Books into Movies: Opinions, Reviews, Dsappointments and Vctories

[elk]

I couldn't find a thread on this topic and I wasn't sure if it belonged here or in the "Movies" section. Please feel free to relocate if appropriate.

Most of the time, I find movies they make of books lacking. I thought it might be interesting to have an area where the avid reader might check to see the opinions of someone who's read/seen the book/movie when deliberating whether to watch said movie.

I recently read/viewed Atonement and actually found the movie slightly better than the book. Both were slow (the book excrutiatingly so), but the movie was slightly quicker. Plus it had the added bonus of James McAvoy who I could watch read the phone book for three hours and not be bored!

I also read/viewed The Golden Compass and was satisfied with both versions. The movie version was somewhat watered down, so I was happy I had seen the movie first, but both were quite entertaining for me.

Yesterday, I watched The Nanny Diaries; I'd read the book a few months ago. Well the ending was quite different, and although cute, I'll have to say I preferred the book.

I also saw TheKite Runner after reading it. Again, I prefer the book (the movie cut out so much), but the movie was still moving and told the story well.

Does anyone have any experiences they can share with us? I'd love to hear them!

[Rattus]

For the most part, I much prefer the book to the movie with one glaring exception. The book Jaws was just abysmal. Bad writing, atrocious characterization, a ridiculous scene wherein the character portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss in the movie puts the moves on a lesbian. Just awful. The movie, however, is one of the best adventure/big bug movies of all time. I will forever be impressed by Spielberg reading that tripe and imagining what he managed to make with it.

[Starbucks880]

I did see the Golden Compass and while I think it was a good movie, I am disappointed they watered it down. I do understand the reasons for doing so, since it would have been dead on arrival for the most part, but I am always disappointed when writers let a group of people--in this case the evangelicals who are afraid of controversy and don't like people who think differently than them, influence what they write.

I saw the Kite Runner, and I preferred the book. The movie was excellent and very moving, even with the material chopped out, but to me the book was superior. Those young boys who played Hassan and Amir were excellent in their parts and I would love to see them again in something.

I didn't really care that much for the Nanny Diaries movie. If I had another choice, I would have waited until it was out on DVD and I could rent it. Laura Linney was the best in the movie, though.

Atonement--I haven't seen the movie or read the book yet, so I cannot comment.

Notes on a Scandal--I actually liked the movie version better. Part of it was Judi Dench, I have to admit.

Anyway, in general, I tend to like books better than movies hands down. They usually don't do the books justice.

[Duxxy]

The Nanny Diaries - Book was better than the movie.

Waiting to Exhale - Book was better than the movie - the movie seriously pissed off my husband, instead of the movie giving a sense of female empowerment (as the book did) they turned into a 'man-hater'

The Devil Wears Prada - the book was better, a very key scene was left out near the end that would have MADE the movie -I don't understand why they didn't include it.


I can't think of anymore at the moment. I almost always prefer the book to the movie. Sometimes I will wait to see the movie before reading the book, just so I'm not so sorely disappointed.

I'm anxiously awaiting "The Other Bolyen Girl" and I'm hoping (against all odds) that they don't mess it up!

[CCL]

I usually prefer the book to the movie (as do most it seems). I think that the Harry Potter films are generally good. I liked the Keira Knightley version of Pride & Prejudice & I enjoyed the film adaption of Atonement as well. PS I Love You was not as good as the book (it was different from the book in a number of key ways. The book is set in Ireland while the film is set in New York. In the book she gets all the letters from her husband at once, with instructions to open each one at the start of the new month. In the film the notes came to her in "cute" (read gimmicky) ways).

[Veruka]

Duxxy, which scene from The Devil Wears Prada are you referring to?

I'd offer up The Firm as another example of of a movie being horribly worse than the book. I was left wondering if they even remembered to read the book before coming up with the film's script. But staying on the Grisham theme, I thought A Time to Kill was a very well done adaptation from book to movie. They really stuck to the tone of the book. Also, Grisham tends to be so vivid in his description of characters, and the film respected that, so there was more of a "yes, that's how I pictured it to!" response than a "I didn't see that characterthat way".

[Duxxy]

I wasn't thinking and I put a no-no word in my post to you Veruka so now I can't edit my above comments LOL

so Veruka

[MRD]

Duxxy, which scene from The Devil Wears Prada are you referring to?

I'd offer up The Firm as another example of of a movie being horribly worse than the book. I was left wondering if they even remembered to read the book before coming up with the film's script. But staying on the Grisham theme, I thought A Time to Kill was a very well done adaptation from book to movie. They really stuck to the tone of the book. Also, Grisham tends to be so vivid in his description of characters, and the film respected that, so there was more of a "yes, that's how I pictured it to!" response than a "I didn't see that characterthat way".

A Time to Kill has always been my favorite Grisham book and the movie is the best of all the movies made from Grisham books.

The only movie I thought better than the book was Forrest Gump. I saw the movie first, got the book and then wondered how they came up with such a good movie from such a horrible little book. I hated the book. And like true Hollywood, the movie is NOTHING like the book, but if they had been true to te book, the movie would have tanked into obscurity.

[Lucy]

I thought "Fried Green Tomatoes" was better as a movie. I couldn't get through the book. But in general I prefer the books to the movies. (ok, except maybe the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, where they practically filmed the book word for word AND you get Colin Firth ).
I took a "Film and Literature" class in college, where we had to read the book and then watch the movie of it, and we talked about how they're different mediums and how the film should be looked at as its own story. I can see that in some cases -- say, A Clockwork Orange, where the movie is a classic in its own right, and for different reasons than the book is a classic -- but for popular fiction I'm not always sure.

[AJane]

Film and Literature class? I may have finished my degree if they'd had cool classes like that when I went to school.

The BBC P&P was probably the best movie adaptation I've ever seen. Another one that's always stood out for me is Stand By Me, the movie version of Stephen King's novella The Body. Rob Reiner really captured the spirit of the story, and stuck very close to the book.

The absolute worst I've ever seen: The Door In The Floor, which was an adaptation of John Irving's fabulous novel A Widow For One Year. The movie only covered the first half of the story, which seemed incredibly stupid to me. I loved the book, and the film was a huge letdown for me.