Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:05 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
The Movie was Better Than the Book... 
Author Message
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
millinniummany3k wrote:
My picks would be Die Hard, Jurassic Park and Casino Royale.


WOW! I had no idea that this was adapted from a book. The internet tells me that it's pretty closely related, too. Cool.


Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:34 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Die Hard 2 the book had the movie on the cover and was promoted as being the novel the film was based on. I started reading it and the character is nothing like John McClane. They even changed the name.


Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:46 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
HomerJ wrote:
High Fidelity


Ack. I literally cringed when I saw that you mentioned this. I liked the movie, but I thought it was miles from touching the book.

For me, I don't think any movie will trump a book that I really liked. The mind just paints a fuller picture than a movie ever can, and you get to make the story somewhat your own, rather than someone else's vision of the material.


Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:25 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
I absolutely hated the film adaptation of "The Shining." J.N.'s performance towards the end is campy-amusement, but other than that ... horrible. The TV mini-series remake was tolerably better but still not great.

Agree with The Princess Bride.
I'd add Lonesome Dove (not technically a movie, but...). The book is very good, but the mini-series was even better.


Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:57 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Quote:
Ack. I literally cringed when I saw that you mentioned this. I liked the movie, but I thought it was miles from touching the book.

For me, I don't think any movie will trump a book that I really liked. The mind just paints a fuller picture than a movie ever can, and you get to make the story somewhat your own, rather than someone else's vision of the material.


Damaj -

Sorry to make you cringe. :) I totally understand your point, but I guess I liked the movie for different reasons. I really thought the performances were well done: John and Joan Cusack, Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta Jones, Lily Taylor, Iben what's-her-name. All really good. The soundtrack was great. Setting was great, although transposed from London to Chicago. And Jack Black and Todd Louiso were just perfect. Made the movie for me.

While the book is a more fully realized portrait of Rob, the entertainment value I got from the movie was higher. Not that I didn't like the book...I just liked the movie a little more. But that's just me.

In a lot of cases, the movie can't hope to live up to the picture in my head. (a lot of sci-fi/horror falls into that category -- it takes a big budget to trump my imagination ;) ). But if characters are well-acted, as in High Fidelity (again, JMHO), then a more character/script driven movie can stand out.

Special effects/horror are another matter. Most movies can't live up to the scary images in my head, which is why a lot of Stephen King just doesn't work onscreen. The Shining did work for me. I thought Kubrick brought some truly memorable (and frightening) images to the screen. The movie was, however, significantly different in tone from the book.

MsHarlaus - I liked Nicholson's over-the-top performance, but to each his own. ;)


Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:03 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Quote:
MsHarlaus - I liked Nicholson's over-the-top performance, but to each his own.

I liked it too ... my saying "is campy-amusement, but other than that ... horrible." means Nicholson was fun but I don't like the movie.

I enjoy campy performances because I find them amusing. Bruce Campbell is one of my faves. :D

Edit: My issues w/The Shining as a movie are many, which I won't list...but will say most of them don't have a lot to do with differences between book/movie. I thought it was just a bad movie. Not scary, either.


Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:12 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
HomerJ wrote:
Quote:
Ack. I literally cringed when I saw that you mentioned this. I liked the movie, but I thought it was miles from touching the book.

For me, I don't think any movie will trump a book that I really liked. The mind just paints a fuller picture than a movie ever can, and you get to make the story somewhat your own, rather than someone else's vision of the material.


Damaj -

Sorry to make you cringe. :) I totally understand your point, but I guess I liked the movie for different reasons. I really thought the performances were well done: John and Joan Cusack, Tim Robbins, Catherine Zeta Jones, Lily Taylor, Iben what's-her-name. All really good. The soundtrack was great. Setting was great, although transposed from London to Chicago. And Jack Black and Todd Louiso were just perfect. Made the movie for me.


Heh heh, it was just a little shocking to see that mentioned. I realize we all have different tastes, and I really do understand where you're coming from. I thought the movie was great, but as far as the book is concerned, I've told every woman I know to read this book so that they might understand a lot of a man's inner workings when it comes to relationships. I don't know what anyone else thinks (and maybe it's just me), but the book was a bullseye.

