Originally Posted by Aaron
Exactly, it just looks like a stylish adaptation of what already is a graphic novel. One also has to remember that rarely do direct adpatations of books or events make for interesting, and entertaining, movies.
(300 doesn't appear to be directed by michael bay, unless i've missed something http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/
I wasn't particularly bothered, from a nationalists point of view, by king arthur http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/
, though i know that the KA legend has practically zero viable historical evidence. u-571 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/
, though, showed a pretty flagrant disregard for recent history. lying bastards.
anyway, because of time constraints there are very few direct adaptations, of the sort that i think you are referring to, out there. i disagree though that they rarely make interesting and entertaning movies, the most glaring example being sin city, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/
. for those who have not seen it this film is adapted from a graphic novel by frank miller, just like 300, but it is co-directed by miller himself and by the experienced robert rodriguez. they appear to have taken the pages of the graphic novel and used them as the direct stroyboard from which to film the movie. there is not one bit of dialogue in the film that is not in the book, every shot in the film has a corresponding as-near-to-indentical-as-possible frame in the book, down to angle, composition and colour. i don't believe that this has ever been done before, at least not on this scale, and rodriguez had an uphill struggle with hollywood to be allowed to achieve it. the result, though not perfect (comic book dialogue is a little clunky in film for instance), is far superior to pretty much any comic book adaptation i can think of (from hell, the league of extraordinary gentleman, hellboy, spawn, the punisher, the x-men, the flash, mirrormask etc etc) both in quality of film, and depth of interest.
likewise, a film i have seen recently that is as un-embellished an account as possible of actual events is united 93, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/
, though the exact actions of the passangers is unavoidably speculative, everything around this is as exact as possible, down to actual people that were a part of the tragedy playing thmeselves, or at least directly contributing to the film-making process. it is lucky (if you'll excuse the turn of phrase) that this window of time in history lasted about the same amount of time as the average film runs, allowing the events in the film to be played out in near eral time. But even beyond this, greengrass's strict adherence to direct adaptation, or raw realism, made an incredibly interesting and entertaining (maybe entertaining is the wrong word, compelling? harrowing? visceral?) piece.
have you an example of a direct adaptation, either of history or fiction, that is neither entertaining nor interesting? i am not challenging, merely curious.