#32
4th Feb 2015 at 1:39 AM
Posts: 557
Thanks: 5495 in 29 Posts
22 Achievements
View My Journal
Hrm. Interesting question.
Mostly this hurts my brain trying to come up with movies and books where I have definitely experienced both. Granted, the experience of reading a book and watching a movie are two completely different creatures in their own right.
Jurassic Park: The book. Come to think of it, Crichton's books win every time. Sphere, Congo, and Eaters of the Dead fit in there as well.
The Da Vinci Code. The book. Brown's quick page-turning pace is what makes his novels so successful, a movie just can never replicate that. Angels and Demons the same.
The Lord of the Rings. The movies. The books are brilliant for their lore and depth, but in TT and RotK, I couldn't wait to get back to Frodo and Sam. I just couldn't get my mind wrapped around the epic battles. The movies, however, showed me how absolutely huge the scope (and how woefully inadequate my imagination) is. My mind was blown. Same goes for the Narnia movies.
Brewster's Millions. The book. Basing it off the 1985 movie (Wikipedia tells me there were nine (eight available) other movie adaptations. (I might have a mission now.)) The 1902 novel was so charming, original, and creative. The movie was pretty gimmicky.
Trainspotting. The movie. Let me just say that I loved the book. Read it before the movie came to theaters and at the time of reading, it was a huge influence on my life. But... the movie made total cohesion out of a book of connected vignettes, and I found that brilliant. Would be the same answer if I saw the movie first, but for a different reason.
Naked Lunch. The movie. The book is really a series of disconnected scenes. The movie is not at all a retelling, but a wholy new creation with the same spirit. Brilliant.
Harry Potter. The books. Maybe not the grandest of literary masterpieces, but the books are tight with very little fluff. Translating to film, any omission in that excellently woven story really stands out. The movie are a great accomplishment and I enjoyed them as well. But books all the way.
Girl, Interrupted. The movie. I feel bad for saying that as the book is autobiographical and there was way more added to the movie. I read the book, but the movie made me sob like a baby. And not even just a "good cry" but an all-the-feels-in-the-world bawling my eyes out... wait, wait, pause it. I need to collect myself so I don't miss anything that will make me cry more.
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. The book. This Betty Smith classic is probably my favorite novel of all time. A couple years ago I finally tracked down the movie. Surprisingly I was not disappointed. Probably one of the best lead performances I've ever seen out of a child-actor. The movie, well made as it is, lacks the fullness and inspiration of the novel.
Dracula. The book. I love epistolary novels, and Dracula is one the best. Somehow I always feel cheated as the movies lack that format. The letters and journals and whatnot provide a type of heady unraveling. Without that the pacing of adapted movies is just off.
And just to be goofy....
The Passion of the Christ. The book. Never like once did the movie actually explain the significance of Jesus. I mean, really, who takes a tiny portion of the Gospels stories and leaves out the point of it all? Totally just weird torture/snuff porn.
The Ten Commandments. The movie. Okay, there is something innately sacrilegious about turning a portion of a holy book into a movie. But this adaptation of Exodus just adds to the grandeur. Charlton Heston as Moses, yes please.
:P