(no subject)

Date: 2007-11-21 01:43 am (UTC)
I rather liked it. It wasn't boring, which for me is the major factor in movies. (I am *not* a movie person!) It does not actually depart quite as far from the original (translation, I mean( as I'd thought, in my hazy high-school memories of reading it, and buried deep in the movie's website, Gaiman mays quite an intelligent defense of the changes he did make (movie website->About the Film->Production Notes). It basically boils down to "The story was written down after about 200 years of oral tradition and was written by monks; there are odd gaps which could be explained if the monks bowdlerized a bit. Here's one possible explanation that makes sense of the gaps." They're not claiming to have the One True Interpretation, just one not completely off-base.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

November 2018

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags