Movie Better With Or Without Reading the Book?

[djt]

First,I saw the movie, which prompted me to read the book. The storyline in the movie jumped back and forth so quickly, from age to age, genre to genre, it was confusing to me and I really enjoyed the book much more. The pyramid approach to interconnect all of the stories was absolutely brilliant, and I think it definitely told each story completely and connected all of the short stories to one. Yes, it was a challenging read, only in the Sloosha's Crossin' story, because of the dialect used(a post-apocalyptic world dialect written by an English author) but worthwhile. I very much enjoyed the complete stories of each character, which wasn't clear for me in the movie. The movie, I thought, was well received more because of the star-studded cast and the puzzle factor for the audience to guess who played what, and not so much because of the screenplay. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had read the book first. The book is excellent, now listed as one of my favorites.

[Alexander]

I saw the movie before I had ever touched the book. I wanted to read it, but my decision to see the movie was a last minute, "let's watch a film, what's playing?" I was confused but hooked through the first 45 minutes of the film, and from then on I was unequivocally hooked. I went on to read the book, and my opinion of the work only improved from there. However, I went back and rewatched the movie, and realized just how much better the book was than the film. Granted, horrendously difficult material to adapt, and splendidly done, but I enjoyed the movie more having not read the book than I did rewatching it after the fact.

[David]

Loved the book......really, really hated the movie. I had so much hope for the Wachowski brothers. The Matrix is, in my opinion, one of the best movies of all time and they just haven't been able to deliver after that.

[Jenny]

I don't see how you could possible understand the movie without having read the book.

[Holly]

I have to admit, I did find the book hard going when I read it. However, I watched the film last night with someone who hasn't read it and we had to keep pausing it so I could catch him up, especially the Zachary bits. The book definitely makes watching the film easier, but I certainly preferred the film. I liked the way the scenes interlinked with each other, rather than having a character at a time in the book. It made it easier to see the connections and I liked how narratives and analysises from one scene bridges over montages of the others.

[Reanna]

I saw the movie first and I thought it was wonderful. I had a feeling that there was still something I didn't fully understand about the story (stories?) that I really wanted to understand. I picked up the book and, even though I had watched the movie, it was a laborious read. Afterwords I still felt like there was something I wasn't completely getting, but considering this book is about reincarnation, good and evil, and human nature, I wonder if that feeling was purposeful by the author.

[Mary]

I enjoyed the movie which is why I chose to read the book. I would not have understood the book had I seen the movie. I did enjoy the book but for the first time glad I had seen the movie first.

[William]

Mary wrote: "I enjoyed the movie which is why I chose to read the book. I would not have understood the book had I seen the movie. I did enjoy the book but for the first time glad I had seen the movie first."

Same here.

[Amber]

Val wrote: "As a note, I believe if I had first read the book, then watched the movie I would be in the same boat as Paul. As it was, I was still disgruntled when I discovered the Zachry transformation. A four..."

Tony wrote: "Both movie and book complement each other."

I agree with both above, but how you feel probably depends on what you first encountered. The film was recommended to me. So I saw the film, and just because of the way it was structured, I knew that it HAD to have been a book first. I went and found the book AND LOVED IT, because it added so much depth to what I felt was a compelling, but difficult to understand film.

If I had read the book first, I might have disliked it, as so many reviewer of it on GR have. Because it can easily be seen as very confusing, or trying too hard (as many of the criticism's of the book seem to indicate.)

But if you have seen the film, the book allows you to then go "Ooooooooooh." You can so get the film.

Taken together the book and the film are a delightful experience. Taken apart, some people will have patience for neither. My teen son whined and cried about how stupid Cloud Atlas was for the entire three hour tour. He didn't have the patience for it.

Also, with regard to the film, the Hollywooding it up does seem ridiculous. The changes to Zachary's character make less sense because Zachary does seem to be acting like a fourteen year old, even though he is middle aged man; and you're left wondering- at least I was, what the hell is wrong with this man?

The abolitionist love stories were a nice Hollywood touch, but I was disappointed that these were not in the book.

All in all the book and film work well together, but they may not each stand on their own.

[Amber]

"But again, I'm impressed the film got made at all (and wasn't an enormous mess)."

Ha, ha! It it almost didn't get made and it was, apparently, an enormous mess with an enormous budget, but it did get made and (more importantly) make a profit. Tom Hanks was a huge driving force behind the film. And I think it is odd that it broke through as we rarely see any big budget films that don't follow a very strict and at this point boring Hollywood formula. (But this wasn't made in Hollywood, the filmmakers are actually German.)

It is impossible to capture the depth of a book in any film, much less one that has an intelligent and provocative theme...and yet Cloud Atlas the film manages to capture enough of the book to come across as an intelligent and provocative film. They did a great job, given the limitations of the book to film conversion.

[Patricia]

I read and enjoyed the book although I'm not sure it fell into the modern masterpiece category for me, but I totally agree with Karen #43 that it is a perfect book club book. Lots to discuss, and I want to know what others thought.

That said, I've not seen the movie and after reading various posts, probably won't. If a movie is unintelligible unless you've read the book, I wouldn't call it a successful adaptation.

[Ken]

It's not unintelligible. It is only impenetrable to those who only enjoy being spoon-fed Hollywood linear plots. It's a great film, and I've been told by several people who have not read the book that they did not have any issues understanding what was going on.

[Andreas]

I first saw the movie and really liked it, IMO one of the most cleverly made science fiction movies for some time.

