11-17-2008, 08:18 PM
Some factors I look at in judging a film that is based on literature are a) did they capture the mood of the book,B)did they capture the spirit of the book, c) did they capture the main plot line of the book, and then finely d) did they represent the book authentically? For example, Bladerunner was well done in my opinion in relation to the Philip K. Dick story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
Unfortunately, for some short stories, the lack of screenplay material hurts the movie version when the absence of of dialog leads the director to fill in with "Hollywood movie stuff". What do we know about the screenwriters (Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) other than it was the same team who worked on "Casino Royale"?
So, based on that criteria, how does the film represent the 1960 short story "Quantum of Solace"? How good a writer is Iam Fleming anyway? Did you know that he also wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?
Unfortunately, for some short stories, the lack of screenplay material hurts the movie version when the absence of of dialog leads the director to fill in with "Hollywood movie stuff". What do we know about the screenwriters (Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) other than it was the same team who worked on "Casino Royale"?
So, based on that criteria, how does the film represent the 1960 short story "Quantum of Solace"? How good a writer is Iam Fleming anyway? Did you know that he also wrote "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)