Movies Vs Books: an opinion

'Books Vs. their movie adaptations' would have been an apt title. more often than not, I have been sad/disappointed at the movie adaptation of a book. My friends go ga-ga about the movie, and I'll be like 'it was OK'. over time, I have been conferred the title of snob and art-movie lover (and consequently, commercial cinema hater). I have had enough of it, and the remaining part of the post is my defence.

Books attract me. I like the idea of getting lost in my own world, getting lost in my imagination. yes, movies provide an escape from realism too, but the magic hidden in books is something different altogether. Literature buffs say movies fall short of capturing the essence of the books, or something to that effect; I disagree. they do capture the essence of the book, but from the point of view of someone else. take Sherlock Holmes for example. Everyone who has read Holmes' stories has her/his own version of how Holmes and Watson look like, and their story progresses accordingly. Guy Ritchie's adaptation pictured Holmes differently, and many die hard Sherlock fans hated it- because it conflicted with their imagination of Sherlock Holmes.

I was forced to write this post because of 'Kick-Ass', the movie. The book was darker, and the protagonist stays the proverbial loser till the end. Movie? no, sir, the hero gets the girl, death of an important character gets a noble back story.. typical feel good fable. Chick lit, if you wish to go to the extreme end of the scale. Everyone who saw the movie said they liked it; I thought it sucked (ok, just a little bit- at the end).

I'm not a book to movie hater, you know. every time a book based movie is released, I am almost the first to see it, to see if it bucks the trend. I have been proven right a few times: Thank you for smoking, Sin City, 300, LOTR series... but the list of movies that have failed to amuse me- have been rather long.

My opinion isn't going to change for a while.