I really can't think of any movies I liked more than their book counterpart. Fight Club was brought up, and maybe comes the closest for me...but doesn't quite get there. There are a lot of (probably) obvious choices, but I've either not read the book (Harry Potter comes directly to mind), or have not seen the movie.

I did recently see 1984 (finally), and thought it was far inferior to the book.

I also wonder if anymore Tom Robbins' books will be made into films. Maybe too difficult.


Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:57 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Damaj wrote:

I also wonder if anymore Tom Robbins' books will be made into films. Maybe too difficult.


Even Cowgirls Get the Blues has, thus far, been the only attempt to realize anything by Robbins into a film. It was even done by Gus Van Sant, a likely candidate for being able to get it done but it's a genuine failure of a movie. There is a way to adapt Robbins' work but treating his stories as a straight narrative can't work; someone like David Lynch, who knows how to use characters existing outside of conventional narrative, should give it shot.


Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Quote:
I liked it too ... my saying "is campy-amusement, but other than that ... horrible." means Nicholson was fun but I don't like the movie.

I enjoy campy performances because I find them amusing. Bruce Campbell is one of my faves.


MsHarlaus - I hear ya. Nicholson definitely steers into Bruce Campbell territory with his "...Wendy, love of my life...you didn't let me finish my sentence..." rant. I guess that's why I love it so much. Hooray for Bruce! :D


Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:06 am
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:09 pm
Posts: 13
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
The Last of the Mohicans.

I love reading, but Cooper, much like Hawthorne, kill a lot of joy that comes from the printed page.


Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:27 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Quote:
A few Stephen King adaptations have lived up to the books. In addition to those already mentioned:

Christine
Dolores Claiborne
Misery (oops - already mentioned, I see)


I felt that Carrie was a better movie than book. I enjoyed Misery equally as a book and as a movie.


Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:24 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
I have to disagree with Jurassic Park being a better movie...the movie was great and is a favorite of mine. But the whole basis of the book, chaos and the math behind it is lost. Plus way too many people live in the movie...I'm not tagging this as a spoiler since the book has been out forever but in the book the body count is much higher and there really is no happy ending. I like that.

As far as movies that are better than the books...to be honest pretty much any of the Harry Potter movies. I have read all the books...and liked them but didn't consider any of them amazing...I can't for the life of me remember which book is which and what goes on, fairly forgettable but entertaining to read. The movies just stick in my mind better...usually for me it's the other way around that's the only reason I bring that up.


Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:55 pm
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
It's been mentioned but it bears repeating: Manhunter, Michael Mann's good movie based on a terrible book, Red Dragon. I haven't seen, and won't ever see, the Edward Norton Red Dragon but the mid-80's story (replete with mid-80's music) makes a good precursor to Miami Vice what with all the great cinematography and a great performance by Brian Cox, the man who would not be Hannibal Lecter later on in the 90's.


Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:12 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
I'm offering up Choke, a movie that I enjoyed absolutely thoroughly after fighting the urge to miss it after finding the book to be more of the same Palahniuk. It's the only movie I can think of, at least out of those from the past three years, that jumps from tragic to comic within the blink of eye -- expertly done adaptation of a soulless (forgive me, Palahniuk fans) novel that injects life and personality into the author's stock, unknowable characters. The last two minutes alone are enough to recommend this one.


Sat May 23, 2009 1:31 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
majoraphasia wrote:
I'm offering up Choke, a movie that I enjoyed absolutely thoroughly after fighting the urge to miss it after finding the book to be more of the same Palahniuk. It's the only movie I can think of, at least out of those from the past three years, that jumps from tragic to comic within the blink of eye -- expertly done adaptation of a soulless (forgive me, Palahniuk fans) novel that injects life and personality into the author's stock, unknowable characters. The last two minutes alone are enough to recommend this one.

I thought Choke was a perfect example of an adequate adaptation that does nothing to distinguish itself from the source material.
An okay movie, but no better than the book in my opinion (I have read a lot of Palahniuk, but didn't love Choke).
Perhaps I was subconsciously comparing it to Fight Club's success at adapting Palahniuk, but I found Choke very forgettable as a film.


