It's really about two things, IMO:
1) Israel-Palestine...how heavy-handed was that metaphor in the camps about what happens if you treat any group of people like subhuman animals and the mutual intolerance that results.
2) The problems europe faces with a declining birthrate and a postmodern civilization.
It was about a theoretical future where humanity has become sterile. Europe's "declining birthrate" isn't an actual problem, since all it means is that there will be zero or slightly-negative population growth, and at any rate it's a matter of choice, not ZOMG FRENCH SPERM SURRENDER
As for the other: What? No, really. What? Where is it that people make these connections? By this logic, you may as well say it's about the conflict between Native Americans and the European settlers that drove them off their land.
My gf and I rented CoM yesterday and we both thought it was great except for one thing - character development. It seemed unrelenting with characters dying (or being removed form the story) one after the other before we ever got to know them. I also felt the antagonists end (the crazy black guy and the white guy with dreds) were kind of anti-climatic. But also in a way that frantic pacing was in line with the visuals in the movie and the kind of world they were trying to portray. I'd give it a solid B+. Good movie, but not earth-shattering.
Eh, two of the main three characters "lost" were lost to drive the plot. The third was done for emotional appeal.
I think this can be explained by the pacing too. The main characters didn't have weeks to get to know the supporting characters, so all we learned about them was what was found in the short conversations between the main/supporting roles.
I thought that the story was wonderful. As was the acting, with some scenes being the exception. (that is not what a fight between a divorced couple is like, sitting up on a double decker buss in a dystopian world or no) The thing that got me was the pacing. There were times when it was just spot on. That one long shot in the fugee camp was amazing. I mean come on, blood on the lens! However there were others that just broke the suspension of disbelief for me. Especially the Deus Ex feel of the rebels appearing at the right place at the right time in the end. If that had been played differently (for instance, if they were the connection to get the Russian guy the rowboat) it would have been great. Instead they just happen to slip into a refugee camp during the uprising and somehow discover the location of the boat Khee and Theo are going to use.
I thought this movie was pretty good story and character wise, but what really kept me riveted was the camera work. I tend to seek out movies that do things in a different way or that may be shot in a manner not used in typical film. I haven't yet watched the Behind the Scenes in the DVD, I'm interested to see what went into a few of the long shots that were put in. The car scene was amazing, in execution and effectiveness.
I thought that the story was wonderful. As was the acting, with some scenes being the exception. (that is not what a fight between a divorced couple is like, sitting up on a double decker buss in a dystopian world or no) The thing that got me was the pacing. There were times when it was just spot on. That one long shot in the fugee camp was amazing. I mean come on, blood on the lens! However there were others that just broke the suspension of disbelief for me. Especially the Deus Ex feel of the rebels appearing at the right place at the right time in the end. If that had been played differently (for instance, if they were the connection to get the Russian guy the rowboat) it would have been great. Instead they just happen to slip into a refugee camp during the uprising and somehow discover the location of the boat Khee and Theo are going to use.
The rebels sneeking in was explained before it happend. The guard that smuggled them in said that the holes in the fence wern't for people getitng out, it was for people getting in.
But anyway, I loved it. When I first saw the trailed I was greatly intruiged, since it was such pure sci-fi. You have a concept; women become infertile. You then have an exploration into what the consequences of this would be on the world. I stopped watching the trailer half way though because I sensed they were going to give away something. I was rewarded when I was watching that movie and the girl turned out to be pregnant.
The pacing was just nuts, but in a good way. I was on the edge of my seat (so to speak) during the whole movie, since you really never knew what was going to happen. Main characters were killed off mercilessly, and things just kept getting worse for the protagonists. When the escape car wouldn't start, to when the girl had her water break just as they were pulling into a camp, to making their way around the camp itself; you never knew what was going to happen, it was great.
I'm not sure if I'd really want to watch it again though, its very depressing I find, and emotionally draining to watch.
They kept it on mostly because they couldn't afford to redo the scene.
It was an accident, yes, but it was left on very deliberately.
What we would call a "happy accident"
ben0207 on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
I also thought the pregnancy thing was a big reveal until I was telling my friend about the movie and he said "oh and she's pregnant, right?"
