The Godfather and Jaws are my standard answers to this question.
I have not read the Book of Gump.
mmm
Agreed on both counts. I’m barely familiar with JP.
I read both books, after seeing the movie. Which did a remarkable job of making sense from all that.
The Bourne Identity: the book was nearly incomprehensible to me.
Game of Thrones: the series was well-paced, well-acted, etc. The books just droned on and on, and while the last season caught some deserved flak, overall it was very good.
I agree with LOTR. It was masterfully done, even if nerds nitpick it to death.
The film of To Have and Have Not is far superior to the book. But then, Hemingway didn’t have Bogie and Bacall available for the book.
There are two tags you can use with spoilers:
[ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ]
gives you blurred out text. Can be used on the same line (unlike the quote tag).
However, I like the [ details=xxx ] tag, which gives you a
click this here
little one line thingy which allows you to hide a lot of text without using a lot of space (unlike the spoiler tag which only blurs text, not hiding it like this one does.
In the above, I used [ details=click this here ] [ /details ]. It also can be used on the same line.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
My go-to’s are both stories by Stephen King, but
Stand by Me exceeded The Body and Shawshank Redemption exceeded Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption.
It’s been many years since I read the book or saw the movie, at the time my recollection is that the movie Christine (the car one, by King) was better than the book, but in an odd way. I thought the book would have been greatly improved by some good edits, because much of it is long and boring. The movie, of course, edited the book down to just some of the more important and exciting sequences. However, the movie wasn’t really that great.
What I think would have been best would have been a version of the book that mostly used prose from the book to tell just the story that was in the movie. I guess a novelization of a movie based on a book…
Ditto this. Terrible book!
But a lovely, sensitive, romantic movie-- go figure. With Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood as the two main characters.
Isn’t that the one King wrote so blasted on cocaine he doesn’t remember writing it? I can easily imagine long and boring parts that his addled brain thought were soooo important to the story.
Agreed, I know the movie by heart so reading it I thought the dialogue in the film was sharper as well.
I just wished they had added the scene where the six fingered man comes to Buttercup as a tween to check her beauty and falls of his horse. I get why they leave it out, for the story, but it’s a good bit. Also, when coming out of the Fire Swamp they should see the Revenge at port surrounded by Prince Humperdinks ships, I’m guessing the forrested knoll (“We are men of action, lies do not become us.” ) was all they could afford in filming.
The 13th Warrior is essentially Eaters Of The Dead by Michael Crichton minus the Gor-like rape fetishizing. I would say that is a step in the right direction. It’s a lot. It doesn’t make any sense. It would be like bondage porn coming up continuously in Jurassic Park.
The other kids books that I’ve seen mentioned in these threads are Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs and How To Train Your Dragon. I haven’t read either of them, but I guess they’re more conceptual than plot-heavy.
I’ve never read Shrek, either, but that movie is almost certainly better than its source.
He directed Maximum Overdrive and I thought he has said he was blasted/wasted most of the time making that movie.
Three immediately come to mind, two geriatric, one merely bewhiskered
The 39 steps (1935 version) Brighton Rock (1948) and L.A. Confidential.
Supposedly Howard Hawks had a bet with Hemingway that he could make a great movie out of Hemingway’s worst book. I guess he won.
That was Cujo, which ISN’T a candidate for this thread.