 |
fiction forumHome Products (3,270) Discussions (748) |
Films that beat the books
Initial post:
9 Nov 2009 21:50 GMT
Jasmin K. Major says:
Working in a cinema all I hear from people is 'I should have just stuck with the book' but does anyone one out there think that a film is better than the book it was based on?
I personally preferred the film Children of men over the book, both are good but I like the way the film tells the story and the decline of our moral code as a society. Feel free to disagree.
Posted on
9 Nov 2009 23:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 9 Nov 2009 23:21 GMT
Paul Magnussen says:
It probably doesn't qualify as a film, but for me the original BBC version of The Forsyte Saga beat the books, good thought the latter were. Same with The Pallisers.
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 06:53 GMT
J.Yasimoto says:
Lord of the Rings
(Rita Hayworth and) Shawshank Redemption
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 06:58 GMT
Nicola says:
Definitely agree with The Shawshank Redemption. I also adore both the novel and the film of The Green Mile- I've never been able to work out which one I like best though :)
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 09:21 GMT
Fiona Hurley says:
It's probably easier to make a good film from a bad book, because you can always improve on the source! I though Jaws (the book) had a great opening chapter but was pretty rubbish after that. Of course Jaws (the film) is a classic and beats the book hands down (or should I say fins down?)
I found Bridget Jones a bit irritating in print (all that calorie and cigarette counting got repetitive), but Renée Zellweger made her rather lovable on screen.
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 10:27 GMT
Auraya says:
I loved Stardust, and thought that the changes made to the script were better suited to the visual medium. That said, I love the book too, I just like the movie a teeny bit better.
In reply to an earlier post on
10 Nov 2009 11:02 GMT
Nugent_Dirt says:
Agree re Jaws. The book's nowt more than the type of potboiler sold at airports. The basic story's sound but there's the unnecessary and inappropriate subplot about an affair between Hooper and Brody's missus which the film mercifully irgnores.
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 13:06 GMT
M. I. R. Clarke says:
it's a poor book that's worse than the film but great acting and direction can certainly do justice to even great books
here's some films i think come close - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - Nicholson - WOW !! - The Heiress (Washington Square) - B&W film of Henry James novella, starring Ralph Richardson, Montogomery Clift and Olivia de Havilland - fantastic acting and changes to plot actually make it very effective dramatically - Remains of the Day - exemplary acting by Hopkins and Thompson
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 14:18 GMT
Blackbeard says:
Many people will probably disagree with this, but I thought The Shining movie was better than the book, after having recently re-read it. No Country For Old Men is another one. I thought it was a great book, but I think the movie ended where the book should have.
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 18:02 GMT
A. Stewart says:
I'd have to go with Fight Club. Although the book is good, the film was excellent.
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 19:29 GMT
Cheryl says:
I'd second Bridget Jones didnt enjoy the books that much but love the films :-)
Posted on
10 Nov 2009 23:23 GMT
BookJumper says:
The Name of the Rose:
The book by Umberto Eco - pretentious, over-written, preachy, more-literate-than-thou drivel. The film - gripping, suspensful, engaging murder mystery well served by the likes of Sean Connery.
Posted on
11 Nov 2009 14:41 GMT
sass says:
agree with the shining! in fact i think all stephen king books i know are better as movies (sorry stephen king!)
Posted on
11 Nov 2009 15:51 GMT
Markus Neacey says:
Agree about The Heiress with Ralph Richardson, but the Albert Finney version "Washington Square" is pretty good too. Both fine actors.
In reply to an earlier post on
11 Nov 2009 16:23 GMT
LEP says:
All three Lords of the Rings films. The books, especially the 2nd one The Two Towers, are really hard going and TTT is really boring. The films used all the action parts and missed out the endless descriptions of Tolkien's books.
