*Let the Right One In.
*
The book isn’t bad, but the movie is a lot leaner and more compelling. I would recommend seeing the movie first, and if you’re interested then read the book to fill in details and answer questions.
Yes, but the only reason you cited was that you, personally, found the books boring. You never attempted to engage on any other level than that, and you did it over and over. I would expect something a little more cogent from an English teacher.
Agreed. I had the same experience with Cold Mountain. Better to see the movie before turning to the book, although both are quite good.
Nice dodge. Quote me or retract the statement. In a forum that is opinion-based to its very core, I expressed an opinion. You decided that opinion was somehow a blanket, objective judgment.
I’m waiting.
One thing you guys need to add to your comments: which one did you read/watch first? My guess is that a vast majority of the time we like the one we encounter first better. That is certainly true of me. The few instances where I like the movie better are all cases where I saw the movie first:
The Princess Bride
Blade Runner
Blade Runner is interesting for me because after I saw it I decided to read most of PK Dick’s books. After that, I thought every movie based on his stories was worse than the book.
That seems to be generally true with me, although there are exceptions.
Arena: Saw the TV show first. Liked the TV show better.
Blade Runner: Read the book first. Liked both the book and movie.
Dune: Read the book first. Liked the book better. (This was the 1984 movie. I haven’t seen the 2000 miniseries.)
The Godfather: Read the book first. Liked the movie better.
The Hobbit: Read the book first. Liked the book better.
The Hunt for Red October: Read the book first. Liked the book better.
Lord of the Rings: Read the book first. Liked the movies better.
Princess Bride: Read the book first. Liked both the book and movie.
Roger Rabbit: Saw the movie first. Liked the movie first.
Watchmen: Read the book first. Liked the book better.
Wizard of Oz: Saw the movie first. Liked the book better.
Reported.
Thank you. I’m annoyed that some spanner slipped an ad into a quote of something I wrote.
Sentient spanners? Cool!
Someone threw a wrench into your work?
Which movie?
Disagree.
Perhaps not better, but certainly as good as:
The Sand Pebbles
The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming (based on The Off-Islanders)
Yes, but the question, as originally posed, was about movies that were better than the book, not movies that we liked better than the book.
If we’re saying something about the movies and books themselves, and not about our personal reactions to them, then, theoretically at least, it shouldn’t matter which we saw first.
[duplicate post]
Yes, it is much happier, for sure, but the book is more engaging. Roy is much more of a goody two shoes in the movie, and the changes really don’t make a lot of sense. For example, in the movie, why did Roy go into exile for 16 years because of what happened with the crazy shooter? Why was he beating himself up so much? Because he thought of fornicating?
The book tells a pretty compelling story of someone who has extraordinary “Natural” talents but has a difficult and ultimately impossible task of overcoming his inherent personality flaws.
A couple of quotes in the movie, like Roy’s father saying “You’ve got a great gift, son, but it’s not enough” and Roy’s “Some mistakes you never stop paying for” make so little sense in the movie, but fit nicely into the book.
See I thought (and many disagree) that the ending was ambiguous as to whether Leonard DiCaprio was really crazy or that he was really onto the Nazi medical experiments on the island so they made him think he was crazy.
The Swedish one. Never saw the American remake, which (IIRC) was called* Let Me In.*
I’ve seen both, and both are very good, but I’d give a slight edge to the remake.
I’ll bring up the two I always mention in these threads: After Hours (turned into Carlito’s Way) and To Live and Die in L.A.
After Hours/Carlito’s Way seemed to be a written as part of an experiment that never quite succeeded. It alternated between first and third person in a confusing way that took me out of the story, and while the characters were compelling, the movie made them far more interesting. For example, in the movie, Carlito Brigante was a tormented soul caught between two worlds and genuinely trying to do the right thing to live straight. In the book, he’s an unrepentant hood, who doesn’t give a shit about anyone but himself except to the extent they can help him escape his present situation.
To Live and Die in L.A. is easily my favorite movie from the 80s. It actually defined the 80s for me (Hell, it got sued by the makers of Miami Vice for copying them too closely for the love of Dog). The characters are complex, conflicted, and realistic in terms of reacting physically and morally to rapidly changing situations, and I don’t think a better car chase exists anywhere on screen–and the best part is that even after the car chase, there’s a huge chunk of the movie left, and it just keeps getting better and better until the uncompromising conclusion.
Well, after seeing that movie, I had to read the book, and . . . it was awful. There wasn’t even a car chase, you stop giving a shit about any of the characters halfway through the book, and at the end, the story just . . . ends. I’ve read ingredient lists with more poignant endings. I had to watch the movie twice to get the book’s taste out of my head. It was boring and stupid and a good object lesson as to how secret service skills don’t translate very well to compelling prose.
I prefer the Swedish, but yes, both were good.
I liked Martin Scorsese’s After Hours. At least I remember enjoying it; haven’t watched it in a while.