I guess you can't blame people for ruining certain plot points because they may not know what hits people certain ways but, I thnk it's a shame they show you that right off. The infertility was as much of the plot as the big brother, so without previous knowledge I had no idea wher the movie was going (I never saw the trailer at all, only knew about the movie beause of this forum)
They kept it on mostly because they couldn't afford to redo the scene.
That isn't what wikipedia says about it. There it states that there were numerous takes, but someone (director, or producer, or something) saw the blood and thought it was great, and so kept it.
I was listening to an interview and the director said he was displeased with it at first but everyone was so excited over everything else going perfectly that he changed his mind and somehow accepted it as a part of the movie (even though they ended up removing parts of it through CG).
I thought that the story was wonderful. As was the acting, with some scenes being the exception. (that is not what a fight between a divorced couple is like, sitting up on a double decker buss in a dystopian world or no) The thing that got me was the pacing. There were times when it was just spot on. That one long shot in the fugee camp was amazing. I mean come on, blood on the lens! However there were others that just broke the suspension of disbelief for me. Especially the Deus Ex feel of the rebels appearing at the right place at the right time in the end. If that had been played differently (for instance, if they were the connection to get the Russian guy the rowboat) it would have been great. Instead they just happen to slip into a refugee camp during the uprising and somehow discover the location of the boat Khee and Theo are going to use.
The rebels sneeking in was explained before it happend. The guard that smuggled them in said that the holes in the fence wern't for people getitng out, it was for people getting in.
And them finding the boat's location in the middle of a devastated slum? Particularly with them just meandering in rather than a more obvious stake out and the leader running up shouting 'don't kill him!'? It just made me go and broke the wall.
And, to be frank, I don't care if it was intentional or because the camera man was drinking jamba-juice at the time. That just kicked ass.
moniker on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think it was a pretty good movie. I just chose to ignore the corny political commentary and see it as purely fiction. Its much better that way.
I think you guys are reading way too far into it. It just wasn't about Israel and Palestine, or whatever else. Yeah, there was a fascist government that was harsh on refugees--that was because the world had gone to hell in a handbasket.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I was listening to an interview and the director said he was displeased with it at first but everyone was so excited over everything else going perfectly that he changed his mind and somehow accepted it as a part of the movie (even though they ended up removing parts of it through CG).
Yeah, it isn't. I'll try to find my source (later, going to class now). But I think I got it from secondhand gossip trivia, so it might not be true.
Yeah, so there's no class today...
And I did a google search to only find this
PS, the blood on the lens wasn't digitally removed, the whole scene is actually spliced together from at least two component parts. Sorry to piss on everyone's praise, but the director explained that was how they managed it in one of his interviews. Still, those takes are at least two to three minutes long, and involve a hell of a lot of work.
And them finding the boat's location in the middle of a devastated slum?
The last 10 minutes or so were a steep downhill.
And I hate it when that happens. In many ways the ending defines the movie's lasting taste. Same thing happened in Let's Go To Prison. If that movie had a different ending it would have been perfect, but no.
They kept it on mostly because they couldn't afford to redo the scene.
That isn't what wikipedia says about it. There it states that there were numerous takes, but someone (director, or producer, or something) saw the blood and thought it was great, and so kept it.
I'll take Terry Gross' interview with the director over some guy on Wikipedia, thanks.
Target Practice on
0
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
There were moments in the film I felt were truly inspired, but never did I feel the whole movie lived up to it.
A scene that bothers me among a few others throughout the film, is the dialogue between Theo and Jasper when they first meet. Jasper asks Theo how he feels, and Theo essentially gives a spiel about being depressed and blah,blah, this, and blah that.. But didn't we already know that by now!?
For myself, it was made fairly clear just what was going on in Theo's mind as he gets up, goes to work, and speaks to his boss before he meets his ol' pal Jasper. Those few scenes were good enough for me to establish Theo as an easily understood and sympathetic character.
It was the writing and character scripts that seemed the weakest to me. It was either on one extreme or the other, and never a happy medium. We knew too much, or we knew too little.
There were moments in the film I felt were truly inspired, but never did I feel the whole movie lived up to it.
A scene that bothers me among a few others throughout the film, is the dialogue between Theo and Jasper when they first meet. Jasper asks Theo how he feels, and Theo essentially gives a spiel about being depressed and blah,blah, this, and blah that.. But didn't we already know that by now!?
