Support NeoGAF

[Goddard]

Just yesterday I finished reading the original novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and after hearing so many amazing things about the film, I decided I may as well watch it. I borrowed the DVD version from a friend of mine who likes to collect classic movies, and watched it, and by god is it fucking terrible! I came into the movie knowing a few important things I always check at the door whenever I do something like this:

1. Ignore the reputation, you can love something everyone hates and hate something everyone loves.
2. There is no perfect way of morphing a book into a movie script without modifying or removing parts of the book, I'm fine with that.
3. Try to pretend I hadn't already known how the movie was going to end.

So I went into watching the movie as neutral as one possibly can after already reading the novel, which is to say not very neutral, but I tried. With some book to film conversions there is a lot of content not present, missing context, characters that appear different than they do in your head, etc, and although it is always a little bit frustrating, I can usually get passed those differences pretty quickly, but HOLY SHIT, the amount of destruction taking place in this film is extremely jarring. I'll try to list a few off the top of my head:

• It is taking place from the perspective of a camera, not Chief Bromden. I can't logically expect them to keep that one intact given how hard it is to show a movie that is supposed to be taking place inside someone's head, but it was nonetheless very jarring,
• Nurse Ratched has normal sized tits. They go on and on about her disproportionately large breasts inside the book, you would think they would at least give it a shot. Nope.
• McMurphy is supposed to be ginger, and is supposed to have a big ass scar on his nose. I will give them leeway here because Jack Nicholson was probably the best man for the part, but I found that very jarring.
• There is no flashbacks. Considering the amount of time is spent reflecting on the past in the book, I assumed there would at least be a flashback to Chief Bromden when he was young, but nope there wasn't a single flashback in the whole thing.
• Cheswick doesn't die. This one bothered the hell out of me, one of the strangest and most interesting parts of the novel was how Cheswick died out of the blue, and how everyone reacted to it. Changing that is very noticeable.
• Not only does Cheswick not die, but he also accompanies McMurphy and Bromden to the disturbed ward.
• They don't even mention the shock shop before McMurphy goes in, it just happens.
• McMurphy hands a piece of gum to Bromden, when it was supposed to be one of the nurses.
• McMurphy escapes, comes back with a schoolbus, takes the acutes to a trailerpark, and then a dock, and they fucking steal a boat.
• The Doctor doesn't accompany them to the trip, they don't take his car either, and they don't go to the gas station.
• George doesn't become captain of the boat.
• As an extension of George not becoming captain, they never went to the showers to be cleaned of bugs or whatever else they may have acquired on their fishing trip, and McMurphy picks a fight with Washington for a completely different reason. It is nowhere near as dramatic.
• Washington is the lifeguard.
• McMurphy is made to look like much more of a belligerent asshole than he is in the book, and as a result he is almost more of an antagonist than the Big Nurse.
• They completely and utterly fail to antagonize the Big Nurse. Maybe an important aspect of the novel is that most of the evil the Big Nurse is supposed to be up to is imagined by Bromden, but come fucking on who wouldn't be angry if their ward was trashed for no apparent reason. She didn't even seem angry or evil when they were at meetings. At worst she was being a bit of a cunt really.
• At the end when McMurphy tries to strangle Ratched to death, he doesn't rip off her clothes. This is one that you can't reasonably expect them to add into the movie, as it is a completely brutal scene in the book, but it is still pretty disapointing that they don't even imply it happens, like that could have done by ripping off her clothes and panning to the acutes to see their reactions rather than the nude nurse.
• Probably many, many other things I haven't bothered to mention or don't remember.
• After coming back to the ward Ratched can speak fine.
• McMurphy randomly appears back at the ward with no explanation. They also left out the dramatic part about him being wheeled in on the cart labeled "Lobotomy."

Again, I can forgive directors for leaving out bits and pieces, perhaps changing the plot to accomodate the lack of context that exists when you take a book that is meant to be read over the course of many many hours, and try and condense it within a much smaller time span, but holy fucking shit so much was changed that it ruined the whole movie for me.

Another important point I could make, I guess, is that when I tried to look at the movie as a standalone, as if it wasn't an adaptation but it's own original thing, nothing made any sense. There is no context. If I never read the book I would have no idea why Cheswick was making such a big deal about the cigarettes, no idea why they don't just walk out the fucking door, no idea why the control panel they try and lift is so significant, no idea why ratched is strangled at the end, and probably many other things that make absolutely no sense without context. With context they still don't make sense because they fucked with too much of the important plot details. It's a lose-lose.

Overall to me the movie was just a steaming pile of dog shit, while the novel is quite excellent. Jack Nicholson is supposed to be an amazing actor in this movie too, which I strongly disagree with. I agree that he can be an amazing actor, like in The Shining, but the part for him was so butchered that McMurphy was completely misrepresented in my opinion. The only quality acting in the whole movie was Danny DaVito, he played a nut pretty damn well imo, but other than that, no matter how good the actors are in general, the performances were completely sub par all the way across the board.

Any thoughts, GAF? Apparently this film is universally acclaimed, but I absolutely cannot see why, I think it is terrible.

 

[Ken Masters]

Comparing the book and film is dangerous, view the film as it's own entity

 

[Goddard]

Comparing the book and film is dangerous, view the film as it's own entity

Please read the OP before responding.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I pretty much saw the entire movie parodied on The Simpsons before I actually saw it so it was hard to view it objectively.

 

[Goddard]

I pretty much saw the entire movie parodied on The Simpsons before I actually saw it so it was hard to view it objectively.

You shouldn't need to see anything objectively in order to enjoy it. I enjoyed some of the Harry Potter films despite them being inferior to the books in quite a few ways. The difference was there and it was big but it didn't ruin it. This movie though, holy shit they ruined everything.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

You shouldn't need to see anything objectively in order to enjoy it.

It's hard when you're constantly going, "Ohhhh yeah Barney did that in The Simpsons."

 

[Ken Masters]

Please read the OP before responding.

I skimmed through, made my post, then read it again


My post stands

 

[MidnightCowboy]

Yeah well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Sorry I had to do it. I enjoyed it a lot when I first saw it, but it's been like four years since then. I've never read the book.

 

[noobasuar]

Everyone should read the book. It's quite fantastic.

I don't really want to comment on the disparities between the book and the movie since its been years since I've read or seen the movie. But I did enjoy both, but I saw the movie before I ever read the book so I might see things differently if I did it the other way around.

I do refuse to watch movies of most books though. Like I've refused to watch any Harry Potter movie other than the third because of the director.

 

[Goddard]

I skimmed through, made my post, then read it again


My post stands

.

Another important point I could make, I guess, is that when I tried to look at the movie as a standalone, as if it wasn't an adaptation but it's own original thing, nothing made any sense. There is no context. If I never read the book I would have no idea why Cheswick was making such a big deal about the cigarettes, no idea why they don't just walk out the fucking door, no idea why the control panel they try and lift is so significant, no idea why ratched is strangled at the end, and probably many other things that make absolutely no sense without context. With context they still don't make sense because they fucked with too much of the important plot details. It's a lose-lose.

 

[Ken Masters]

.

Nope


You just read the book and saw the film and noticed so much of the details were gone and you couldn't get over that. As a film it's not an issue as it doesn't effect the film or the narrative to know every single little detail about everything.

 

[akachan ningen]

Why does it need to be just like the book? If it was, it wouldn't need to exist at all.

 

[Goddard]

Nope


You just read the book and saw the film and noticed so much of the details were gone and you couldn't get over that. As a film it's not an issue as it doesn't effect the film or the narrative to know every single little detail about everything.

The thing is not the missing detail, it is they included major plot elements that are completely meaningless without the context given in the book. For example, lifting up the tub room control panel was a major, major element of the book. McMurphy was supposed to be training Bromden to be a much stronger person, McMurphy initially chose to try and throw it through the window because someone pointed out that trying to break a chair through the window wouldn't work, and more than that. Putting it in the move anyway despite a massive lack of context is meaningless and pretty dumb imo, and they do that with basically the whole plot. They make it so that it would only truly be coherent if you read the book, but way, way less coherent if you read the book.

 

[Goddard]

Why does it need to be just like the book? If it was, it wouldn't need to exist at all.

They made that call when they centered the entire plot around major plot events from the book, they fucked it up when they skipped out on all the context. I would never pretend that movies adaptations have to be identical, but they tried, and failed extremely miserably.

 

[munchie64]

The film is good because it's well directed, filmed, written, acted, paced etc. And as far as I can tell the complaints in the OP don't override any of those things.

 

[Goddard]

The film is good because it's well directed, filmed, written, acted, paced etc. And as far as I can tell the complaints in the OP don't override any of those things.

I don't think it's well directed because of the seemingly huge lack of context going into very chaotic scenes, filmed is no different, I think it is easily one of the worst film adaptations of a book I have ever seen, so exceptionally poorly written, acting was good, but the writing was really, really bad so they had no potential to shine, and the pacing was to me at least really bad because they rushed through a lot of the things that are very important, and spent a lot of time putting emphasis on things that aren't.

Obviously these are all unpopular opinions but this completely baffles me, most movies are bad after reading the books, but after reading the book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a fucking atrocious movie. Like 1 star, maybe 1.5 star level work.

 

[Nappuccino]

I love both, but they stand apart as very separate entities.

A lot of your points are just random nitpicks because the actors that could deliver the role weren't identical in description to the character. Most of that doesn't impact the movie much at all.

I think you failed at trying to be objective and take the film as being just what it is. Instead you dislike the film for not being the book.

If you think the movie didn't make sense, then explain how I saw the movie first and it made perfect sense?

The book is unquestionably better, thanks in part to the horrific surreal imagery, but the movie does a damn fine job portraying the exact same events from a different perspective.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The movie is amazing

 

[Red Blaster]

i like how you think people will take your criticism seriously after literally complaining that nurse ratched's breasts weren't large enough in the movie

 

[Aurongel]

...So I went into watching the movie as neutral as one possibly can after already reading the novel, which is to say not very neutral, but I tried.

No kidding, sounds to me like you set yourself up for disappointment right out of the gate.

 

[adamsappel]

It's a fantastic movie. And it's a great adaptation of a nearly-unfilmable book. Those nitpicks are borderline insane. I really thought the OP was a parody until I read Drambit's replies, though I'm still not convinced we're not being trolled.

 

[Toxi]

Another important point I could make, I guess, is that when I tried to look at the movie as a standalone, as if it wasn't an adaptation but it's own original thing, nothing made any sense. There is no context. If I never read the book I would have no idea why Cheswick was making such a big deal about the cigarettes, no idea why they don't just walk out the fucking door, no idea why the control panel they try and lift is so significant, no idea why ratched is strangled at the end, and probably many other things that make absolutely no sense without context. With context they still don't make sense because they fucked with too much of the important plot details. It's a lose-lose.

As someone who has never read the book, most of those seemed obvious to me and I watched the movie years ago. The only one I don't remember is the control panel.

Cheswick's deal about the cigarettes was more about respect than anything else. Think of the difference between how a child and an adult can spend money.

They don't walk out the door because they prefer oppressive safety to an unpredictable life. They also don't have faith in their own ability to live normal lives, reinforced by the staff's comments.

McMurphy strangles Ratchet because her unfeeling and controlling approach (And that of the staff in general) caused Billy to commit suicide. Very similar to why Frank gets angry at the warden in Escape from Alcatraz after Doc cuts off his fingers.

 

[rpmurphy]

Yeah, the movie changed a ton of what goes on in the novel, so for me having read the book first (and loving it), the film was okay, just okay.

In the context of film direction, I'm sure that it's one of the best works. *shrugs*

 

[AdventureRacing]

Some of your complaints are pure nit picks. You say you went into trying not to compare the 2 and then make complaints like the size of a characters breasts. In terms of not having enough context for characters actions i saw the movie first and understood it all just fine.

I don't think it's well directed because of the seemingly huge lack of context going into very chaotic scenes, filmed is no different, I think it is easily one of the worst film adaptations of a book I have ever seen, so exceptionally poorly written, acting was good, but the writing was really, really bad so they had no potential to shine, and the pacing was to me at least really bad because they rushed through a lot of the things that are very important, and spent a lot of time putting emphasis on things that aren't.

Obviously these are all unpopular opinions but this completely baffles me, most movies are bad after reading the books, but after reading the book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a fucking atrocious movie. Like 1 star, maybe 1.5 star level work.

I thought the writing was very well done actually. In general i can't really agree with any of your complaints. Not everyone will like the same things but so many of your complaints really just seem to stem back to not liking how the movie was changed from the book.

 

[EndGame82]

Great movie. You are most definitely over analyzing the differences from the book.

