Marshall's GEISHA crashes and burns- Page 3

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:49pm

I read the book almost five years ago. The movie stands on its own; it's not necessary to read the book in order to appreciate it (in fact, some of the most intense scenes are not in the book).

Overall, I think it's a good thing that I had read the book some years ago because I remembered loving it and therefore wanted to feel good about the film, but so many years have passed since I read it that I couldn't tell which parts were faithful to the novel and which weren't...

ETA: Sometimes I obviously could tell which parts weren't faithful and I remembered the characters (or their core values and features) very well. But for the most part, it felt like a new experience.
Updated On: 12/12/05 at 12:49 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 12:51pm

Fair enough. Thanks.

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 1:46pm

I've read the book 7 times. I revisit it once a year.

The film is basically a blueprint of the novel- where the novel explores and goes deeper, the film only treads lightly.

Although i enjoyed several aspects of the film (esp. visually), it cannot compare to the beauty of the book, nor Golden's masterful choice of language and tone.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:12pm

I find it interesting how many people think Kong is going to be one of the top films---it cost S-O-O-O much to make, I just don't think it's going to re-coup it's investment very easily. (plus, aside from the trailer in the theater a few weeks ago, I saw a commercial on television that looked awfully cheesy...IMHO)

[DG]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:17pm

Mag - (just to continue the threadjack for a moment) Kong's world-wide gross is going to be astronomical. When combined with DVD sales and mechandising, it's going to end up being one of the most lucrative investments in movie history.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:19pm

And it's a big movie with terrific reviews. Romance, spectacle, the Jackson factor, based on familiar subject matter...

I agree with DG.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 2:23pm

KONG's budget was huge, yes, but I don't think it was ridiculously so. It actually cost less than SPIDERMAN 2, which had a budget of $210 million. Given the overwhelmingly positive hype (it looks to be the best-reviewed film of the year), the huge marketing campaign and the universal appeal, I have no doubt it's going to make a huge net profit.

Don't forget that each LORD OF THE RINGS film made about a billion dollars apiece. I think KING KONG is an easier sell.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 3:12pm

I hope you guys are right about Kong, but I have my doubts....

As for Geisha (to unjack the thread), I pay no attention to critics---I prefer to form my own opinion, and the trailer looked lush!!

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/12/05 at 8:01pm

Somehow I think this film would really appeal to someone who liked Chicago, The Hours AND Titanic. It seems to be a mixture of the three, with its own added elements.