Any of you seen this movie? What are your thoughts? What rings true? What doesn't? Is it at all useful to learn anything about Thailand?

The movie has nothing on the book.

That's my tuppence worth.

The movie has nothing on the book.

That's my tuppence worth.

Agreed. Definately read the book. I watched the film first and after reading the book I can't believe they changed so much of it.

i haven't read the book but the movie was not too bad.

it's not about thailand though.

you won't learn thai specific things from it.

right, considering all the other Hollywood standards nowadays......it was ok.

Still no Bergmann, Quarantino, Herzog or Truffaut, but still ok

i haven't read the book but the movie was not too bad.

it's not about thailand though.

you won't learn thai specific things from it.

I read the book,didn't see the movie,not much about Thailand as well..except the ambient.The book seemed to me a hippie version of "The Lord of flies"by W.Golding

The movie has nothing on the book.

That's my tuppence worth.

Agreed. Definately read the book. I watched the film first and after reading the book I can't believe they changed so much of it.

It is VERY difficult to stay true to a book when making it into a movie. It would take a movie 6 hours long to do so. Movies have to get the story done in about 2 hours.

I saw the movie a couple different times and thought it had some merit. It follows a trend you see with the hippy group that hangs around the penninsula islands in the south. There are two groups of young people who visit Thailand. There are the back packer groups off on a world adventure, and who want to learn the culture, but who also like to party. Then there are the self imposed expats that try to survive by any means possible, and often ignore their visa runs to the border. The movie tried to show a bit of both and tried to tie it together in a weak story line.

The movie has nothing on the book.

It has Virginie Ledoyen over the book!

Any of you seen this movie? What are your thoughts? What rings true? What doesn't? Is it at all useful to learn anything about Thailand?

Nothing rings true too be honest apart from the back packers.

So-so book; crap film.

From one review:-

"The Beach is divided into two sections. The first, which comprises two-thirds of the running time, is a fairly straightforward adventure/romance. It's all very Blue Lagoon-ish, with the flora and fauna consistently overshadowing the paper-thin characters. Even a silly rubber shark has more personality than half the men and women populating this movie.

The last 40 minutes aren't merely dissatisfying - they're virtually unbearable. And, in the end, it all seems to signify nothing."

Agreed. Definately read the book. I watched the film first and after reading the book I can't believe they changed so much of it.

It is VERY difficult to stay true to a book when making it into a movie. It would take a movie 6 hours long to do so. Movies have to get the story done in about 2 hours.

I know that man, I just mean like a couple of things that would have made no difference to the length of the film- like nationalities and relationships. I didn't expect it to be filmed exactly the same as book.

Surely that is the time when the rubber shark comes back into the picture. No learning about Thailand though - better off watch Bangkok Dangerous for a real taste of life here. Mmmmm - Nitong - good food and plastic chairs.

Have seen the movies (unfortunately) - but have only lived here ("safe" in BKK and other nice places) for 2 years so actually know nothing.

Can easily say as much as others with so much less to offer though.

Regards,

K

The only True bit of that movie was the old lady cleaning the electrics with a wet mop. There all like that here - brain dead.

His first day in Bangkok was just like mine what with all the Thai men with American accents asking me if I wanted to drink snake blood

You might learn more about Thailand from Thai TV that you can watch here http://www.maxnettv.tv/index.php

So-so book; crap film.

This guy captures the essence of both!

It could of been set anywhere with a beach on the backpacker circuit.

From what I recall the Thais banned the film from being played in cinemas as it was so offensive. The only Thai characters are gun wielding drug growers, blood drinking Thai men or stupid maids who try to electrocute themselves - Hang on a minute, Garland might of nailed it there.

Now a movie of 'Bangkok 8' by John Burdett would work with the right cast and crew..

I recollect there was one really catchy phrase in the movie which had a high "true" - level and that was:

"pay them dollars, <deleted> their daughters" ............

crap film great soundtrack.

Walked into a pizza joint on Phi Phi about 5 years ago and it was playing on the tv. It was nearly finished so we sat down to see what was on next. Bugger me they started to replay it like an endless loop.

No pizza that day.

Thought it was a ridiculous film. It was set in Thailand, but any Thai characters were almost non-existent. The only time I seem to remember a Thai actually saying something in the film was when one of the drug runners said HUP PAHK หุบปาก - 'Shut your mouth' to someone.

As for being offered to drink snake's blood, never saw that in Thailand.

The big flaw in the film was that the island was meant to be almost impossible to reach: they had to swim there and jump off waterfalls à la Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to get there. However, when the islanders had to go and get supplies, suddenly they were miraculously able to leave and return by boat.

The whole story seemed like something a 14 year old might write without too much thought put into it.

One film which does quite well in capturing a first visit to Thailand from a Western point of view is, IMO, Butterfly Man (2002).

I saw it in Tapachula, Chiapas, Mexico. Pretty crappy first 2/3rds, andI guessed they would die violently. Walked out, caught a brand new 2000 Old VW Beetle taxi with Levi jeans seats, and rode home to the real "Beach."

One film which does quite well in capturing a first visit to Thailand from a Western point of view is, IMO, Butterfly Man (2002).

true, if you want to learn something about thailand from a movie then watching that one is a better idea.

better off watch Bangkok Dangerous

I hope you mean the 1999 original, not the abysmal 2008 remake with Nicholas Cage.

What were the Pangs thinking?!

The beach, what a load of tosh,I remember one called [ Bath time in Bangkok] now that was funny.

What learn about Thailand? Nothing of course! It was fiction and entertainment. Nothing serious. Almost fantasy. Set in a non real Thailand. A movie for teenager. And therefore quiet ok. Only a fool would watch that movie to learn something about Thailand.

Respect to Garland. He must have made a mint from the book. A lot of people read the Beach and headed to Thailand - so he did the tourist industry a good turn to.

Does anyone recall the waterfall scene in the movie? - The waterfall they filmed at was in Khoa Yai NP - Isaan miles and miles from any coastline.

Heres a photo I took a few months ago.

Walked into a pizza joint on Phi Phi about 5 years ago and it was playing on the tv. It was nearly finished so we sat down to see what was on next. Bugger me they started to replay it like an endless loop.

No pizza that day.

Like the bus trip we did a while back . . . sat through Roger Moore in The Man With the Golden Gun, promoting of course James Bond Island. And on return journey . . . same movie. Master Asian bad-guy is Hi Fat; any relation maybe to Phuket restaurant (and possibly real person?), Hung Fat.

If you've seen movie you'll know Christopher Lee plays Scaramanga, the man with the third nipple. Soon after I met a woman (!) also with a third nipple, but turned out to be bad acne.

I kid you not.