I mean I'm sure the director should have totaly picked a woman with comically large 38 DDD breasts over someone who can actually act just to be loyal to the book.

 

[yepyepyep]

Maybe I am biased because I saw the film first, but I didn't feel it was a bad adaptation of the book when I eventually read it. The book is quite different because it is viewed from the unstable perspective of the chief, who is basically a silent character for most of the movie, but really, could you really capture that on film?

The other complaints sound quite pedantic. Films and books are different mediums, so you never really are going to get a literal depiction of a book, which would be pointless anyway.
A movie has to be concerned with pacing, so some scenes are going to have to go missing or be more truncated than they were originally written as.
It's been a couple of years since I've seen the film, but when I first saw it, I wasn't confused by events happening. Films are generally more implicit sometimes because constant exposition is tiring in a movie.

 

[black_13]

You're waaaay exaggerating these differences.

Is the book better? Yes is it. But the movie on it's own does a good job capturing the relationship between the Chief and McMurphy without all those details.

But if you think it's one of the worst book adaptations then either you really haven't seen a lot of movies or you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Jesus Carbomb]

Brad Dourif doe.

 

[Helmholtz]

I never read the book, and haven't seen the movie in a long time. But I thought the movie was pretty good. Not one of my personal favourites but certainly a good movie.
A lot of your complaints seem a little nitpicky and are based on comparing the two versions of the story. Probably best to look at the movie as its own thing if you want to understand the acclaim. I know it's often hard to separate the two though, especially when you read the book beforehand.
And for the record, the movie made sense to me when I saw it. You have to expect a movie adaptation to cut out a lot of details and take creative liberties with things.

 

[Fevaweva]

At no point during the film did I get lost because of a lack of context thanks to something not being adapted. Seems to me you were watching it for its adaptationand not the film's quality

Calling it a 1 - 1.5 star film is just hyperbolic

 

[CaptainGyro]

Another important point I could make, I guess, is that when I tried to look at the movie as a standalone, as if it wasn't an adaptation but it's own original thing, nothing made any sense. There is no context. If I never read the book I would have no idea why Cheswick was making such a big deal about the cigarettes, no idea why they don't just walk out the fucking door, no idea why the control panel they try and lift is so significant, no idea why ratched is strangled at the end, and probably many other things that make absolutely no sense without context. With context they still don't make sense because they fucked with too much of the important plot details. It's a lose-lose.


.

I never read the book and while watching the movie I never thought " this stuff doesn't make any sense " so to be honest I find your complaints to be downright baffling
How is it even possible to watch the movie and have "no idea why ratched is strangled at the end"? Were you even awake the whole time while watching?

 

[travisbickle]

Those breasts are too small!! Didn't the director read the damn book?

 

[OverBlood 3]

I disagree with you that the film is bad but you've really made me want to read the book. Personally I love the film, it's probably my favourite film of all time just wonderfully directed, just love everything about it.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I watched the film before I read the book. I never found there to be a lack of context for a single one of those points you raised... I mean, I find it hard to believe that you don't know why McMurphy strangled Ratched in the movie, it's pretty clear. I'd go through each point you mentioned in a bit of detail but I'm at work

The film was so good that it spurred me on to read the novel, which was a different and equally rewarding experience for me. One thing I will say is that the novel highlights just how sentimental the film can get at points.

I guess you're in good company though, Ken Kesey didn't like what he'd heard about the film either.

 

[VaultBoy101]

The movie is a masterpiece and a classic. Haven't read the novel yet.

 

[cajunator]

the book is good. Havent watched the movie.

 

[Conor_Fool]

Incredible film, incredible book. The best part is that they shine in different ways.

 

[way more]

Mmmmmm, . . Juicy Fruit

That scene hits me. Almost like Chief is going to deliver a soliloquy on his past life and what Juicy Fruit did for him.

 

[mariachi507]

The thing is not the missing detail, it is they included major plot elements that are completely meaningless without the context given in the book. For example, lifting up the tub room control panel was a major, major element of the book. McMurphy was supposed to be training Bromden to be a much stronger person, McMurphy initially chose to try and throw it through the window because someone pointed out that trying to break a chair through the window wouldn't work, and more than that. Putting it in the move anyway despite a massive lack of context is meaningless and pretty dumb imo, and they do that with basically the whole plot. They make it so that it would only truly be coherent if you read the book, but way, way less coherent if you read the book.

