Books are overrated. The movie's better.

Rating: 10/10 (12 August 2005)

I'm so sick of all these people saying the book's better. Forget the stupid book. This movie's brilliant. The screenplay is brilliant. The writers took a really good novel and molded it into a perfect movie. I know all the wanna be critics that come here are gonna say how the book did this better and showed all these deep, hidden themes better and how the movie isn't as good and BLAH BLAH BLAH...that stuff is just so clichéd. I'm tired of hearing it. There's nobody in the world that could have done a better job than Foreman. The cast in this is perfect...and let me just say that I actually read the book first before seeing the movie thinking that if I saw the movie first my experience reading the book would be ruined, but the actors in the movie completely demolished the characters I had in my head; Jack Nicholson, Louis Fletcher, Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd...all perfect. All of them. Also, wasn't it great how the movie kept Cheswick around. God I love that guy. I think the biggest improvement that the movie had over the book was the ending. Kesey's ending lacked emotion, sensitivity, feeling...it just didn't have the impact on me that Foreman's ending did. I mean, wasn't that soundscore in the end of the movie simply amazing, I get goosebumps every time I see it. Books don't have music like that. They are, afterall, just words.
I have great respect for books and novels. Harper Lee's To Kil A Mockingbird towers over the movie, but that just isn't the case here and some of you need to get over it. Some of you also need to accept the fact that not all things in books can be translated into movies. They're two separate forms of entertainment.