For myself, it was made fairly clear just what was going on in Theo's mind as he gets up, goes to work, and speaks to his boss before he meets his ol' pal Jasper. Those few scenes were good enough for me to establish Theo as an easily understood and sympathetic character.
It was the writing and character scripts that seemed the weakest to me. It was either on one extreme or the other, and never a happy medium. We knew too much, or we knew too little.
Just the way that scene was executed... the way the characters inside the car acted - I really didnt expect her to die that early on.
Fallingman on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
A quick question for anyone who's seen the film - how is it compared to the original novel?
I was planning on getting the dvd for my Mum for her birthday as the book is by P. D. James, a favourite author of hers, but if it's really crap then I'll get something else...
My gf and I rented CoM yesterday and we both thought it was great except for one thing - character development. It seemed unrelenting with characters dying (or being removed form the story) one after the other before we ever got to know them. I also felt the antagonists end (the crazy black guy and the white guy with dreds) were kind of anti-climatic. But also in a way that frantic pacing was in line with the visuals in the movie and the kind of world they were trying to portray. I'd give it a solid B+. Good movie, but not earth-shattering.
Eh, two of the main three characters "lost" were lost to drive the plot. The third was done for emotional appeal.
I think this can be explained by the pacing too. The main characters didn't have weeks to get to know the supporting characters, so all we learned about them was what was found in the short conversations between the main/supporting roles.
Yeah, I understand that, but neither of us thought "OMG! PLOT TWIST!" when it happened. More like "Shit, I liked xxxx. Why did they do that?"
The movie was very impressive visually, however. I wish more movies would go to that kind of depth visually.
I think it was a pretty good movie. I just chose to ignore the corny political commentary and see it as purely fiction. Its much better that way.
I think you guys are reading way too far into it. It just wasn't about Israel and Palestine, or whatever else. Yeah, there was a fascist government that was harsh on refugees--that was because the world had gone to hell in a handbasket.
There were several occasions where it did have rather lame political commentary. For instance, the refugee camp had a sign saying homeland security in front of it :roll:.
I think it was a pretty good movie. I just chose to ignore the corny political commentary and see it as purely fiction. Its much better that way.
I think you guys are reading way too far into it. It just wasn't about Israel and Palestine, or whatever else. Yeah, there was a fascist government that was harsh on refugees--that was because the world had gone to hell in a handbasket.
There were several occasions where it did have rather lame political commentary. For instance, the refugee camp had a sign saying homeland security in front of it :roll:.
What else should it have said? It's a common phrase used now and their world is simply an extension of our own. It would be jarring and dishonest to use a different, less likely phrase to avoid reference.
Anyway, I agree that the end was the weakest part of the film largely because a narrative of that sort really doesn't have a set beginning or end. It's very much like Russian literature; you're tossed into the middle of events that are unfolding at a pace completely uncontrolled by the characters involved. Theo is as confused as we are and it is his eyes that we are using. The dying world is the one he knows. The future that Kee may or may not bring is a complete mystery to him and to us (thus, the boat in the mist).
I can't think of a particularly strong ending to the film as it is currently composed, with the ambiguity the director wishes. The choice of voice and style lend themselves to a less Chopin-esque ending (THESE CHORDS SHOW THAT IT IS.......THE........END!) than most Hollywood films.
I was so glad they showed the ship at the end. I thought for sure the last shot would be just Theo and Kee floating in the rowboat all alone.
That would have brought a smile to my face.
I think the movie was okay overall. Beating the bleakness home did kind've desensitize me for the rest of the film, which allowed me to giggle inanely at other people's misfortune. The film actually reminded me of Azerbaijan strangely.
The scenes and the actual shooting were top notch.
Just the way that scene was executed... the way the characters inside the car acted.
It was a bit of a cheap shot to me. I notice this kind of thing happening more in cinema now..
We're presented with an endearing moment between two characters, and then suddenly our buttons are being pushed for a flinch reaction. It is a lazy method to develop a character like that in one scene, only to have their death more poignant a minute later.
Just the way that scene was executed... the way the characters inside the car acted.
It was a bit of a cheap shot to me. I notice this kind of thing happening more in cinema now..
