Yes it did, didn't it? Really annoying was the supposed literary academic, going on and on about love and life being meaningless, as if he was a sensitive adolescent. Also, what at first seems like a dangerous gay nutter has no plot twists, so he ends up as a predictably dangerous gay nutter with a knife. Fatal Attraction at least didn't have all that vacuous middle-class chatter over dinner.
Yeah there are a lot of errors and just general differences between the book and the film, but I suppose you do expect these books to be 'adapted' for screen, to become watchable rather than readable. All in all I don't mind minor differences, after all, we don't anaylse a film in the same way we do a text or a play. The only major objection I have is to Joe praying. He doesn't do it in the book, and it goes completely against who Joe is as a character - a logical atheist! Really irritating...
@UrbanAngel33 In that case: to name a few; the two policemen came over a gate, Toby Greene broke his ankle yet he's standing up in this version, john logans guts were'nt all over the place in the book, parry's hair was in a pony tail, the 1987 daumas gassac bottle was given at the moment the child cried, they each had a rope, not the basket. Basically there are lots of errors and its hard not to be inaccurate in some sense of the word :S
@UrbanAngel33 These 'errors' are differences. Films aren't supposed to imitate as closely as possible their source material (if they have it); it's a completely different form, and it's a different story.
@Kelvinian That's what I thought. What would be the point of adapting a film if you're gonna do what every single page says? it's just impossible, different languages and different texts.
@UrbanAngel33 To be fair, the 'errors' you're speaking of are nothing compared to the major differences and omissions that come later. But still, this is a brilliant film to me.
@UrbanAngel33 Adapting a book is not about taking every little detail into account... or, for that matter, recreating your imagination. It's a great book, but you must know that the film is only a person's interpretation where the least that you should pay attention to is that kind of details. They're not errors, they're simply the way in which the director thought the story fits best the screen and more importantly, in a way that the cinematographic language works.
@Lozimia2 It's not nitpicking, it's getting the whole story right. If you don't use the book, you may as well make a whole other film. It's the details that count, in the book something entirely different happens. Enduring love, is centred around the specific nature of Joe's character and how it deteriorates. It's people like you who make these films.
they made the movie so different to the book...in the book joe doesnt pray with jed, joe doesnt declare to clarissa that he was going to propose to her, and in the end (WARNING - SPOILER) Joe doesnt bloody kiss jed, gahhhhhhh. Really didnt need to see that.......................
John Logan had a wife and 2 kids! gahhh the book is right here!
elliejelly31 3 months ago
04:47 oh my god! this fall is real!!!
brunohanover 4 months ago
A fantastic opening, the rest of the film fell flat though which was really disappointing.
Lozimia2 4 months ago
@Lozimia2
Yes it did, didn't it? Really annoying was the supposed literary academic, going on and on about love and life being meaningless, as if he was a sensitive adolescent. Also, what at first seems like a dangerous gay nutter has no plot twists, so he ends up as a predictably dangerous gay nutter with a knife. Fatal Attraction at least didn't have all that vacuous middle-class chatter over dinner.
Drblooter99 3 months ago
Comment removed
hanluy1215 8 months ago
so what? a lot of movies differ from the books they´re based on...no big deal. That doesn´t affect the book in any way.
hueftbacon 9 months ago 5
Not only does this film not include the main parts from the book, it is a terribly made film!
2frey84 11 months ago
The moment when the go up in the air.... just perfect
Nardril 1 year ago
how many times does clarissa say 'fuck'? could they not give her more elaborate lines. Maybe the ones already given to her IN THE BOOK.
xlaydiirandomx 1 year ago
Yeah there are a lot of errors and just general differences between the book and the film, but I suppose you do expect these books to be 'adapted' for screen, to become watchable rather than readable. All in all I don't mind minor differences, after all, we don't anaylse a film in the same way we do a text or a play. The only major objection I have is to Joe praying. He doesn't do it in the book, and it goes completely against who Joe is as a character - a logical atheist! Really irritating...
Lilwidge93 1 year ago
i would've kicked that little boy's ass
why didn't he jump out while it was still close to the ground!?
took his damn time attempting to get out too
it was like he was waiting for the strong gust of wind to come in so he could continue being the damsel in distress
dumbass
i would've just roughly pulled him out by his collar and shoved him on the ground for being so useless and stupid
jadeyes914 1 year ago
@jadeyes914 if only there were more right-thinking people in the world, this whole sorry book/film affair could've been avoided. hurrah!
coyel 11 months ago
I saw this movie yestreday and it's disturbing but good at the same time. strange, because I usually don't like this kind of movies..
loveSc7 1 year ago
Chills me to the bone this scene, but beautiful all the same.
