Main Menu

Movies you liked better than the book

Started by SC-RM, August 18, 2013, 10:34:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SC-RM

For me I liked Kubrick's shining better than the book. Before you start a mob let me explain.

I liked the idea that the ghost aspect was more ambiguous while int he book it's very point blank, IMO it makes the film scarier when your unsure if what your seeing is a haunting or 3 people coming face to face with their own personal psychosis.

Also Of Mice and Men the Malkovich version, Both him and Gary Sinise really put forth such a great job tat I connect more with their characters than in the book.

bob

For me Apocalypse Now is light years ahead of Heart of Darkness. I found the book incredibly dull and boring where as Apocalypse Now is fantastic!
Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, Wan, Iñárritu, Scorsese, Chaplin, Abrams, Wes Anderson, Gilliam, Kurosawa, Villeneuve - the elite



I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

zombie no.one

JAWS - there's a shark in the book....somewhere...

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - the book is actually very good but the film is even better imo

Bushma

Warm Bodies

It moved faster, and actually had a decent ending.
This is my awesome signature.  Jealous?

tracy

#4
 Willie Wonka-the original book was pretty depressing in spots but both movies were better

Jaws-I read the book several times and the movie was better,especially when they left out the affair between Hooper and the sheriff's wife

Yes,I'm fine....as long as I don't look too closely.

Chainsawmidget

Quote from: SC-RM on August 18, 2013, 10:34:01 PM
For me I liked Kubrick's shining better than the book. Before you start a mob let me explain.

I liked the idea that the ghost aspect was more ambiguous while int he book it's very point blank, IMO it makes the film scarier when your unsure if what your seeing is a haunting or 3 people coming face to face with their own personal psychosis.

Also Of Mice and Men the Malkovich version, Both him and Gary Sinise really put forth such a great job tat I connect more with their characters than in the book.
I'll back you on the Shinning. 

Not to mention that some of the hauntings in the book came across as a bit over the top.  In the movie, there's just enough strangeness to let you know something isn't right, but it never clarifies exactly what is really going on. 

And the made for TV movie that King did that was supposedly much more faithful to the book, that was simply horrible. 

TEENAGER THOR

I think I liked The Guns of Navarone movie as much as I liked the book but not better.

Chainsawmidget

Lord of the Rings is another one.  I really enjoyed the movies, but reading the books was a chore. 

Archivist

Quote from: Chainsaw midget on August 20, 2013, 12:14:12 AM
Lord of the Rings is another one.  I really enjoyed the movies, but reading the books was a chore. 

+1 on Lord Of The Rings.  I found the books interminably boring, what with Tolkein's many irrelevant digressions.  "And as they walked, they sang a hobbit marching song" - cue two pages of idiotic crud that does nothing to advance the plot.

But the movies are magnificent.  It's as if Jackson decided to strip out every last hobbit marching song and make LOTR the way it should have been.
"Many others since have tried & failed at making a watchable parasite slug movie" - LilCerberus

Trevor

I've always maintained the opinion that the book called The Bible is about a million times better than the John Huston movie version.  :wink:
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.

The Burgomaster

GODFATHER and GODFATHER II (the flashback scenes) are both better than Mario Puzo's novel.
"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."

Trevor

The movie of David Morrell's First Blood is IMO better than the book in some ways - the book was OTT violent, Rambo destroys almost the entire town and kills many people (including the sheriff) while in the film, Rambo doesn't kill anyone (at least, not intentionally) and only one person dies.

I liked the book, though.
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.

Allhallowsday

I agree with THE SHINING.  I liked the movie better.  There are topiary animals in the book, not a maze (if I recall correctly). 
THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is also based on a STEPHEN KING story (a novella, RITA HAYWORTH AND THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION).  I reread the original after looking at the film for the umpteenth time, and I was amazed at the wonderful details added to the movie that aren't in the book. 
If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!

Chainsawmidget

Another one, ... the Hunchback of Notre Dame. 

I've watched a few different movie versions (although not the Disney one) and enjoyed them all, but the book is written in such an antiquated style that I felt like I was translating it as much as I was trying to read it. 

Stand By Me also suffered from a fairly horrible ending in the book that thankfully, the movie omitted.  Stephen King does that sometimes.  I just don't think he knows where to end his stories sometimes. 


ChaosTheory

Through the darkness of future past
The magician longs to see
One chance opts between two worlds
Fire walk with me