Rob wrote: "Really? I've always thought the book and the movie were a lot alike. I'm in the middle of reading a biography of James Whale, the man who directed the original 1933 movie, and it says that HG Wel..."

The book came across as a poorly stitched together mess of slapstic, mystery, drama and horror. None of it really worked well together, but the movie managed to take all those same elements and balance them out better, more elegantly.

Really? I've always thought the book and the movie were a lot alike. I'm in the middle of reading a biography of James Whale, the man who directed the original 1933 movie, and it says that HG Wells himself gave his endorsement of the movie. It's been a long time since I've read the book, I must admit.

I just finished Wells' "The Invisible Man". Unfortunately it fell into the "better movie than book" category. I usually love H.G. Wells, but not this time!

I thought Into the Wild was a much better book, and A Perfect Storm was a good book but never saw the movie.

I thought The Notebook, Into the Wild, Perfect Storm, and Secret Window were better movies than they were books, among many of the others already mentioned here. I've got more, but I'm coming up blank right now.

I loved The Exorcist -- both the book and movie. But those sequels were hideous. III was decent, but let's not even get into the ridiculousness of II or those prequels. Ick.

*nod* ;)

Becky, that was the stupidest diagnosis in publishing history.

Not just cinema, I think that's what the Doctor in the book said too. You'll have to blame that one on Blatty himself!

Scott, that was the stupidest diagnosis in cinema history.

Nerves, hahaha. I forgot about that!

I think it WAS the third one, and yes, that one is marginally better than the second, but still not great. The problem is...how do you live up to something like The Exorcist? Very, very hard act to follow.

Oh, and yeah Da Bomb is right! (just not the way YOU mean!:)

You guys are nuts. E3 is da bomb.

But then in this case, I think the WEIRDER thing was when the bed started shaking and Regan levitated, and mom just threw herself on top of her to hold her down!

What is more hard to believe is that the stupid psychiatrist blames the levitating and bed shaking on nerves....bwa ha ha ha ha! Nerves make people pull their hair out and eat it; nerves don't make bodies levitate or shake heavy wooden beds.

I hate The Exorcist sequels, too.

I don't like any of the sequels.

The Exorcist 3 makes no sense at all. I was laughing at most of it.

I thought cutting out the spider-walk was a good choice. It looked cheesy. And the scene just ENDS with Regan screaming into the camera. What happened after that? I much prefer the original version.

I watched the movie when the "Version You've Never Seen" hit theaters. There was a lot of young people snickering and whatnot...up until the point when Regan was stabbing herself in the crotch with the cross. After that...the place was dead silent.

I like both the book and the film version of The Body. The movie does seem kind of dated now for some reason, but it's still enjoyable.

Kandice: Are you talking about The Exorcist 3....with George C. Scott? You really didn't like it? I love that movie! One of the few sequels I like just as much as the first movie.

The movie of The Exorcist scares me MUCH more than the book did. And I used to be able to watch it alone, in the middle of the night, whatever, with no problem at all, but NOW, it freaks me out. It's weird.

I understand what you mean about the ability of people to accept strange things in horror movies Tressa. I don't get that either. But then in this case, I think the WEIRDER thing was when the bed started shaking and Regan levitated, and mom just threw herself on top of her to hold her down! How is THAT something that she could have done on her own? The spiderwalk is creepy, but logically it is possible - levitation, not so much!

I liked the movie Stand By Me, and my kids LOVE it, but the novella was much more moving. (IMO)

The movie The Exorcist absolutely terrifies me! I watched it with my oldest son, though, and he actually laughed at things I had a hard time watching. That book was crazy scary! I think, because I read/saw it so long ago, we hadn't been so soaked in horror the way kids are now. We were still "scareable" or whatever.

The sequel was stupid, but I saw it in a theatre with my husband, and for whatever reason, the old people crawling on the ceiling just got to me! I had bad dreams about it many times. It was just so...gross!!!

Scott wrote: "I thought Stand By Me was okay and the novella was pretty good. To me the gems in that collection are "Apt Pupil" and "The Breathing Lesson."

Lovecraft's characters (almost) always go insane!"

Funny, I was so, so, so disturbed by Apt Pupil I never watched the movie, and The Breathing Method is my least favorite story by him! Didn't he write at least a few other stories about that "club"? I COULD imagine TBM as a movie, though. The club and the butler guy would be nice to actually "see".

I almost forgot what the fourth story in Different Seasons is about--Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. How could I forget that?

Apt Pupil is excellent, but I don't care for The Breathing Lesson. Was sort of boring.

I guess Lovecraft got that right, at least.

I thought Stand By Me was okay and the novella was pretty good. To me the gems in that collection are "Apt Pupil" and "The Breathing Lesson."

Lovecraft's characters (almost) always go insane!

Do y'all prefer the movie Stand By Me to King's "The Body"? I thought the novella was much better than the book. I don't think the movie is all that great.

I can't help but wonder how Regan's mother didn't keep from going insane when she saw her daughter spider-walking down the stairs. Characters in horror movies just kill me about that. They see something extraordinary that shatters everything they know about an ordered universe, yet they continue on like it's nothing.

But I guess since it was her daughter, what else could she do?

Hmm... I'd have to actually agree with you here. But only if we're talking about the updated spider-walk version.

I......don't know.



I did like the novella Shawshank. The film just didn't jive with me for some reason. Guess I'm a weirdo.


Movie better than the book: The Exorcist. Now the book was GOOD, don't get me wrong. But the movie is a masterpiece IMO.

God, Rob. Bored with To Kill a Mockingbird. Bored with Shawshank. What's wrong with you?

Rob wrote: "I didn't even like the film version of Shawshank. I was bored silly after about half an hour."


Pshaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't even like the film version of Shawshank. I was bored silly after about half an hour.