The film uses the tub room control panel in a different context. Mac wants to leave the hospital and go watch the World Series and when he voices his intentions, the rest of guys tell him that he's not able to leave. He then bets that he can lift the panel and throw it through the window so him and Mr. Cheswick could escape. When he fails to do so he leaves the room but not before saying, "but I tried didn't I? Goddammit, at least I did that." That line shows that he meant to inspire the guys to go against the stream, to not be afraid to break the rules. There is a context but it was not the context that you were looking for, and having just finished the book your brain was conditioned to expect scenes from the film that were either changed or streamlined. I had also read the novel before watching the film and the differences were quite jarring for me at the time. Nowadays, I prefer the film even though I adore both. Unfortunately it seems that you are nitpicking the film for not following your expectations of what a Cuckoo's Nest adaptation should be instead of letting it stand on it's own. If you're still interested, I would recommend watching the film a few months down the road when the material is not so fresh in your mind.

 

[Z..]

Nope


You just read the book and saw the film and noticed so much of the details were gone and you couldn't get over that. As a film it's not an issue as it doesn't effect the film or the narrative to know every single little detail about everything.

This.

OP is obsessing about the book.

By the way, I read the book too, and the movie is alot better. They adapted it into something with a deeper meaning, à-la Clockwork Orange. It's a fucking triumphant achievement and one of the best movies ever made.

The book is pretty good, but pales in comparison.

 

[smuf]

Never read the book but the movie stands as one of my favourites. Brilliant acting all around too, with Nicholson putting in some of the best work he's ever done.

 

[Goddard]

i like how you think people will take your criticism seriously after literally complaining that nurse ratched's breasts weren't large enough in the movie

If you didn't read the novel you wouldn't understand why that's an important bit, but it is.

As someone who has never read the book, most of those seemed obvious to me and I watched the movie years ago. The only one I don't remember is the control panel.

Cheswick's deal about the cigarettes was more about respect than anything else. Think of the difference between how a child and an adult can spend money.

They don't walk out the door because they prefer oppressive safety to an unpredictable life. They also don't have faith in their own ability to live normal lives, reinforced by the staff's comments.

McMurphy strangles Ratchet because her unfeeling and controlling approach (And that of the staff in general) caused Billy to commit suicide. Very similar to why Frank gets angry at the warden in Escape from Alcatraz after Doc cuts off his fingers.

In the book the cigarettes thing is a much, much greater aspect of the story, so it makes sense that that one would confuse me. In the novel they were still gambling with cigarettes, but it was a big deal to the characters when she took them away, only giving out a pack a day. They made a fuss about it because it was a sign of opression, whereas in the movie when the nurse took them away it seemed like she had completely different motivation for doing it, and they had different motivation for causing havoc afterwards. Really jarring. Also, I'll repeat, I don't expect a perfect translation, but I don't think it would be that hard to streamline the idea of the Nurse being a very, very oppressive figure, rising up to a great scene of everyone's tensions breaking loose and McMurphy trying to kill her. In the movie it felt like McMurphy tried to kill the nurse just because of Bibbit, but in the book there is a massive rising tension throughout the entire thing. This next one is also a bit nitpicky because it isn't realistic in a movie, but I also thing the fact that for so much of the book it is implied that the patients don't leave because they don't have a choice, then revealed otherwise, is much, much more dramatic than having a mildly oppressive nurse.

It just feels like the Nurse is a mild annoyance and the patients are uncontrollably fucking mad in the movie, where it is the polar opposite in the book. Other people might interpret it different than me but they flipped the story on its ass imo.

EDIT: Split post 3 ways.

 

[Goddard]

Some of your complaints are pure nit picks. You say you went into trying not to compare the 2 and then make complaints like the size of a characters breasts. In terms of not having enough context for characters actions i saw the movie first and understood it all just fine.



I thought the writing was very well done actually. In general i can't really agree with any of your complaints. Not everyone will like the same things but so many of your complaints really just seem to stem back to not liking how the movie was changed from the book.