We're presented with an endearing moment between two characters, and then suddenly our buttons are being pushed for a flinch reaction. It is a lazy method to develop a character like that in one scene, only to have their death more poignant a minute later.
I don't know if you know this about that scene but Alfonso Cuaron added that part in (not in the book, which I'll discuss later in the post) but that ENTIRE scene with the Omegas was one entire unedited piece, nearly 15 minutes with NO cutshots. That's ridiculous in regards to cinematography and it was positively amazing, the cinematoraphy IMO was really impressive. Yes, the blood thing was an accident, but at least he realized it was freakin' brilliant.
Anyways, this movie is based on a Book by British authoress PD James, IMO the book is absolutely horrid, the movie injected parts which were essentially needed in the book. The action is necessary, injected yes, and the beginning is kind of slow--but this is really nothing compared to the tormenting book. There are just ridiculous parts which were taken out and Cuaron's additions are so much better than the parts in the original book
IE
-there is a priest who follows around the pregnant girl, and she is deeply religious, in the end it turns out that the child is HIS and not her husbands
-the midwife dies in the woods at the hand of the chairman
-gunfight in the end between the chairman and Theo
-Theo breaks into an old couples house and steals all their stuffs, only to later find out that he killed them
-Michael Kane's characters wife ends up dying in some dramatic drowning scene that's totally pointless...
oh, afterthought
does noone think that when they drive through the camp or whatever and they take the midwife off the bus, that the hooded people are a commentary on the tortures of the Abu Graihb (sp?) prison?
I think all of those "commentary" moments are only commentary inasmuch as the setting of the movie is intended to be a very realistic near future with a sci-fi twist. This isn't the galactic federation of humans or anything, it's a country that has moved towards fascism in an attempt to control a worldwide crisis. It's realistic in the allusions it makes to modern history in setting a reasonable world, not as a political statement.
LavaKnight on
0
Options
denihilistAncient and MightyRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
They never let up, it was too heavy handed in my opinion. You've got to have little rest stops, points where the audience can gather their breath. It just takes away from it in my opinion. Maybe my expectations had been built up to high but basically the pacing was my biggest gripe. I enjoyed the movie overall, but it could have been super awesome.
That's strange because my favorite part of the movie was the way it paced itself. Quiet moments of sincerity that exploded in violence, always by the outside world.
It's in my top five movies, but I'm a big fan of Cuaron. The acting was top notch, the script was wonderful, the photography was great and the editing was perfect. I have no complaints about the movie except that the Best Buy at my house sold out of the widescreen version on the release date and hasn't got any new copies in.
does noone think that when they drive through the camp or whatever and they take the midwife off the bus, that the hooded people are a commentary on the tortures of the Abu Graihb (sp?) prison?
Commentary? There was a direct copy of at least one of the more commonly shown Abu Ghraib photos in there. Hooded-dude-standing-on-box. It was the only thing in the film that irritated me really, it was just too blatant. That shot will date really fast in a way the rest of the film won't.
The Cat on
0
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
Anyways, this movie is based on a Book by British authoress PD James, IMO the book is absolutely horrid, the movie injected parts which were essentially needed in the book. The action is necessary, injected yes, and the beginning is kind of slow--but this is really nothing compared to the tormenting book. There are just ridiculous parts which were taken out and Cuaron's additions are so much better than the parts in the original book
Well now I feel a bit foolish buying the book the movie is based on. In reading it, maybe now I will better appreciate the movie?
A quick question for anyone who's seen the film - how is it compared to the original novel?
I was planning on getting the dvd for my Mum for her birthday as the book is by P. D. James, a favourite author of hers, but if it's really crap then I'll get something else...
Well, it's really very different. There are a few scenes that are important that are left in, but if she's read the book she'll know something is up. They actually go to the equivalent of "The isle of man" for example in th emovie, where as in the book they just talk about how horrible it is.
But all that being said, I really enjoyed the movie, the cinematography was simply fantastic, the pacing was perfect and a lot of the characters just meshed.
They kept it on mostly because they couldn't afford to redo the scene.
That isn't what wikipedia says about it. There it states that there were numerous takes, but someone (director, or producer, or something) saw the blood and thought it was great, and so kept it.
They may have had chances for more than one take but certainly not indefinitely. They got maybe 2 or 3 takes of that scene. Hell one take probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and a good day setup.