In reply to an earlier post on
11 Nov 2009 17:08 GMT
M. I. R. Clarke says:
yes, Finney is superb (as always) and the plot sticks closer to the book i think, but Chaplin is no Clift
Shane (Schaefer) Psycho (Bloch) both do full justice to the books - great acting and direction interesting that Audrey hepburn was Hitch's first choice for Marion Crane but she was pregannt at the time so Janet Leigh got the part
In reply to an earlier post on
11 Nov 2009 17:13 GMT
Paul Magnussen says:
LEP,
What you're praising is exactly what a lot of other people complained about. If you buy the DVDs, you should definitely get the theatrical release and not the extended version.
Posted on
11 Nov 2009 22:04 GMT
M. Dowden says:
The Silence of the Lambs is much better as a movie than it is as a novel.
In reply to an earlier post on
12 Nov 2009 10:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2009 10:26 GMT
I Readalot says:
We will definitely have to agree to disagree with the Name of the Rose, I really enjoy all of Eco's novels and don't find them pretentious etc at all. The film worked as a murder mystery but the book is about more than that.
Posted on
12 Nov 2009 11:17 GMT
BookJumper says:
The funny thing is, I don't even enjoy murder mysteries on paper (although I devour them on screen); I do like a bit of depth to my reading matter. However, I don't enjoy the feeling of being looked down upon by an author who assumes that either a. you're fluent in Latin or b. don't mind not understanding large chunks of a book. What's wrong with footnotes?!
In reply to an earlier post on
12 Nov 2009 11:25 GMT
I Readalot says:
I get your point but in fact he is not looking down on the reader but is actually treating us as equals.
In reply to an earlier post on
12 Nov 2009 12:00 GMT
M. I. R. Clarke says:
agree about the Eco "Name of Rose" book - learned and interesting never mind the whodunnit element, also atmospheric - good film, connery superb, but preferred book's depth
Posted on
12 Nov 2009 15:54 GMT
Ruth Estevez says:
I'd say most of Stephen Kings' are better as films apart from The Stand. Short stories often make good films, for example Stephen King's "The Body" becoming "Stand by Me" and what about Ang Lee's film of Annie Proux short story "Brokeback Mountain?"
Wuthering Heights is very difficult to do well - the book is two films really. Agree with Lord of the Rings. Same could be said of the Harry Potter books. Just watch the films. City of God is better as a film for me. Loved it. Though can see the film in the book too. This list could go on.
Posted on
12 Nov 2009 15:56 GMT
Ruth Estevez says:
I'd say most of Stephen Kings' are better as films apart from The Stand. Short stories often make good films, for example Stephen King's "The Body" becoming "Stand by Me" and what about Ang Lee's film of Annie Proux short story "Brokeback Mountain?"
Wuthering Heights is very difficult to do well - the book is two films really. Agree with Lord of the Rings. Same could be said of the Harry Potter books. Just watch the films. City of God is better as a film for me. Loved it. Though can see the film in the book too. This list could go on.
In reply to an earlier post on
12 Nov 2009 16:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2009 16:37 GMT
Geoffrey Cryer says:
Also enjoyed 'Name of the Rose' as both film and book - film is connery's best. I thought that 'Foucault's Pendulum' was an even better book - why wasn't it made into a film instead of that 'da Vinci Code' drivel? It cover's the same ground with greater historical accuracy, humour and a cracking story - perhaps the ending is too dark.
I also think that David Lean' s 'Oliver Twist' is far better than the book. Although Dickens created all the great characters and the basic plot the structure of the novel is shambolic. Recent discussions in the "fiction" forum (
More Customer Discussions
Other tags related to "fiction" |
|
| |||||
Amazon Home | |
| International Sites: United States | Germany | France | Japan | Canada | China | |
| Business Programs: Sell on Amazon | Fulfilment by Amazon | Join Associates | Join Advantage | |
| Customer Service | Help | View Basket | Your Account | |
| About Amazon.co.uk | Careers at Amazon | |
| Conditions of Use & Sale | Privacy Notice © 1996-2009, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates |
![[Add comment]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._V20569588_.gif){kind=small}
RSS Feed
