• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

the book is always better than the movie...

good thread!

i liked Congo the movie more than the book...but really i didn't like either very much. i was able to get through the movie faster, that is probably why i liked it more.
 
SoN_of_SaMurAi said:
I think that every Steven King movie has been destroyed by hack actors, shitty dialogue and really bad direction. The only exception to this being Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
Click to expand...

I think that Jack Nicholson/kubrick version is a prime example of this. Not that he is a hack actor, but he was definately the wrong person for that role. The guy in the book is basically a good guy, prone to violence when alcohol is involved, but basically a likeable enough character.
Jack Nicolson made him a complete arsehole from the start and totally changed the feel of the whole story...

The shining gets my vote for kubricks shittest movie, seen it once and will never again...

Has anyone seen the movie It? Don't ask me how they managed to take a colossal story like that and turn it into the yawnfest they did...
 
Originally posted by randycaver
I highly disagree that American Psycho the movie is better than the book. I could not watch the movie. It was dull and boring - I turned it off. The book was fascinating, and fucked up and to me, the movie had neither of those qualities.

True, I just think that the movie was a whole lot easier. It took me forever to get into reading the book. But I still really like the movie. They pulled off the business card scene very well. But the book was far more fucked up; the rats, the car battery.........
 
Strawberry_lovemuffin said:
Not necessarily BETTER than, but more *accessible* than the book(s) - The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I tried but just couldn't read the book.
.
Click to expand...

^^^^ I tottally agree. Watching the first movie, made it so I coud finish the books. After finishing them all, while the are great stories, I could have been just as happy if I'd only seen the films. Drwafs and shit just ain't my reading style i guess.


]Originally posted by Chaos Butterfly American Psycho. I see your point but I have to disagree. Yes the continual descriptions of what everyone is wearing etc is a little annoying, but everything else is just so much better than the movie.
Click to expand...

But those long ass descriptiions are what the books really about. It's supposed to be look at how fucked up the 80's yuppie culture was. In the end it didn't matter that he was a killer, all that mattered was what he was wearing and how he looked. The movie while fun to watch got none of that across.

My vote for equal to and maybe just a little better. 2001. book great one of my favs, but the movie just rocks.
 
^^^ hannibal the movie did not do the book justice IMO. the movie tried too hard to be gory and it turned into a cheesy horror movie. and i was beyond pissed the way the movie changed the ending.

i agree with L O V E L I F E on shawshank redemption. the movie is a perfect example of a book on the big screen.

requiem for a dream is way better than the book. i found the book incredibly hard to get through.
 
The Talented Mr. Ripley used some original emotional layers when it was adapted from Patricia Highsmith's novel. The film also had a great "look" and cool cinematogrphy. The film takes on a darker tone than the novel, which made it more enjoyable for me...but book/movie comparisons are apples and oranges. Rating two completely different mediums against each other is almost impossible. The fairer question is whether a director or screenwriter does a good interpretation of a book and whether that interpretation adds or takes anything away from the original work.
 
I tried to read Bridget Jone's Diary about four times when it was on the best seller's list for moons. I found it to be boring and somewhat lame. I kept waiting for the book to pick up.

I wasn't even going to watch the movie but i did and i enjoyed it . I laughed in quite a few places and i don't think the book even broke a smile on me.
 
Last edited:
^ I felt the exact opposite. I read Bridget Jones and loved it (I'm actually re-reading it atm) and was exited about seeing the movie, and didn't find it at all funny. Ended up walking out.
 
Frosty da snowman said:
But those long ass descriptiions are what the books really about. It's supposed to be look at how fucked up the 80's yuppie culture was. In the end it didn't matter that he was a killer, all that mattered was what he was wearing and how he looked. The movie while fun to watch got none of that across.
Click to expand...

Thank you!!! You saved me having to explain all this. I'm glad someone got the point.
 
^^^ i got that idea from the movie. never read the book, so i don't know how it compares. but i think the movie gets across the point of yuppie culture well. think about the obsession with business cards they all have.
 
^^^ the card scence is good, so is the part where they go to pay and they all have the platnum amx, but the movie centers on the phscyo thing a bit to much.
 
The movie version of Less Than Zero has nothing on the book. The movie totally twisted around the plot, and cast actors that did NO justice to the characters. I'm sorry but a brooding Andrew McCarthy...please. Maybe I would have liked the movie more had I not read the book first. I don't know...I'll just blame the 80's.
 
^^^
Yeah, the book is really out there...that's why I was dissapointed after I saw the movie. I was expecting to get the same Requiem For A Dream type gut-wrench aftertaste from the movie as I did the book. Instead I just felt like I sat through an unfunny John Hughes movie.
 
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.


Palahniuk is a great great author, Choke, Lullaby, Invisible Monsters..and even fight club.. all great books. I will say though that the movie was handled so well, that i think the movie is actually better in this cased

I will disagree about Clockwork Orange. I love the movie, but the movie drags on where as the book keeps you hooked.

Stephen King has had some 30+ movies turned to books, and honestly in his case.. his books are always better. Though sometimes i feel as if his books and accompaning movies suck ass. IMO he's a great writer, one of the best. But he's pumped out such a quantity of work, i can't help but feel that the quality has lacked in some stories. He's the horror genre's Daniel Steel imho with 10 times the creativity.

As amazing as Lord of the Rings is visually, story wise and detail wise.. the books are far more incredible. Tolken was an amazing visionary for the time period. For the movies, i do think that the Hobbit should've been redone to match the other 3 better.
 
DigitalDuality said:
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.


Palahniuk is a great great author, Choke, Lullaby, Invisible Monsters..and even fight club.. all great books. I will say though that the movie was handled so well, that i think the movie is actually better in this cased
Click to expand...

^^ I think i read somewhere that Palahniuk thought the ending from the movie was better. I liked both endings and I flip flop on which one was best depending on my mood. I think Durden's intro is better in the book though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top