Which is Better Book or Movie?

With so many books being adapted to film such as 'The Hunger Games' and 'The Woman in Black' hoping to nudge this community back to live.

Has anyone seen the movie and read the book? I loved the book, and was really looking forward to the movie, until I heard they changed the ending. What the...?!
What are your opinions on the movie?

Last night I went and saw The Time Traveller's Wife. It's been a while since I read the book.
I loved it. Some changes were made, which I think they had to in order to keep the movie 2 hours and for people that have never read the book.
Has anyone else here seen it yet? What are your opinions?

Hey, I'm Louisa. I found this comm thru snapshot_hunter and then zxwx's profile. And it sounds just like my cuppa tea! :D

I love both books and movies. I spend most of my free time reading and watching them. I've found that some movies are better than books and vice versa :)

The most recent ones that have been adapted that I've read and watched have been I Am Legend and No Country for Old Men. Both have probably been covered but hey, I'll chuck in my thoughts anyway...

( Collapse )

"The Unbearable Lightness of Being" with Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche vs. The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera

I would not recommend doing one without the other, because the book has some beautiful and striking contemplations, on everything from the nature of how each of us look at situations to the author's own recollections of where he got the idea from the tale. However, the strange thing about the book is that it is disjointed, and you know the ending about halfway into it. Time skips and jumps and sometimes you go to something that has already been covered, but now there is more detail. I was okay with this, but I had seen the movie first, so that might have had something to do with it.

The movie goes chronologically, making the storyline easier to comprehend, and puts in its own twists and embellishments and subtractions that I enjoyed even after reading the book. Of the two, I would have to say I liked the movie better (possibly for Juliette Binoche alone) but I would not recommend one without the other; they are a pair.

In my AP English Language and Composition class, we read Into the Wild. It was a pretty amazing book. I had read it before the class has started and I felt a connection with the book. If you have never heard of it, Into the Wild tells the true story of Chris McCandless, a 24 year-old recent graduate of Emory University who leaves his family and goes on a journey of his own. Through diary entries and information from the people he met and affected the reader goes through the journey of Chris's journey. Chris's reason for this journey is to go to Alaska and live alone in the wild. Chris gets to Alaska but then dies 104 days later because of potato seed poisoning. It is a very powerful book and a great read.

We watched the movie this past week and it was amazing. Into the Wild was directed by Sean Penn with Emile Hirsh has Chris. It was a wonderful visual perspective of the early 90s as Chris McCandless journeys from a suburb of Washington D.C. to Mexico to Alaska. Emile Hirsh does an amazing job and should've been nominated for an Oscar. Into the Wild was one of the most influential movies of that year and was nominated for 2 Oscars but neither were won.

For once, I liked both the book and the movie equally.

I have to be honest, when I heard that Twilight was going to become a movie, I wanted to talk about with everyone. However most people that I talk with were not interested. Though random events this community was born. Now for the actual review

I saw the midnight showing, which makes the experience a lot better. Nonetheless, this movie did not need that extra fun. Twilight was amazingly excellent! There were some amazing scenes that were not in the book, that I wish S. Meyer HAD written. And my favorite chapter, the Cullens playing baseball, was just as I hoped it would be. I only have two negatives for this movie, one was Phil played basketball in the book, and in the movie he played baseball. I know it's a tiny change, but why? It would be so easy to keep that detail the same, but whatever. The other negative is the sparkles. In the book, whenever a vampire would go into sunlight his skin would sparkle the brightest light possible. It was like spotlights emitting from his skin. In the movie, Edward's sparkles looked like crappy makeup. :(

Final thought: I will definitely being seeing this movie again!

The Crucible by Arthur Miller.

The book, most definitely. I will lend credit to the film, since it had Arthur Miller doing the screenplay, which rarely happens, so it was very true to the original concept. However. I did not see Winona Rider capturing Abigail, and forgive me all you fangirls, nor did Daniel Day-Lewis have much more success (but definately much more). The camera seemed to me a little jumpy and weird, randomly becoming the swooping bird but mostly staying put. A lot was cut, and I simply prefer the stage version.

La Gloire de mon Pere by Marcel Pagnol.

I read 'My Father's Glory / My Mother's Castle' together, in English; and watched Gloire in French with subtitles. The book ends gloriously, the last words being the title. The movie goes a little into Chateau, until Marcel has the leave the country, which I suppose makes more sense in a cinematic sense. However, I am curious to see how La Chateau de Maman turns out, if that chunk is taken from it. The book is much better than the movie, since the story relies far more heavily on Marcel's simplistic, biting narrative more than on the actual storyline. I have not seen Chateau, but My Father's Glory far surpasses Gloire. (If my masculines and feminines are mixed up, forgive me...)

Fehrenhiet 451 by Ray Bradbury.
I read this after watching the movie based off of the novel. And I found that the novel transcended time easier than the movie. But mostly it was the way that Bradbury talked about this "Dystopian" future that really affected me. Basically it's the reality I live in: Wall sized picture tubes (big tvs), people walking around with little seashells in their ears playing music (headphones), people taking medications to wake up, go to sleep, feel good, etc; no one actually talking to one another on a truelly personal level (everything that people talk about is superficial). it was scary.

The only thing that my reality does not have is book burning... but honestly, many people are not reading books anymore and that's how it all got started.

This book was apparently the inspiration for the movie Blade Runner. Which means, there will be some people who absolutly love this book far more than the movie and vice versa (it generally happens that way)

In the future, the United States and Russia had declaired war on one another... and somewhere, someone dropped an Nuclear Bomb... it killed many people and animals. And the people who survived had to deal with the fallout dust that was still floating in the sky. Many people immigrated to Mars and other settlements, but a few stayed on Earth. Some could not afford to immigrate and others were turned into "chickenheads" or people who's mental capacities were damaged by radiation.

To stave off loneliness, manufacterers created mechanical animals. Animals that still were fed like real animals and looked so real that many could not tell the difference. Manufacterers also created humaniod androids, whos mental power surpasses that of a typical person. Because of the implications, Earth banned Androids from stepping foot on the planet.

( Collapse )