Kiss of the Spider-Woman is one book I could not finish and would definitely tell everybody to avoid. It is totally unreadable.
Both the William Hurt movie and the musical are marvelous, which amazes the hell out of me.
I haven’t read the book, but there’s no way that scenes like this could possibly be funnier in print.
I’m sure we done this sort of thread before, but here we go…
I like The Iron Man but it’s definitely a lightweight children’s book, not the emotional rollercoaster of the film.
Argh. I hated the Roseanne film (even though I am sympathetic to the message) and much prefer the British version which follows the book more closely. It’s not supposed to be “empowering” in any positive way - it’s about the insane lengths the spurned wife goes to to destroy her husband, right down to the extreme body modification. She takes him to hell (metaphorically speaking), even though she has to go there herself. It’s not a nice story.
Watchmen I could possibly see - IMO the book was still better but they did a far, far better job on the film than I expected, and if they hadn’t worked so hard to make Ozymandias so creepy it would have been even better. But TLoEG film was horrible by every metric, while the book (although bleak) worked just fine.
Incidentally there’s a (comic book) sequel to Watchmen out, called Doomsday Clock. It looks awful (and is not by Moore).
One more: The Razor’s Edge. Yes, Bill Murray is a plank of wood in it and should have let someone else star in this vanity project, but the rest of the cast is good and, more importantly, the film gets rid of the tedious Somerset Maugham narrator and hands all the action directly to Larry, which makes for much better storytelling.
I couldn’t disagree more about The Razors Edge. Its an outstanding book. The film not so much. Wby do you think Murray wanted to make it?
The story is excellent. It’s the highhanded narrator, who sits archly judging everyone while putting all the action at further remove, that detracts from the story. The movie gets rid of that and lets the main characters and their actions tell the story, which works so much better IMO.
I haven’t read the book, and I only managed to make it about halfway through the Bill Murray version, but the 1946 adaptation starring Tyrone Power is very watchable - if a bit silly - with Herbert Marshall perfectly cast as Maugham (admittedly, the character does seem superfluous to the story at times). Though Anne Baxter gets most of the praise for her Oscar-winning supporting performance, Clifton Webb steals the show. Gene Tierney and (in one scene) Elsa Lanchester are also good.
I believe a good expression here would be “Wronger than wrong”
Agreed. Guillermo Francella (Sandoval) in the background, pretending to be perplexed and then saddened is hilarious. It’s one of many scenes that never occur in the book.
ETA: Having seen the movie first, I was disappointed with the book. It’s very good, but the rewrite for film is magnificent.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Radagast is in a shitty scene in a different movie, so that means that the LOTR movie trilogy is worse than the book trilogy?
Yeah, if by “distilled out” you mean “removed” in many cases. I’m sorry you didn’t like the Professor’s prose, because it does have a deliberately old fashioned (even for the time) style, but the movies are sad things full of empty sound and fury.
But yes Radagast was only in The Hobbit movies, which, if anyone SERIOUSLY wants to assert were better than the book, I will seriously accept pistols at dawn.
Of course, my suggestion is going to offend some people the same way: The Harry Potter movies. The books were rubbish. Childish pilfering and cheap prose at best and exploded into entirely too many pages as time went on and success banished all semblance of editorial presence. At least the movies were shorter.
I, too, disagree about The Razor’s Edge, and strongly. Not only is it a fantastic book, reading it literally changed my life. It is what gave me the gumption to get educated and out of that shithole state of Texas. I might still be stuck there otherwise.
Although I did love the film too. I remember reading that Bill Murray agreed to do Ghostbusters only if they let him make this film.
One minor thing I will say that is better in Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather” than the movies is Mama Corleone. She isn’t a major character by any means but the few scenes where she interacts with Kay are amusing. The two differ in that in the movie Michael goes to New Hampshire after he returns from Sicily. In the book Kay is in New York on vacation, telephones Mama Corleone to ask if she has any news about Michael. Kay is shocked to find out Michael has been back for six months without calling her (they were in the process of eloping when Vito was shot). Initially Kay doesn’t want to go out to Long Island so Mama says “You a nice girl. You gotta nice legs. But you no gotta much brains. You come see me, not Mikey. And you tell a the cab driver you pay him two times, otherwise he no come to Long Beach”.
Never read the novel for “Von Ryan’s Express” but the description in the movie is that Ryan makes it safely to Switzerland. The movie ends with Ryan being killed while the train pulls away from the Germans. Frank Sinatra felt that since Ryan killed a female collaborator, even though it was to prevent her from going to the police, that Ryan had to die. That seems to be a more poignant ending.
I love the book, and it’s one of two books l probably read every year or two. (The Godfather being the other one)
;)
While that may be true, the books were so bad I have so far refused to see the movies.
Good movies (all of them), and good books too, even the ones written by
David Lagercrantz after Stieg Larsson died.
My submission is: Mystic River. Sean Penn brought that book back to life. I couldn’t stand the book. The movie was pretty good.
It, the made for TV version anyway, haven’t seen the new theatrical one yet. Book is too long and not very good at keeping attention, and i couldn’t manage to get through it, but I absolutely loved the miniseries. Some parts of the book are pretty gross, too (and I never made it to the part with the kids’ orgy). Never could have gotten that stuff on TV (in america anyway).
While it is a great book to me, I’ve had lots of people (who like the movie) tell me that* The Name of The Rose* is well-nigh unreadable, with its large swathes of untranslated Latin.
Andrei Tarkovsky’s movie “Solaris” had a greater impact than Stanislaw Lem’s novel “Solaris” did.
It’s not that bad, once you get past the first 200 pages on medieval church politics.
It may have had a bigger impact, but I think the book was much better – and I hate Stanislas Lem! The book makes it clear that people have ben interacting with the planet for a long time. There’s even an entire journal dedicated to the study of the planet. And at one point the protagonist even goes down to the planet’s surface. Tarkovski’s film makes the team investigating the planet the first ones to do so. Their inability to learn much makes them seem incompetent, rather than this being due to the difficulty of understanding Solaris and its weird way of interaction. And he changed the ending.
When Cameron and Clooney remade it, it was a remake of Tarkivski’s film, not a new interpretation of the novel.
Of course, to round this all off, Lem’s novel has never ben completely translated into English. Or directly translated into English. The current incomplete translation we have is translated from as French translation of the original. (Kinda like the Jerusalem Bible). You’d think that Solaris itself was involved in this whole business – we don’t have direct experience of this alien intelligence, only incomplete and secondhand impressions.
The Lord of the Rings
Look, I get that those books are some of the very tentpoles on which English-language literature is hung. I understand that the depth, the complexity, the long passages of made-up languages, the tedious narration in which every blade of grass is described in exacting detail, are all features, not bugs. I get it.
The problem is, reading those books is like reading The Bible. Leviticus, specifically. In King James.
The movies excise all of that and render the action down to its very essence. Then there’s the character development, addition of female characters, and utterly stunning visuals, and the movies emerge as the clear winners.
The Phantom of the Opera
OK, so the movie from c. 2007 is a weak reflection of the stage show. But both the movie and the stage show improve upon the book by leaps and bounds.
The main difference is the portrayal of the Phantom. On stage, he’s portrayed as the villain, but he’s been driven half-mad by love, lust, revenge, and dedication to music. You almost feel sorry for him.
In the book he’s just a dick. He extorts and murders for his own ends, he toys with the opera owners for sport, and he makes it clear to Christine that he could rape her, if he wanted to, but his honor as a gentleman forbids it.