it's worth, I think it was beautifully filmed and well acted - the actor who played Tommy did an exceptional job in my opinion.

qualitytime 9y ago
No thats alright. I'm just very tight when it comes to creative works. Personally, on a bad day, a work that is ONLY beautifully filmed and well acted makes me spew a torrent of curses at the makers, with strange looks from those around me who don't get why I'm getting so passionate about using the word "sht" in every sentence. And I get very annoyed when others don't acknowledge that there is some truth in what I'm saying. I realise it's the way it comes out from my mouth but seriously, cannot others agree and say "Yeah, that was sht but beautifully filmed and well acted". Really, it was beautifuly 'filmed', good 'acting', beautiful 'actors' with promising futures but ultimately, and its ok to say it, this movie was a pile of sh*t. If you liked this movie you will love "The Lobster (2015)", but you should never ever watch a movie with me.