A lot of them are pure nitpicks, I just read the book, a lot of things like that stand out. Like I can't reasonably expect them to get the number perfect, where in the book there was 20 patients and McMurphy needed 11 to get the majority vote, and in the movie there were 18 patients and he needed 9, none of that really matters, but not all of my complaints are pure nit picks, for example completely throwing out the idea that Bromden is a paranoid schizo is a massive, massive change. A lot of my complaints do absolutely stem from comparing it to the book, I made no claim of objectivity, that's why I only wrote a few sentences about my attempt at viewing it objectively, but it is a movie that is based entirely off of a book, and all the changes matter. A lot of the changes were for the worse imo.

Great movie. You are most definitely over analyzing the differences from the book.

I mean I'm sure the director should have totaly picked a woman with comically large 38 DDD breasts over someone who can actually act just to be loyal to the book.

That's just one of the minor things I noticed lol, I wouldn't actually expect them to try that, although it would be funny. I think one of the greatest contrasts of the book is that with the air of depression there is occasional speak about her comically over-sized breasts.

I never read the book and while watching the movie I never thought " this stuff doesn't make any sense " so to be honest I find your complaints to be downright baffling
How is it even possible to watch the movie and have "no idea why ratched is strangled at the end"? Were you even awake the whole time while watching?

It's not that I would have no idea, it's that it makes so much more sense, like 10 times more sense in the novel, that having to rewatch it with a shocking lack of context makes it seem like there is almost no motivation. In the book the buildup to McMurphy strangling Nurse Ratched is about 260 pages long, and although it would obviously be impossible to streamline it so well you could fit it all in, I think a fuck of a lot better of a job could be done.

I watched the film before I read the book. I never found there to be a lack of context for a single one of those points you raised... I mean, I find it hard to believe that you don't know why McMurphy strangled Ratched in the movie, it's pretty clear. I'd go through each point you mentioned in a bit of detail but I'm at work

The film was so good that it spurred me on to read the novel, which was a different and equally rewarding experience for me. One thing I will say is that the novel highlights just how sentimental the film can get at points.

I guess you're in good company though, Ken Kesey didn't like what he'd heard about the film either.

To me the novel highlighted exactly how sentimental the movie never gets.

 

[Goddard]

Incredible film, incredible book. The best part is that they shine in different ways.

I don't see where the film shines at all. The acting was good, but I really don't see any merit to it.

The film uses the tub room control panel in a different context. Mac wants to leave the hospital and go watch the World Series and when he voices his intentions, the rest of guys tell him that he's not able to leave. He then bets that he can lift the panel and throw it through the window so him and Mr. Cheswick could escape. When he fails to do so he leaves the room but not before saying, "but I tried didn't I? Goddammit, at least I did that." That line shows that he meant to inspire the guys to go against the stream, to not be afraid to break the rules. There is a context but it was not the context that you were looking for, and having just finished the book your brain was conditioned to expect scenes from the film that were either changed or streamlined. I had also read the novel before watching the film and the differences were quite jarring for me at the time. Nowadays, I prefer the film even though I adore both. Unfortunately it seems that you are nitpicking the film for not following your expectations of what a Cuckoo's Nest adaptation should be instead of letting it stand on it's own. If you're still interested, I would recommend watching the film a few months down the road when the material is not so fresh in your mind.

That 3 month idea is probably good, but I made the thread because it wasn't just not what I wanted it to be, it was fucking shockling bad when compared directly to the book. I went into the movie not expecting that much to be similar, but the shear level of difference is incredible. I will agree with you that I guess the panel was in different context though. When I watched the film I was actually expecting it not to be used in the first place because it would be very hard to make work, but with the context of how someone in the book mentions that on the first day on the ward someone smashed a chair against the metal on the windows just to prove that you couldn't do it, and made McMurphy look for a different solution makes perfect sense in the context of the book, and no sense in the context of the movie, but I guess if you look at it objectively they were using it in a different context anyway, so I will concede that, although I don't feel it was wise for them to include it at all. Something that made this feel especially blunt to me, was the morning after the party, when the black boys first notice how fucked everything is around the ward, McMurphy is seriously just fiddling with the lock on a window, keys and all, everyone staring at him, like it's no big deal, which is a massive mockery of the book imo.

This.

OP is obsessing about the book.

By the way, I read the book too, and the movie is alot better. They adapted it into something with a deeper meaning, à-la Clockwork Orange. It's a fucking triumphant achievement and one of the best movies ever made.

The book is pretty good, but pales in comparison.

