2006-07-13 00:16:04 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Yes, the Shawshank Redemption. It is based on a short story that Stephen King wrote called "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. The movie is much better than the short story.
2006-07-13 00:21:01 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa W 2 · 22⤊ 5⤋
Films that are "based on books" should be rated as films and not against the book as it is rare that the film actually follows the book - the film shows the characters going through similar experiences but it is never word for word the same.
Films and books get feelings and emotions across in different ways and therefore they should be rated films against films and books against books.
It frustrates me when people go to see the "film of the book" and get upset when the story is not exactly the same or a character doesn't say this line or act in this way.
All of the Lord of the Rings films were exceptional in their own right as were the books.
Bridget Jones Diary films were excellent but portrayed differently from the equally as good book.
Harry Potter were wonderful films to lose yourself in but the books made an avid read too.............
2006-07-13 00:30:59 · answer #2 · answered by barneyboomagoo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked the film of Empire Of The Sun much better than the book, which I couldn't get into at all. I reckon if you see the film first you are less likely to appreciate the book, and vice versa. And for those people who found The Lord Of the Rings dull, the first book is a bit long winded and improves in the second half, and second and third books.
2006-07-13 10:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by Rotifer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fahrenheit 451 (author: Ray Bradbury, Director: Francois Truffaut) because it is about a society where reading is illegal. When you read the book you are, of course, reading so it doesn't have the same impact as the film.
Also The Ring (author: Koji Suzuki, Director: Hideo Nakata) which, bizarrely, I thought went into a lot more detail in the film than in the book, especially with the release of Ring 2 and Ring 0.
I thought Clockwork Orange (author: Anthony Burgess, director: Stanly Kubrick) was AS good a film as a book in different ways. Whereas the book was an exercise in linguistic style the film was equally entertaining as an exercise in visual style.
That's all I can think of as it's pretty rare, isn't it?
2006-07-13 01:50:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought I'd be the only person who would have thought of The Shawshank Redemption... how wrong was I?!?
One of the most amazing films I have ever seen.
The movie Stand By Me was also based on the short story 'The Body', taken from the same Stephen King book.
If you haven't seen this, you should give it a watch...
It makes the death of River Phoenix all the more tragic, seeing the promise of what his life could have brought.
Although the story in the book is a nice read, the film really brings the story to life.
Leeches!!!
2006-07-13 01:34:54 · answer #5 · answered by wee_bumble_bee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, agree with The Shawshank Redemption. Whilst we're on Stephen King novels, I also thought The Green Mile was excellent and very true to, if not actually better than, the book. The problem with King is (and I've read most of his "horror" stuff) that he is a fantastic writer, but often crap at knowing how to end a story (look at IT as a prime example).
I do agree with the general sentiment that it is better to read the book and draw on one's own imagination than to see a film and view someone else's. Having said that, I read The Dead Zone (King again) and then the movie was near enough exactly how I'd seen it in my head - how odd is that??
2006-07-13 01:51:19 · answer #6 · answered by Colin S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A River Runs Through It. Much better film than book.
2006-07-13 03:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by Manish J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Films generally are good for visual effects and plot developments but books allow you to hear you favourite characters thoughts and feelings which even the best actors might not be able to express as the 'vision' you see when you read the book.
I love The Shawshank Redemption which I feel is better than the short but they are few that can surpass the novel.
2006-07-13 02:05:27 · answer #8 · answered by celene s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, the Notebook! It was a great book, I just think it made a much better movie!!!! Oh and A Walk to Remember. I belive the movie was way way way better than the book. Some of the parts in the book just wasn't as good as the movie!
2006-07-13 01:54:44 · answer #9 · answered by SwtPrincess1128 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is only one film that was ever better than -- and quite faithful to -- the book. Great Gatsby with Redford and Farrow. Perfect casting (Bruce Dern, Sam Waterston) and you can read the book half a dozen times before you realize how Daisy sets Gatsby up for the murder of Tom's floozy.
2006-07-13 00:55:20 · answer #10 · answered by bubbacornflakes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Shawshank Redemption, good story by Stephen King, but Mrogan Freeman and Tim Robbins really took the whole story over
2006-07-13 02:37:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