The Alien series of films were amazing.
2007-04-18 04:08:12 · 19 answers · asked by Old Man of Coniston!. 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Disney's "The Jungle Book"
2007-04-18 04:27:14 · answer #1 · answered by Andrew H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Alien series wasn't based on a novel or novels. There were spin off novels published but the film came first. So whether the Alien films were amazing or not is totally irrelevant.
Basically no, although Ang Lee's adaptation of The Ice Storm by Rick Moody is comparable to the book I think.
2007-04-18 11:40:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't happen often - the book can usually get so much deeper than the film, and engage your imagination more.
"The Horse Whisperer" was as good as the book, I think, and I personally found the ending of the film better than the (unnecessarily tragic) end of the book.
"Enchanted April" was very bit as good as the book.
I enjoyed the film of "The Da Vinci Code" more than I did the book, which was an interesting story but had no depth to it for the film to miss.
In none of these cases did the film sweep the book away, so maybe this is a bad answer to your question!
2007-04-18 11:19:42 · answer #3 · answered by AirToob 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Books are generally always far better than the film, but I really couldnt get into The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I was reading but not taking anything in, but I loved the films. and Bridget Jones Diary. I found the films fab but didnt really enjoy the books.
2007-04-19 04:09:24 · answer #4 · answered by Smiley_1714 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but I do remember going to see Dr. Zhivago with friends. I had read the book and I thought I knew what was coming next. I covered my eyes and said, 'I can't watch this.' My friends were amazed, the horror scene described in the book had not been included in the film. My friends weren't terribly interested in my attempts to explain.
Also, I found the Film version of Lord of the Rings confusing. I'm convinced that if you hadn't read the book, it would have been virtually incomprehensible. Good special effects though!
2007-04-19 02:36:15 · answer #5 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The book is always better than the movie. When you're reading, you can imaging the characters and the scenes how you want to, the movie-makers rarely create the movie how you would like the characters to look. The book is always longer and has better detail, the movie always leaves out the best part of the book or twists it so that it is no longer how it was ment to be. The perfect example is Harry Potter, nothing in the movie is how it should be, the details in the books are so much better!
2007-04-18 20:43:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Normally I would say the book beats the film version everyday except the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was so disappointed with the books when I read them but absolutely love the films. Thats the exception rather than the rule to me though.
2007-04-18 16:38:23 · answer #7 · answered by minniema10 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Third Man starred Orsen Welles, the film came before the book and blew the book away (when it came out) The book was written by Graeme Greene.
2007-04-18 19:42:46 · answer #8 · answered by loislane 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not often: generally the book allows more room for the imagination to move.
But within the last year or so, "Stormbreaker" bucks the trend. The book (by Anthony Horowitz) was very clunkily written, and the film was way faster-paced and driven, because it wasn't weighted down with clumsy descriptions.
2007-04-18 15:55:35 · answer #9 · answered by phoenix2frequent 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rarely.
I thought the movie Leaving Las Vegas was better than the book. The Godfather I and II movies are as good, although for time sake, the film maker has to cut out sub plots.
2007-04-18 11:55:26 · answer #10 · answered by Adoptive Father 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Shawshank Redemption
2007-04-18 11:25:15 · answer #11 · answered by Helen S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