Kristen wrote: "Shawshank Redemption"

Hmm... I don't know if I can agree that the movie was BETTER. Just different. I liked the movie's ending more than the novella's, but I love King's writing and how he leaves certain things open for the reader. This is one of my favorite of his "shorter" stories.

Shawshank Redemption

stardust I liked the movie so much better even though I do like books by neil gaimen another one was watchmen I actually liked the movie better though I couldnt stand all the cgi male frontal nudity......

Yeah, Wizard of Oz the movie takes all the best of the book and turns it into a movie that becomes a classic. Both Willy Wonkas are more watchable than the books are readable.

Hollywood cannot get Pat Conroy's books right. The Prince of Tides movie stinks to high heaven; and although The Great Santini and Conrack (The Water is Wide) are good movies, they can't compare to the books.

I agree with Tressa-Goodfellas was a better movie. So was Casino, by the same guy, but I can't remember the name of the book.

I love Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but love the movie too. I can't say one is better. They're different, that's all.

V for Vendetta-OMG I can not agree with that! I have read that about 20 times, and the "novel" is so deep and layered. I like the movie, but don't think it comes close to the written form.

I felt Cider House Rules was a better movie. The book was too long, (and I like long books) and Homer was such a doormat in the book. I liked movie Homer much, much better.

Wizard of Oz was better on screen.

So was Ella Enchanted. (I know, people are throwing rocks!)

I'm sure I can think of others.

Goodfellas (was based on the book Wiseguy). I read Wiseguy but it can't match the movie.

I thought Fight Club book/film were equally good.

I think movies that depend on their visuals to tell a good story are usually better than the book. An example of this is Jaws. Good book, but the movie was so much more affective because we got to see--or anticipate--the shark.

That's probably why most sci-fi movies are better than the books.

The Color Purple was better because the book was in diary form, which are hard for most people to read.

Oh, yes, I agree about Fight Club. Good novel, amazing film.

No, I didn't much like Alien. I'm willing to admit it was probably something special in its day, but it has not aged well, and now it's just another "monster picks off the humans" movie.

Howl's Moving Castle was a hell of a better movie than the book it was based on, probably because of that good old Ghibli magic.

I personally liked the V for Vendetta adaptation better than the original graphic novel.

As much as I loved Fight Club as a novel, the movie's superior.

Alien?!?

I've never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? but I just found the movie to be kind of boring, implausible (Deckard falling in love with the replicant) and in the final act, just plain silly.

I've come to the conclusion that the only Ridley Scott film I am ever going to like is Hannibal.

LOL... Yeah, me too.

Well....in this case I think the fact that Hanna was a lot older than Michael had something to do with it...along with the fact that he was a virgin before he met her. We all remember our first time and all that...especially if it was with an older an more experienced woman. But if I found out my first time was with someone who worked in a concentration camp, I might be inclined to want to forget!

"Or comparing your spouse/sig. other to an unattainable ideal of perfection?" That one.

That's what annoyed me so much about Michael in the book. He had this idea of Hanna's perfection (which never existed - he just thought it did) and he sabotaged every other relationship in his life trying to change the girls to meet it. And then whined when that didn't work. LOL

I know that we all compare new & different vs. old & comfortable/perfect, but I guess what I mean is, am I being too harsh when I say that he should have moved on? It's normal to compare, but he made it into something debilitating. He was 15, there's no reason to hold on to a first infatuation like that. You move on, live your life. But not Michael.

*shrug* I just wanted to know if that's something that boys do frequently. Not being a boy, I don't know. :)

"Do you guys fixate on a single early memory of "perfection" and then judge off of that ever after? "


Do you mean an idea of how one person was 'perfect' in the past...or an idea of perfection in general? Like...obsessing over how your spouse/significant other is different than how they used to be? Or comparing your spouse/sig. other to an unattainable ideal of perfection? I would think, to some degree, all human beings might be guilty of both at one time or another.

Oh. You said "film". Well that's good. :) Haha!

Pfft. That's because you're male. ;)

OK, maybe not literal whining, but Michael was annoying. I don't want to give too much away to those who haven't read it yet, but after the end of the affair, Michael was never happy and he was always trying to change things to fit what he thought Hanna was like. It felt to me that he just gave up on trying to be happy... And just the way that he spoke sounded whiny in my head. Like an angsty teenager forever.

But tell me, since you ARE a male... Is that normal? Do you guys fixate on a single early memory of "perfection" and then judge off of that ever after?

Scott: Did you like the book BR was based on? I have to admit, I've never read the whole thing, but I've read large chunks (maybe 20 pages at a time) in various bookstores...and while the novel seems good, it just doesn't compare to the movie for me. A lot of that is probably due to the great cinematography and feel of the film, which the book just doesn't convey as well.

I don't remember a lot of whining in the film The Reader, but I do remember a lot of sex!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "The Reader" movie HAS to be better than the book, even though I haven't seen the movie.

The book was awful. If the movie cuts out any of Michael's whining, then it's already better than the book.

Forrest Gump (not a good book at all--nothing like the movie, which isn't a masterpiece but it's better than the book)

I saw Blade Runner for the first time recently and I didn't like it.

I think Sofia Coppola's film of The Virgin Suicides was better than the novel. The novel is good, but it drags some in the second half.

I'm sure everyone's heard it at one time or another...or maybe you've even said it. "The book is ALWAYS better than the movie." I disagree. While it does seem to be true a majority of the time, I think a lot of it may have to do with which one you were exposed to first. I can think of a few movies that were actually a LOT better than the book. Here's my picks:

Deliverance
Blade Runner (I'm sure to catch hell for that one)
Frankenstein
Jaws
Psycho
Hellraiser
Papillon
Midnight Express
Raging Bull

Any others?