From: lafe@lafes.invalid
J. Clarke wrote in
news:9l4angpd864eg1s52b920iqddj92rjmikl@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 03:55:38 -0000 (UTC), Lafe
> wrote:
>
>>I liked the Lynch version well enough, though I wasn't a huge fan of it.
>>And I have read the books.
>>
>>I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation.
>>
>>My memory of the many details in the books is quite fuzzy, but I didn't
>>have any trouble following the "flash-forwards". I didn't think it was a
>>perfect way to convey what they were trying to show, but it did well
>>enough. Better than some of the "vision" sequences in the Lynch movie.
>>
>>I went into it without having a lot of expectations, but I would say
>>that it's easily better than any other movie/miniseries adaptation out
>>there, and did a better than average job at making the experience of the
>>movie similar to the experience of reading a book (something I think
>>*very* few movie adaptations accomplish).
>>
>>It certainly wasn't (and can't be) perfect at replicating the book, but
>>it didn't detract from the experience at all for me. I thought the
>>sound, music, and cinematography was very well done, and the acting was
>>generally above average, and in some cases truly excellent.
>>
>>I think it's well worth your time to see it.
>
> Do you feel that it will benefit from being seen in a theater?
Well, yes, probably. I saw it at home. But I have a large screen, and
surround sound with an aggressive subwoofer. It used the subwoofer a lot.
There was a large dynamic range of quiet conversation to giant
earth-shaking sound in this movie. If your home theater can handle it,
watch it at home. It's a long film, and being able to pause to go pee is
super useful. If you can't watch it at home, the theater will add that
epic sound (booty shaklng) element to your experience. A bit reminiscent
of Blade Runner 2048. The sound and music element was fantastic.
Lafe
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