Then I read the book and liked it too, I appreciated the additonal detail on some parts that did not fit the time constraints of the movie (especially the Sonmi 453 story).

On the other side, I think they really did a very good job on the movie, by adding the part about hiking up the mountain to go to the abandoned observatory to contact the people in space to come to earth and rescue them, which gave the whole "Sloosha's crossing" part a target and a final result (and a happy end, never amiss in movies)

Best regards,
Andy

[mkfs]

I read the book before I saw the movie -- long enough ago that I had completely forgotten it except for the narrative structure and my general impressions.

I recall greatly enjoying the book until midway through the closing of the narratives -- probably the Cavendish (which was handled horribly in the film) or the Luisa Rey story. By the end, the haphazard reincarnation and the "we are all one" themes began to wear on me. It's a shame, because the first half of the book was exciting and kept me captivated; I was left with the feeling that the novel did not live up to its potential.

That said, back to the topic on hand: is it better to watch the movie, having read the book, or to go in blind?

I would say that reading the book before seeing the movie is definitely the way to go. The Wachowskis present the narratives concurrently, not nested, and corrupt the reincarnation theme into one of eternal love.

Remembering the relations of the narratives, and the overall theme of the novel, I was able to follow and enjoy the movie in a way that those I saw it with (who had not read the novel) could not.

As for the movie itself, it was more style than substance. It certainly enhanced my appreciation of the book, and made me want to read it again (something I may do), but it does not succeed as a standalone film, and it does not add any insight into the novel (even the big revelation of the Sonmi narrative comes across as a tired retread of the first Matrix movie).

[Tiffiny]

I read the book before I saw the movie, and when I finally did see the movie, I followed along pretty well. All of the friends I saw it with though didn't quite get it. I had to explain throughout the film.

[Kressel]

If I hadn't read the book first, I would have thought the movie was way too disjointed. But my husband saw the movie first, and he says he's glad about it because after the book, the movie would have disappointed him.

[Karen]

I saw Cloud Atlas on DVD recently and absolutely loved it. It took me a little while to understand what was going on, but then I have read lots of science fiction. My husband, on the other hand, has not, and had no idea what was happening and lost interest about a third of the way through. No amount of explanation helped. He wants "reality."

Now I must read the book.

[Easytarget]

Both the book and the movie fancy themselves as far more clever than they actually are.

[Topher]

Easytarget wrote: "Both the book and the movie fancy themselves as far more clever than they actually are."
As do you.

[Michael]

Ah Jeez, you have to read the book first or you'll be blinking and fidgeting for 3 hours, despite the visuals and the intrigue. Even having read it, I had to reconjure some of it occasionally, reassemble it in my head.

[Michael]

I saw the movie first and was drawn to the book because of my love of the movie. It instantly became one of my top five favorite movies of all time. But don't ask me to explain why. I enjoyed the intricate relationships between episodes and the sheer complexity of the main themes of life and love over time. I know that sounds like I just explained it, but it is so much more than that. And the book plus the movie is powerful times ten.

[Brock]

One interesting way to try it is to read the first half of the book then watch the movie then read the second half of the book. Was trying to read it before the movie came out but didn't quite get there.

Since I was unsure if it would still be in theatres when I finished I snuck out and caught the film. Helped give more context for the back half and made the whole experience very pleasant.

[Yui]

Both the book and the movie are on my top 5 favourite of all time. If I remember correctly, the author complement the movie that it's better than the book! I watched the movie first and the impression drove me to read the book. One of a kind book and one of a kind movie. I would say they compliment each other though. But some part of the movies are different than the book.

[Patrise]

William wrote: "There is another movie that had famous actors in disguise made back in 1963 called The List of Adrian Messenger. One of the first things I thought about when I reached the end of the film."

I will have to go looking for that!

[Patrise]

I'm a big fan of all things Wachowski, so when I heard they were making the film I read the book. It was challenging, and I might not have otherwise persisted... (oh, the shame!).

But what a reward! When it dawned on me what Mitchell was doing with the language I was mesmerized. And then there's that time structure!

The movie had trouble standing on it's own because it was so overly ambitious. I applaud it for being as good as it was, considering the impossible challenge the film makers gave themselves.

[Brandon]

I found the film great, having not read the book. After reading the book (which I LOVED), then rewatching the movie, I can say that Hollywood clearly ruined another book. Changed the whole character of the story, made it some love-story-through-the-centuries thing, rather than a soul trying to do good in a hard world, sometimes being strong, sometimes not. And the deus ex machina with the off world colonies at the end really weakened it.

[Johanna]

Finally saw the film. I am glad I read the book first - I doubt I would have understood the film without. I agree with several above comments about the questionable shifts in relationships in the stories and the ages of the characters between the book and the film but then - I think - Hollywood demands love stories.

[маяіа]

in my case,reading better with movie! :)too many plot..

[Tom]

Havent read the book but thank god for Wikipedia (and subtitles) otherwise I would've been completely lost.

[Deborah]

Has anyone considered why the story…book or movie…had to be SO CONFUSING in the first place? It may have been an attempt at a masterpiece…but for such a piece of writing to be so incoherent……
I think the author, who is an intelligent writer, may have got lost somewhere along the way, and although he had his basic concept/incarnations/themes lined up….it somehow became too confusing to him as well. Thats how it felt to me. Kind of like a dream that is science fiction and strange, but like a dream…nonsensical.

[Alexis]

I watched the film first ; loved it.
I then read the book ; oh so loved it.
Cloud Atlas is now in both my top films and my top books. :)