I strongly, strongly fucking disagree that the movie is better. An opinion is an opinion, if you prefer the movie to the book, or like the movie despite not reading the book, I respect that, but saying that the film had deepter meaning seems incredibly stupid, as the book is told from a very specific, very interesting, very unique perspective, which required reading between the lines and extrapolation to understand what was actually going on, which is fundamentally a way deeper meaning than anything that happened in the film, by an order of magnitude. Obviously by extension I disagree that it is a triumphant achievement, because I don't think there's any truth to what you're saying whatsoever. Best movie ever made is a lot more opinionated than the other aspects though so I'll give you that one lol. The book paling in comparison to the movie is a very big joke to me.

Never read the book but the movie stands as one of my favourites. Brilliant acting all around too, with Nicholson putting in some of the best work he's ever done.

A lot of what I'm arguing wouldn't make any sense at all without reading the novel, they are completely different in almost every conceivable way except a few key plot points, Bromden being a main character AND narrator alone would make any attempt at seeing where I'm coming from impossible. Let's just say there is a lot more drama in the book.

 

[Ushojax]

The movie is great, OP is just nitpicking.

Maybe the characters aren't as fleshed out as in the book but it all works. One of the best films ever.

 

[OldKentuckyShark]

You're not seeing why people think the movie is so good because you can't separate the book from the movie, and aren't letting the movie stand by its own merits. You don't seem to be able to see the movie as anything other than a comparison to the book.
I haven't read the book, but I saw the movie and it was great, I didn't find anything confusing.

 

[Goddard]

You're not seeing why people think the movie is so good because you can't separate the book from the movie, and aren't letting the movie stand by its own merits. You don't seem to be able to see the movie as anything other than a comparison to the book.
I haven't read the book, but I saw the movie and it was great, I didn't find anything confusing.

Perhaps what I find confusing is that there are things that aren't explained in the movie that you wouldn't think twice about so you probably wouldn't notice them. That is a legit perspective, a movie is meant to stand on its own, but things like the tub room control panel have a really, really big, fleshed out impact on the novel, whereas although it is still there, it is barely noticeable in the movie besides McMurphy shooting water at everybody (I don't think he did that in the book either, no biggie though.) I guess from a neutral standpoint these things might pass by completely unnoticed, but the impact they have on the book is pretty intense so it is really frustrating the way they changed things. Perhaps the main thing bothering me is that Ratched isn't nearly as much of an antagonist as she is in the book. She is obviously still meant to be the antagonist of the movie, but in the book it is built up like crazy, and the fear of her is built up an equally massive amount, and in the context of the movie, where there is way less antagonizing of her, it seems like the characters should be reacting entirely differently, like compared to the novel, in the movie they would have no reason to really hate the nurse. I guess from a neutral standpoint watching the movie it may seem like it, but if you took the acutes from the book and put them into a situation with that version of Nurse Ratched, no fights would break out, everyone would probably be very peaceful.

Of course, this is basically an invalid criticism given that the movie stands on its own, but coming from a very specific subjective standpoint, I think the movie is a completely terrible adaptation of the novel. The same characters do the same things but with way less context, buildup, motivation, and general logic. In the new circumstance it feels to me like they have no good reason to be doing anything that they are in the movie. The way I interpret it Cheswick was supposed to be freaking out at Ratched because taking away their freedom to have all their cigarettes is supposed to be a cherry on top of many other rising acts of oppression against the acutes, and because he felt empowered by McMurphy, not because he is just fucking insane. It's almost like the acutes are the antagonist of the movie the way it compares. Again, yes I have a biased opinion, and yes, no one in their right mind (ha) should ever expect a perfect adaptation of a novel into a movie, but when compared directly the movie really does seem like a steaming pile of shit.

 

[Nappuccino]

Of course, this is basically an invalid criticism given that the movie stands on its own, but coming from a very specific subjective standpoint, I think the movie is a completely terrible adaptation of the novel.

This is what you said you wouldn't try to do, yet here you are doing it.

 

[alterno69]

I never read the book and i love the movie. I own the bluray too. Everything made perfect sense to me.

 

[Goddard]

This is what you said you wouldn't try to do, yet here you are doing it.

When going into watching the movie I tried to keep the book knowledge in check, I never claimed to be objective in my criticism, most of it is direct comparison. Objective criticism is completely pointless.