2007-03-20 00:00:48 · 27 answers · asked by filmyguy 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
The Bridges of Madison County. There is no way that any movie could ever be as bad as that book.
2007-03-22 16:18:43 · answer #1 · answered by celebduath 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as being TRUE to the adaptation, Fear and Loathing in LasVegas is the only one that even came close.But not all of the book was included. What got left out was covered in the movie staring Bill Murray called "Where the Buffalo Roam".
Put the two together and you will have a book you can watch!
Runner up would be the original '12 Angy Men'.
2007-03-26 22:49:00 · answer #2 · answered by cowlynz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something I learned in multiple film history classes: a movie is not a book. Comparing one to the other is like saying a shark is better than a canary. What is really meant here is the quality of the movie as good as the quality of the book? For that instance, the Lord of the Rings movies were extraordinary. Books can convey things (like what is going on inside a characters mind) that are problematic in a movie (without a voice-over narration or something similar), and movies can convey things that books can not, such as actual physical motion of an object. They both have their place, but they will never be "the same", and comparing a book to a movie is kind of like comparing apples to pineapples - they are both interesting in their own right, but they will never be the "same".
2007-03-26 15:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I actually think that the Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. Don't get me wrong; Tolkien is a genius and his writing is amazing, but I sometimes feel when I am reading his books that he, himself, doesn't know exactly what's going to happen next. Some scenes in the books drag on forever and some pivotal moments seems to fly by. I think the movies were nicely paced and, even though there were creative differences, I think they told Tolkien's stories accurately.
2007-03-27 11:36:02 · answer #4 · answered by dream_keeper1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gotta agree with the Godfather. The Andromeda strain. Jurassic Park. Lost Horizon. Blade Runner. High Fidelity. Forrest Gump. Drugstore Cowboy. Midnight Express. In cold Blood. Deliverance. War of the worlds. Jaws. A River Runs Through it. Lonesome Dove.
2007-03-20 01:32:27 · answer #5 · answered by tenbadthings 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stephen King's The Stand was pretty good. The uncut version of the book is better than the way it was originally published and the book is better than the movie because of some of the detils but the movie is still pretty good. Also fro smae author is The Langoliers which is actually a short story and I think they did a pretty good job with the computer graphic stuff although it has been awhile since I saw it.
2007-03-24 19:43:33 · answer #6 · answered by fanny7336 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if it's just me, but I find whichever I see/read first, is always my preferred of the two. So if I've read the book, the casting in the movie always disappoints me, as the people don't look like they did in my imagination. Or if I've seen the movie first, then the book feels all wrong, because perhaps the movie didn't so closely follow the plot or whatever.
2007-03-20 00:06:31 · answer #7 · answered by catfish 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have to definitely say "The Green Mile"...the book was awesome then I saw the movie and they both moved me....the similarities were right on...just wish they could have added a few more things from the book into the movie but I was very satisfied..
2007-03-27 14:49:36 · answer #8 · answered by ks_countrygal73 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Sweet Hereafter movie was better than the book by Russell Banks as director Atom Egoyan added nuances such as the Piped Piper theme that gave the story greater depth.
2007-03-20 02:31:36 · answer #9 · answered by Harbinger 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I liked The Notebook. I always prefer to read the book first, then see the movie. Gives you a greater depth of understanding.
2007-03-27 22:08:54 · answer #10 · answered by vesain 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