For “Fellowship of the Ring”, the movie was better. The original book was kind-of dry (especially the first part in the Shire), a lot of talking, history and stuff.
But for “The Two Towers”, the book is better (unfortunately). The Ents were protrayed much better, the King is not too over-cautious (in the book he wanted to meet Saurman head on) and you have the Ents and Hurons fighting (okay, not actually fighting, but involved) in Helm’s Deep. If they have stuck to “Hurons eating up the Orcs” instead of “We kill and frighten them off”, the movie would be much nicer. (Not just because it follows the book).
Then again, I always skipped Book 4 because I find it boring…
The Professionals starring Lee Marvin, Burt Lancaster, and Claudia Cardinale (among others) is much better than the book it’s based on, A Mule For The Marquesa by Frank O’Rourke. The book is a straight forward adventure/western novel with a pat ending and too many characters involved in the action, who are too vaguely drawn. The movie condensed six characters in the rescue party down to four and fleshed out them out by giving some of them a history together and a link to the area where they ae operating in. It also turns the book’s ending on it’s head, much more satisfying.
Point Blank, again starring Lee Marvin, is better than the book, The Hunter, that it is based upon. The book was written by Donald Westlake using the pen name Richard Stark, but is very flat and formulaic. The movie adds an otherworldly touch, by making the main character something of an unknown element. It’s like film noir crossed with a ghost story and set in sunny California.
Both versions of Cape Fear are better than the source book, The Executioners by John D. MacDonald. Max Cady in the 1962 film is a walking monster, in the 1991 version he’s an over the top cartoon but it’s fun to watch DeNiro hamming it up. In the book, although his name may be different (it’s been a while since I read it), he’s just a pathetic drunken brute who is easily outsmarted by our pristine, pure Eisenhower-era heroes. No suspense, no excitement, no fun either.
Myself, I prefer using them as coasters. The movie wasn’t the greatest, but there was still a lot of subtext beyond the “chasing androids” angle, such as questions of what consistutes humanity, the dubious morality of a Blade Runner’s job, etc…
Personally, I disliked the book. Please don’t ask for specifics on why, though; it’s been over a decade since I read it, and I honestly doubt I could justify my opinion to anyone familiar with the book.
You’ll have me hanging next to you. Lord of the Rings broke new paths and changed the face of fantasy literature forever, creating a world that seemed to live beyond the pages. But the characters were pretty wooden and I never really got a sense of importance, how significant these events were for the people who lived them.
In the movie, you just have to look into the eyes of Elrond or Aragorn and you’ll know, to your core, how important the quest is, how the fate of the world hangs in the balance. I cried twice the first time I saw The Fellowship of the Ring, first during the final battle of the Last Alliance, and then when we first saw Hobbiton.
Since it hasn’t been mentioned, Of Mice and Men. Terrific book, but the movie with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich was hoppin’ brilliant. Oh, and Fight Club, although I did like the book a lot.
We’ve had this discussion many times before. I’ve brought up Goldfinger, and so have others. This is probably the onlt Bond movie that’s better than the book – the producers or writers or director or somebody clearly saw the flaws in the book and, rather than simply ignore them (which could easily have done – the Bond series is nothing if not over-the-top), they rewrote the story somewhat to go around the difficulties. It paid off in a much more exciting and interesting film.
Well, they weren’t to me, but I suppose I can understand that not everyone really gets into the history and life of Middle Earth. But taht’s what made it come alive for me. I had some small problems with the TT movie, though. Not that I won’t be in line to rent when the DVD is released.
Oh, I did. I read Silmarillion and the “anthologies” (I don’t know their English titles). I love the world, I do. But I never got the sense of an all-important struggle or fully understood the plight of Frodo and Sam until I saw the movies.
As I mentioned on the last thread, The Maltese Falcon – Bogart’s portrayal of Sam Spade is inspired, making it clear (without overstating it) that Spade is a master manipulator who lets no emotion get in his way. The book, OTOH, is just one of many similar stories by Hammett, and neither the most intriguing nor the most awesome (that would be Red Harvest).
Silence of the Lambs (movie as good as book)
book is better: the sub plots that got cut out of the movie
movie is better: the relationship between Starling and Lechter
Being There (movie better than book)
since Kosinski wrote the screenplay, I believe he had new ideas and included them.
