Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Movies Better than the Books They're Based On?

The list is here. I think he's wrong about Shane, for sure.

Hat tip to Gerard Saylor for the link.

15 comments:

Todd Mason said...

Yeah...Schaefer's novel has been so forgotten as to stay in print for decades. That happens all the time, doncha know. Any such list which includes SHANE and the unspectacular film THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING... (unless the novel was dreadful) and thinks that Du Maurier's novelet "The Birds" was a novel...clearly doesn't know enough to include RED ALERT/DR. STRANGELOVE or THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE.

Benjie said...

Shane's on my to find and read list. I was less than pleased with Monte Walsh as a read than the made for tv movie version. However, I nearly fell out of my chair to see The Wizard of Oz on the list. The book has so much more to offer (although I do still love the movie). The Bond entry was weak, too.

TM said...

And a respondent to the post in situ makes the useful suggestion of the BOURNE novels. Hard to disagree.

Bill Crider said...

I think you could easily make a case for that. I've read only one of the Bourne novels, but I'm just not a Ludlum fan.

Dave C. said...

I expected to find MASH on that list. In my opinion, a better movie than a book and a better TV show than a movie.

Cap'n Bob Napier said...

I respectfully disagree about SHANE. I loved the book and the movie, but there is a tension in the movie that gripped me more than the book's. I also think the LORD OF THE RING trilogy was better than the books, but my perception may be distorted by time. I saw the movies relatively recently and read the books 35 years ago.

Benjie said...

My agreement with the Cap'n on the LOR trilogy comes from the fact that it took me ten years and about 25 attempts just to get through The Hobbit from start to finish--I've never made it beyond chapter five of the trilogy itself. The movies were rather nicely done, though. (Read that "breath-taking.")

Fred Blosser said...

Bill, if any lunkhead ever claims that Spielberg's COYOTE CONNECTION is better than the book, we'll set 'im straight.

Bill Crider said...

I'm holding out for Scorsese.

Anders E said...

I don't think TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT should be on this list. The movie isn't really that good. And how could they not list BULLITT, TOUCH OF EVIL and KISS ME DEADLY?

Cap'n Bob Napier said...

Bill, let's hope Scorcese does a better job with THE COYOTE CONNECTION than he did with THE DEPARTED.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

Election was a sharp and enjoyable movie comedy. Tom Perrotta's novel, or at least the couple of chapters I managed to read, was a plodding freshman-level workshop exercise.
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

Juri said...

BADGE OF EVIL by Whit Masterson isn't really all that bad, but the movie is better. I thought Godey's TAKING OF PELHAM Pike's BULLITT (what was that originally?) were okay - but this wasn't about books being bad, right? THE HOBBIT is quite below the LoTR, if you ask me.

Carl V. said...

I couldn't agree less with his quotes on the Bond books vs. movies. Other than Casino Royale, which I think is a tie because they actually did an admirable job following the story, the Bond movies suck in comparison to the books. I am just reading them for the first time and loving them. I find Bond to be much more gritty and live in a much more brutal world than the candy ass excuse for a Bond that most of the previous films have given us. What a moron.