RachCharproduction 1 year ago
Stupid kid. "DERP two feet that's way too high I'm scared boo hoo"
Lazyguy22 1 year ago 3
So. Many. Errors.
Joe should have been given the wine bottle followed by the first noticing of the balloon.
Balloon, should be silver.
Clarissa shouldn't run.
He shouldn't pray.
GAHH!! ive got the book in front of me!
When the incident happens, they should have shown the balloon then him running, showing that he never remembers making the decision.
UrbanAngel33 1 year ago 22
@UrbanAngel33 I know. And I don't think Daniel Craig particularly looks the part of Joe either. It's all so inaccurate.
amyystevenson 1 year ago
@amyystevenson i thought so at first, but i reckon the production let's the story down more than the cast.
trouble is everyone knows him as James Bond now lol
UrbanAngel33 1 year ago
@UrbanAngel33 I completely agree. Haha, I guess so. It's a shame that the film is so inaccurate.
amyystevenson 1 year ago
@UrbanAngel33 In that case: to name a few; the two policemen came over a gate, Toby Greene broke his ankle yet he's standing up in this version, john logans guts were'nt all over the place in the book, parry's hair was in a pony tail, the 1987 daumas gassac bottle was given at the moment the child cried, they each had a rope, not the basket. Basically there are lots of errors and its hard not to be inaccurate in some sense of the word :S
AjoseRow 1 year ago
@UrbanAngel33 These 'errors' are differences. Films aren't supposed to imitate as closely as possible their source material (if they have it); it's a completely different form, and it's a different story.
Kelvinian 1 year ago
@Kelvinian That's what I thought. What would be the point of adapting a film if you're gonna do what every single page says? it's just impossible, different languages and different texts.
nyxB 11 months ago
@UrbanAngel33 To be fair, the 'errors' you're speaking of are nothing compared to the major differences and omissions that come later. But still, this is a brilliant film to me.
xArmagideonTime 1 year ago
@UrbanAngel33 Adapting a book is not about taking every little detail into account... or, for that matter, recreating your imagination. It's a great book, but you must know that the film is only a person's interpretation where the least that you should pay attention to is that kind of details. They're not errors, they're simply the way in which the director thought the story fits best the screen and more importantly, in a way that the cinematographic language works.
nyxB 11 months ago
@UrbanAngel33 and they miss out the bit at the airport and the discussion of keats and he was never going to propose!
nocoolnamesleft123 10 months ago
@UrbanAngel33 I know!
Also Logan shouldn't struggle.
They should argue more.
There should be more emphasis on their injuries.
starryeyeddoll13 4 months ago
@UrbanAngel33
Nitpicking, ALL of that comment was nitpicking. Plus, it was never SPECIFICALLY shown or explained that Joe prayed, he just sat down with Jed.
Lozimia2 4 months ago
@Lozimia2 It's not nitpicking, it's getting the whole story right. If you don't use the book, you may as well make a whole other film. It's the details that count, in the book something entirely different happens. Enduring love, is centred around the specific nature of Joe's character and how it deteriorates. It's people like you who make these films.
Magicalbadgeroftime 3 months ago
they made the movie so different to the book...in the book joe doesnt pray with jed, joe doesnt declare to clarissa that he was going to propose to her, and in the end (WARNING - SPOILER) Joe doesnt bloody kiss jed, gahhhhhhh. Really didnt need to see that.......................
L0lCows 1 year ago
In the book he refuses to pray. A lot of differences, covers the main point but the book is definitely better.
AmandaLeigh0023 1 year ago
Doesn't quite do the book justice, but it's pretty good nonetheless.
4beerstime 1 year ago
reading the first chapter of the book was terrifying...
I wish it was possible for a movie to justify McEwan's writing
MisterLolify 1 year ago
That boy is an idiot :S Pull the red cord for gods sake! Id love to go there but I'd hide if I saw any balloons.
deaconredwhiteandblu 1 year ago
@deaconredwhiteandblu read the book, you'll understand...
MisterLolify 1 year ago
DIDN'T SEE HER TRY TO HELP.
WilderWeinX 1 year ago
What a haunting, beautiful, disturbing opening scene. Thanks for this.
exyfguitarist 1 year ago 16
Comment removed
GreenMaserati71 1 year ago