Posts
It was about a theoretical future where humanity has become sterile. Europe's "declining birthrate" isn't an actual problem, since all it means is that there will be zero or slightly-negative population growth, and at any rate it's a matter of choice, not ZOMG FRENCH SPERM SURRENDER
As for the other: What? No, really. What? Where is it that people make these connections? By this logic, you may as well say it's about the conflict between Native Americans and the European settlers that drove them off their land.
Eh, two of the main three characters "lost" were lost to drive the plot. The third was done for emotional appeal.
I think this can be explained by the pacing too. The main characters didn't have weeks to get to know the supporting characters, so all we learned about them was what was found in the short conversations between the main/supporting roles.
They kept it on mostly because they couldn't afford to redo the scene.
http://armory.worldofwarcraft.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Sargeras&n=Rubycurse
The rebels sneeking in was explained before it happend. The guard that smuggled them in said that the holes in the fence wern't for people getitng out, it was for people getting in.
But anyway, I loved it. When I first saw the trailed I was greatly intruiged, since it was such pure sci-fi. You have a concept; women become infertile. You then have an exploration into what the consequences of this would be on the world. I stopped watching the trailer half way though because I sensed they were going to give away something. I was rewarded when I was watching that movie and the girl turned out to be pregnant.
The pacing was just nuts, but in a good way. I was on the edge of my seat (so to speak) during the whole movie, since you really never knew what was going to happen. Main characters were killed off mercilessly, and things just kept getting worse for the protagonists. When the escape car wouldn't start, to when the girl had her water break just as they were pulling into a camp, to making their way around the camp itself; you never knew what was going to happen, it was great.
I'm not sure if I'd really want to watch it again though, its very depressing I find, and emotionally draining to watch.
It was an accident, yes, but it was left on very deliberately.
What we would call a "happy accident"
I guess you can't blame people for ruining certain plot points because they may not know what hits people certain ways but, I thnk it's a shame they show you that right off. The infertility was as much of the plot as the big brother, so without previous knowledge I had no idea wher the movie was going (I never saw the trailer at all, only knew about the movie beause of this forum)
That isn't what wikipedia says about it. There it states that there were numerous takes, but someone (director, or producer, or something) saw the blood and thought it was great, and so kept it.
And them finding the boat's location in the middle of a devastated slum? Particularly with them just meandering in rather than a more obvious stake out and the leader running up shouting 'don't kill him!'? It just made me go
And, to be frank, I don't care if it was intentional or because the camera man was drinking jamba-juice at the time. That just kicked ass.
I think you guys are reading way too far into it. It just wasn't about Israel and Palestine, or whatever else. Yeah, there was a fascist government that was harsh on refugees--that was because the world had gone to hell in a handbasket.
The last 10 minutes or so were a steep downhill.
CG? Do you have a link?
Yeah, it isn't. I'll try to find my source (later, going to class now). But I think I got it from secondhand gossip trivia, so it might not be true.
Yeah, so there's no class today...
And I did a google search to only find this
http://lettertoamerica.blogs.com/letter_to_america/2007/03/children_of_men.html
And I hate it when that happens. In many ways the ending defines the movie's lasting taste. Same thing happened in Let's Go To Prison. If that movie had a different ending it would have been perfect, but no.
I'll take Terry Gross' interview with the director over some guy on Wikipedia, thanks.
A scene that bothers me among a few others throughout the film, is the dialogue between Theo and Jasper when they first meet. Jasper asks Theo how he feels, and Theo essentially gives a spiel about being depressed and blah,blah, this, and blah that.. But didn't we already know that by now!?
For myself, it was made fairly clear just what was going on in Theo's mind as he gets up, goes to work, and speaks to his boss before he meets his ol' pal Jasper. Those few scenes were good enough for me to establish Theo as an easily understood and sympathetic character.
It was the writing and character scripts that seemed the weakest to me. It was either on one extreme or the other, and never a happy medium. We knew too much, or we knew too little.
Yeah, we knew.
Jasper didn't.
Things would be normal for 10 minutes, almost jovial, then BAM something disastrous. Over and over.
Click me for Sin City Breakfast Tacos! | Come discuss CG with us!
Just the way that scene was executed... the way the characters inside the car acted - I really didnt expect her to die that early on.