Sat May 23, 2009 4:37 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Trevor wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
I'm offering up Choke, a movie that I enjoyed absolutely thoroughly after fighting the urge to miss it after finding the book to be more of the same Palahniuk. It's the only movie I can think of, at least out of those from the past three years, that jumps from tragic to comic within the blink of eye -- expertly done adaptation of a soulless (forgive me, Palahniuk fans) novel that injects life and personality into the author's stock, unknowable characters. The last two minutes alone are enough to recommend this one.

I thought Choke was a perfect example of an adequate adaptation that does nothing to distinguish itself from the source material.
An okay movie, but no better than the book in my opinion (I have read a lot of Palahniuk, but didn't love Choke).
Perhaps I was subconsciously comparing it to Fight Club's success at adapting Palahniuk, but I found Choke very forgettable as a film.


And that's completely understandable. Fight Club was a rare adaptation that took the source material, rearranged it, and improved upon it so thoroughly that the book, at least to me, now exists as an interesting curiosity rather than even a minor addition to literature. In the past couple years I've started to hate Palahniuk and the paucity of ideas with which he works so anything that wasn't an echo of his prose and indifference to characters was going to be a bright shining star to me. And Choke, in movie form, came as close as it could.

You may be right in saying it doesn't distinguish itself from the source material. It's a testament to my relief that I didn't have to read the story again that I found the film fairly good.


Sat May 23, 2009 6:48 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
majoraphasia wrote:
Trevor wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
I'm offering up Choke, a movie that I enjoyed absolutely thoroughly after fighting the urge to miss it after finding the book to be more of the same Palahniuk. It's the only movie I can think of, at least out of those from the past three years, that jumps from tragic to comic within the blink of eye -- expertly done adaptation of a soulless (forgive me, Palahniuk fans) novel that injects life and personality into the author's stock, unknowable characters. The last two minutes alone are enough to recommend this one.

I thought Choke was a perfect example of an adequate adaptation that does nothing to distinguish itself from the source material.
An okay movie, but no better than the book in my opinion (I have read a lot of Palahniuk, but didn't love Choke).
Perhaps I was subconsciously comparing it to Fight Club's success at adapting Palahniuk, but I found Choke very forgettable as a film.


And that's completely understandable. Fight Club was a rare adaptation that took the source material, rearranged it, and improved upon it so thoroughly that the book, at least to me, now exists as an interesting curiosity rather than even a minor addition to literature. In the past couple years I've started to hate Palahniuk and the paucity of ideas with which he works so anything that wasn't an echo of his prose and indifference to characters was going to be a bright shining star to me. And Choke, in movie form, came as close as it could.

You may be right in saying it doesn't distinguish itself from the source material. It's a testament to my relief that I didn't have to read the story again that I found the film fairly good.

Heh, I guess I have a similar opinion to yours in that I became tired with Palahniuk after a while. However, I think my opinion of the books I read before I tired of him remains rather high--so that might explain our differences on the matter at hand.

I have little doubt that if I re-read Choke today, I would dislike it. But as it is, I thought it was a decent book with a decent movie adaptation.


Sun May 24, 2009 1:13 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
Sorry to go off topic with my first post but I'd put Carl Streator of 'Lullaby' as a character that we get to see. It's my favorite of Pahlaniuk's books and think a movie would be really good.


Sun May 24, 2009 1:46 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
pig nash wrote:
Sorry to go off topic with my first post but I'd put Carl Streator of 'Lullaby' as a character that we get to see. It's my favorite of Pahlaniuk's books and think a movie would be really good.


I'm not entirely sure why Lullaby hasn't found its way into development (if IMDB is a trustworthy source) as it would translate perfectly well to the screen. They're apparently producing Rant which either confirms filmmakers love having a rhetorical challenge in front of them or the further out into space a story goes the more familiar it will feel for audiences. Lullaby, with the familiar motif of harmful sensation (hear the culling song and you're dead), would fit well in a theater playing Ring 3 and The Grudge 3.


Sun May 24, 2009 7:19 am
Post Re: The Movie was Better Than the Book...
I finished reading "Let The Right One In" a couple of weeks ago. The movie is better. The book becomes gratuitously violent. I don't mind violence, no matter how graphic, if it seems necessary. It wasn't a bad read, just not as good as the movie.


Tue May 26, 2009 12:56 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr