[seanybhoy]

....or vice versa.

Share a few titles which were good on paper but **** on screen or vice versa.

 

[seanybhoy]

I thought Angela's Ashes and Catch Me If You Can were both really good books but the films didn't really cut it for me.

 

[LostPancake]

The Company of Wolves was a great movie (combines fairy tales red riding hood and werewolves and Freudian imagery and sexual awakening), but I didn't get much out of the book of stories it was sort of based on by Angela Carter.

 

[Cheeky]

The Kite Runner was a really good book. The movie not so much. I think a lot of things that happened I wouldn't have understood had I not read the book. And it left out a lot of good bits.

 

[bezoomny]

Love in the Time of Cholera
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (the acting was amazing, but Brick's homosexuality is a *major* part of the play, and you can't just cut that out)
Less Than Zero (the movie's okay, but the book was a lot better)
Perfume
Any adaptation of The Three Musketeers
The newer adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo with Guy Pearce

 

[Desperate]

I liked the movie "Speak", but I never read the book.. I hear it's much better than the movie because the movie left out a few things.. I really like the book, "Where the red fern grows".. It actually made me cry but the movie was not as good...

 

[Madison_Rose]

Zoe Heller's "Notes on a Scandal:" book was good, film was well acted, but they messed with the plot, which spoiled it.

I didn't even go to see the film Atonement, because I loved Ian McEwan's book so much that I don't believe they could possibly do it justice.

 

[screwjack]

The only book I can think of that was better than the movie is "the lost world" the sequel to jurrassic park... and the book wasn't that great either.

Most of the book/movies I can think of simply complement each other:

Fear and loathing in las vegas
Trainspotting
A clockwork orange

Seeing the book and the movie adds to both experiences.

 

[whiterabbit]

I agree with Catch Me If You Can. I don't get why they made a load of sh*t up that was less interesting than the actual true story. They made such a mess of it. It was just a terrible movie all around.

 

[southward]

I loved the movie Fight Club, but I didn't like the book that much. I loved some of the guy's other books though.
I also hate the Harry Potter movies but love the books.

 

[Bredwh]

Harry Potter movies are crappy, change too much and cut out way too much compared to the books.

The Da Vinci Code was a great book but the movie sucked. A lot of that was because they changed Robert Langdon into a ***** skeptic when in the book he believed the most, just to appease the Catholic Church. I liked Angels and Demons even better than The Da Vinci Code so the movie will probably be even more of a let down.

 

[EagerMinnow84]

I didn't even go to see the film Atonement, because I loved Ian McEwan's book so much that I don't believe they could possibly do it justice.

The movie Atonement was good but nowhere near the incredibleness of the book. The book was one of the best books I have ever read. The movie didn't capture the war scenes as well as I would have hoped. The ending wasn't as devastating as it was in the book either.

 

[russophile1977]

The DaVinci Code comes to mind. The book was really interesting, the movie was ruined by flat characters and bad acting.

 

[Atticus]

Agree with "Angela's Ashes", and I'd add "All the Pretty Horses". Going back some years, The movie of "Catch 22" was disappointing, as was "The Great Gatsby", "Fountainhead", and "For Whom the Bell Tolls".

 

[Sabu]

I thought The Black Dahlia movie was awful while the book is great. I couldn't understand how they could mess it up ha.

 

[yellowpaper]

Queen of the Damned movie sucked. I didn't really like the book, but idk, the movie totally.. misrepresented the Vampire Chronicles. I only liked the first two books, Interview with the Vampire and The Vampire Lestat. The movie for IwtV was alright imo, but the book was still way better.

The Harry Potter movies are fun to watch but the books are far superior. The first HP movie was probably the most true to the books so far.

 

[EagerMinnow84]

I thought The Black Dahlia movie was awful while the book is great. I couldn't understand how they could mess it up ha.

The movie was a disaster. The book was great. Yeah, I don't understand how they could mess that one up.

 

[DeeperUnderstanding]

Christine by Stephen King. The book was a masterpiece, the movie is another dumb teen slasher film ala John Carpenter. He left so much out of the film, and added so much in, that it's barely recognizable.

One of my deepest wishes is for someone to remake that movie, and actually make it scary like the book, instead of lame like JC's version.

 

[MaidMarian]

Christine by Stephen King. The book was a masterpiece, the movie is another dumb teen slasher film ala John Carpenter. He left so much out of the film, and added so much in, that it's barely recognizable.

I agree. Most of the films made from King's books are disappointing. I think The Shawshank Redemption was the only exception.

 

[bezoomny]

I agree. Most of the films made from King's books are disappointing. I think The Shawshank Redemption was the only exception.

Stand by Me is one of my favorite movies ever. I read The Body in high school, but really don't remember much of it, wasn't really impressed. But then again I really don't like King as an author.

Every Alan Moore adaptation has been either really really bad (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta) or just okay (From Hell, Watchmen). Never lives up to the source material though.