I was planning on getting the dvd for my Mum for her birthday as the book is by P. D. James, a favourite author of hers, but if it's really crap then I'll get something else...
Yeah, I understand that, but neither of us thought "OMG! PLOT TWIST!" when it happened. More like "Shit, I liked xxxx. Why did they do that?"
The movie was very impressive visually, however. I wish more movies would go to that kind of depth visually.
There were several occasions where it did have rather lame political commentary. For instance, the refugee camp had a sign saying homeland security in front of it :roll:.
What else should it have said? It's a common phrase used now and their world is simply an extension of our own. It would be jarring and dishonest to use a different, less likely phrase to avoid reference.
Anyway, I agree that the end was the weakest part of the film largely because a narrative of that sort really doesn't have a set beginning or end. It's very much like Russian literature; you're tossed into the middle of events that are unfolding at a pace completely uncontrolled by the characters involved. Theo is as confused as we are and it is his eyes that we are using. The dying world is the one he knows. The future that Kee may or may not bring is a complete mystery to him and to us (thus, the boat in the mist).
I can't think of a particularly strong ending to the film as it is currently composed, with the ambiguity the director wishes. The choice of voice and style lend themselves to a less Chopin-esque ending (THESE CHORDS SHOW THAT IT IS.......THE........END!) than most Hollywood films.
That would have brought a smile to my face.
I think the movie was okay overall. Beating the bleakness home did kind've desensitize me for the rest of the film, which allowed me to giggle inanely at other people's misfortune. The film actually reminded me of Azerbaijan strangely.
The scenes and the actual shooting were top notch.
It was a bit of a cheap shot to me. I notice this kind of thing happening more in cinema now..
That's what my mom's bf said about it, like, 10 minutes into the film.
"This is sci-fi..is this a Soylent Green remake?" lol
I don't know if you know this about that scene but Alfonso Cuaron added that part in (not in the book, which I'll discuss later in the post) but that ENTIRE scene with the Omegas was one entire unedited piece, nearly 15 minutes with NO cutshots. That's ridiculous in regards to cinematography and it was positively amazing, the cinematoraphy IMO was really impressive. Yes, the blood thing was an accident, but at least he realized it was freakin' brilliant.
Anyways, this movie is based on a Book by British authoress PD James, IMO the book is absolutely horrid, the movie injected parts which were essentially needed in the book. The action is necessary, injected yes, and the beginning is kind of slow--but this is really nothing compared to the tormenting book. There are just ridiculous parts which were taken out and Cuaron's additions are so much better than the parts in the original book
IE
-there is a priest who follows around the pregnant girl, and she is deeply religious, in the end it turns out that the child is HIS and not her husbands
-the midwife dies in the woods at the hand of the chairman
-gunfight in the end between the chairman and Theo
-Theo breaks into an old couples house and steals all their stuffs, only to later find out that he killed them
-Michael Kane's characters wife ends up dying in some dramatic drowning scene that's totally pointless...
oh, afterthought
does noone think that when they drive through the camp or whatever and they take the midwife off the bus, that the hooded people are a commentary on the tortures of the Abu Graihb (sp?) prison?
It's in my top five movies, but I'm a big fan of Cuaron. The acting was top notch, the script was wonderful, the photography was great and the editing was perfect. I have no complaints about the movie except that the Best Buy at my house sold out of the widescreen version on the release date and hasn't got any new copies in.
Commentary? There was a direct copy of at least one of the more commonly shown Abu Ghraib photos in there. Hooded-dude-standing-on-box. It was the only thing in the film that irritated me really, it was just too blatant. That shot will date really fast in a way the rest of the film won't.
Well now I feel a bit foolish buying the book the movie is based on. In reading it, maybe now I will better appreciate the movie?
Well, it's really very different. There are a few scenes that are important that are left in, but if she's read the book she'll know something is up. They actually go to the equivalent of "The isle of man" for example in th emovie, where as in the book they just talk about how horrible it is.
But all that being said, I really enjoyed the movie, the cinematography was simply fantastic, the pacing was perfect and a lot of the characters just meshed.
They may have had chances for more than one take but certainly not indefinitely. They got maybe 2 or 3 takes of that scene. Hell one take probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and a good day setup.