MUNCIE – In a disguised attempt to let you know that he is exceptionally well-read, an acquaintance today informed you that the latest Hollywood blockbuster you are planning to view this weekend is no way near as good as the book upon which it is based.
During a painstaking 12-minute critique, the pompous little turd proceeded to describe how and why the film’s take on the story “lacked the emotional depth” of the original novel, which, in case you didn’t hear the first time, he has read about twenty times.
“The book has more of a human touch to it, and you really feel for the main protagonist,” insisted the pretentious and wholly unlikeable cretin. “Whereas the film relies too heavily on CGI and studio-dictated editing. If you’re going to watch the film, at least read the book first.”
Despite stating your belief that movie-going is a completely different experience from reading and, therefore, cannot be compared, the insufferable and smug-faced prick just wouldn’t shut up about how the film’s producers cut key portions from the original narrative.
“The bit where the supporting character becomes implicated in a vast conspiracy is absolutely essential to the plot,” he insisted. “The film was just a formulaic and senseless yarn without it.”
“And what really got me was the way all of the main characters ended up living happily ever after instead of having their fate left open-ended,” he continued, essentially giving away the ending of the film. “No, in my experience, the book is nearly always better than the film.”
In a desperate effort to avoid prolonging the conversation, you wisely opt not to mention your appreciation of the Harry Potter movies.