I know a lot of people don't like book/movie comparison but I am sorry and here you go. The Fault in Our Stars is a very good movie adaptation of the book with the same name. I quite enjoyed the movie and I really appreciated some details and effort in the production: the V for Vendetta poster in Gus' room, Hazel's Chuck Tailors in Amsterdam and the almost-the-same-as-book dialogues. I liked the actors, particularly Van Hauten, potraied by the amazing Willem Dafoe. Definitely the good details overwhelm some cringe-worthy things, like Hazel's room: terminal ill kid that need a O2 bottle everywhere she goes, gets tired super quickly, need elevators to get around in buildings (the Anna Frank scene underline how big of a deal was for her) and then you put her room on a top of some STAIRS under the roof? Seriously? The movie until Amsterdam was almost flawless adapted. When it came to the last part of the movie, I was kinda sad with some choices. I understand that they wanted this movie to be liked by a very young kind of public but I kinda preferred the much more adult approach of the book. I didn't like the death approach: in the movie it's too light taken, it's not spoken enough, is not conscious enough and the character of Hazel it's too much joyful. The illness of Gus is too simple, it's not enough dramatic and it's way, waaay to fast. In the book the whole part of Gus dying is a 4-5 chapters heart-breaking marathon: his physical along with his personality deterioration is slow, painful, inevitable, hard to read. His mind suffers from the cancer as his body, and it is shown to us by the powerless and in-love Hazel. Gus in the movie was looking too sharp, too brilliant and too much in a good shape till the end. A lot of powerful and heart-breaking scenes are missing from the adaptation. I am unsure if rate 7 or 8. I might change my rating later on. Said this I still think it's a very good movie and I think anyone should watch it, but most importantly: READ THE BOOK.
Review by FilVIP 8BlockedParentSpoilers2014-06-22T13:36:47Z
I know a lot of people don't like book/movie comparison but I am sorry and here you go. The Fault in Our Stars is a very good movie adaptation of the book with the same name. I quite enjoyed the movie and I really appreciated some details and effort in the production: the V for Vendetta poster in Gus' room, Hazel's Chuck Tailors in Amsterdam and the almost-the-same-as-book dialogues. I liked the actors, particularly Van Hauten, potraied by the amazing Willem Dafoe. Definitely the good details overwhelm some cringe-worthy things, like Hazel's room: terminal ill kid that need a O2 bottle everywhere she goes, gets tired super quickly, need elevators to get around in buildings (the Anna Frank scene underline how big of a deal was for her) and then you put her room on a top of some STAIRS under the roof? Seriously?
The movie until Amsterdam was almost flawless adapted. When it came to the last part of the movie, I was kinda sad with some choices. I understand that they wanted this movie to be liked by a very young kind of public but I kinda preferred the much more adult approach of the book. I didn't like the death approach: in the movie it's too light taken, it's not spoken enough, is not conscious enough and the character of Hazel it's too much joyful. The illness of Gus is too simple, it's not enough dramatic and it's way, waaay to fast. In the book the whole part of Gus dying is a 4-5 chapters heart-breaking marathon: his physical along with his personality deterioration is slow, painful, inevitable, hard to read. His mind suffers from the cancer as his body, and it is shown to us by the powerless and in-love Hazel. Gus in the movie was looking too sharp, too brilliant and too much in a good shape till the end. A lot of powerful and heart-breaking scenes are missing from the adaptation.
I am unsure if rate 7 or 8. I might change my rating later on.
Said this I still think it's a very good movie and I think anyone should watch it, but most importantly: READ THE BOOK.