I didn't read House of Sand and Fog, but I did see the movie, and I thought it was INTENSE. I can't imagine how the book must have been to read!
For the most part, I would agree that the book is usually better than the movie, but one movie that I did like better than the book was The Hours. I'm not sure why, exactly, but the movie just had a more visceral impact on me than the book even though I remember the movie staying quite true to the book.
Dreamybee, thank you for your comment! I have neither read nor seen the movie of The Hours, but they are both on my list. I think I might just get the film, based on your recommendation, since I have many more books in my stack than films on my to-be-watched list.
Thanks!
I agree that the book is usually better than the movie. In my personal experience if I watch the movie first then I like the movie.If I read the book first then I have already developed my own vision of characters and events,but sometimes that isn't how the screenwriters interpreted it.
One movie that totally surprised me was Atonement. I loved the book and was apprehensive about seeing the movie. I avoided it when it was in theatres but ended up succumbing to it on DVD. I was very nearly *overwhelmed* by how true the movie was to the book and its characters. I can't recall feeling that way about any other adaptation.
Seeing trailers for the movie Blindness this summer finally kicked me to read it (not long after I read The Road; I'm with Michael on that one
—I'm not sure any movie rendering could do justice to my personal reading of it). Although the effect was that the actors' faces were etched in my head, I adored the book and am, again, apprehensive to see the movie. I've heard some murmurs that the movie hasn't captured the gist of the book, which I cynically find typical but overall find disappointing. But I certainly hope more people read the book because of the movie. Its insights are simply stunning.
Lisa - I totally agree. That's why my daughter hates me -- she's not allowed to see the Harry Potter movies til she's read at least 4 of the books.
Kim - I'm so glad you posted this. I've had Atonement sitting here for almost 2 weeks (thank you Netflix for no late fees), and have been reluctant to watch it. I think you've just explained to me why. Glad to hear that it doesn't disappoint. And Blindness is definitely on my to read list, maybe moving up in the pile.
Thanks for your comments!
Ann - I hope you let us know what you think of Atonement. I hope it doesn't disappoint!
I definitely will, though I'm going away for the weekend so I won't get to it til next week now.
Isn't it natural that a the book would be better than the movie though? If the book was not intriguing, it would not have inspired someone to turn it into a movie.
I guess it's like a song and a music video. One is the source of inspiration, the other is the visualization of the feeling stemming from that source.
So, I wonder, does anyone know if there has ever been books written as a result of inspiration from a movie? Which is better? Companion books released at the same time don't count.
I thought the adaptation of 'Snow Falling on Cedars' (going back a fewww years now) was great and really used the cinematic medium to tell the story well.
Michael, I am with you on 'The Road'. It was one of the best books I have ever read, but it REALLY did my head in (to the point where I wish I hadn't read it), and there is no way I could see the movie. In fact in the book the man says to his son something like 'you have to be careful what images you let into your head' and I couldn't agree more.
I had this conversation on twitter and came to the conclusion that, while it can be as "good" as the book, the movie is never better than the book.
The only conceivable counter-example to this statement would be The Godfather. I'd find it hard to believe that the book(s) could be better than the first two movies. Though I notice Dreamybee preferred the movie version of The Hours. Didn't that novel win a Pulitzer or something?
I must gently disagree regarding the book ALWAYS being better than the movie. There are two notable exceptions. Forrest Gump, by Winston Groom is a terrible book, and the film is wonderful. Where the film character of Forrest is simple and loving, the literary character is just a stupid jerk.
Field of Dreams, which began life as a boring slog called Shoeless Joe, became a film that I love and re-watch, and get something new out of every time I view it. It took me *ages* to read Shoeless Joe, just because it was so terribly dull.
Graceann, thanks for weighing in with your opinion -- we love it when people gently disagree, LOL! I confess that I did not read either of those books, so I'm going to assume you are right about the movies being better than the books. Thanks!
Commenting by HaloScan
