Novels and Movies

[DanielJones]

I thought that they did a bang up job of taking a 15 page short story and turned it into a lovely story called The Illusionist.

The one I can't wait to see right now is 'The Golden Compass'. I've been reading the book and it just sucks you in. Great imaginative detail with the least amount of description.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[nubsnubs]

Shooter

The recent Mark Wahlberg flik 'Shooter' was based on a novel titled 'Point of Impact' by Stephen Hunter. Naturally, the book was much better than the movie, but I am also partial. I am a huge Stephen Hunter fan. He has a series of books based on the Bob Lee Swagger character from Shooter, as well as a series based on the character of Earl Swagger, Bob's father. These books are incredible, and Hunter's writing style is riviting. I highly suggest them. However, if you are to read them, make sure you do so in the proper order: 'Hot Springs' being the first Earl Swagger novel, and 'Point of Impact' being the first Bob Lee novel.

- Cheers

 

[Jeynne]

Gentleman's Agreement stayed true to the novel. Both the movie and the book are wonderful.

Mister Roberts stayed...True to the novel, in parts. It's one of the rare cases where I prefer the movie to the book. (Another case where I prefer the movie is Breakfast at Tiffany's.)

While this isn't a classic movie, The Lost World is quite different from Michael Crichton's novel. I was disappointed in both the movie and the book, for very different reasons. However, I will say that the book offered some very interesting quotes, even if the story wasn't that engaging.

I know Jurassic Park was already mentioned, but I'd like to add that both the movie and the novel are great. There are quite a few differences between them, but that doesn't take anything away from either.

 

[carter]

This is a case of seeing the film and then reading the book.

The Prisoner of Zenda either 1937 0r 1952 version.

I saw the 1952 version of this film before I found a copy of Anthony Hope's novel in a Used Book's store.

Later, I saw the 1937 version. I like both but think the 1937 version is a better.

These are both included in a DVD in current release.

 

[Doctor Strange]

They are virtually the same film - the 1952 version is essentially a shot-for-shot remake of the 1937 film. I generally prefer the first one (I mean: Ronald Colman vs. Doug Jr. - those voices, those moustaches!), but the second one benefits from having Deborah Kerr and James Mason!

I also saw the 1922 version once in the middle of the night on TCM - it was pretty good too, for an antique.

 

[zaika]

Dunno if anyone mentioned this...but I think that the Anne of Green Gables movies are simply fabulous. They did place the story at the turn of the century rather than the mid 1800's (??) which led to a truly horrible third movie not long ago...but that's another topic.
But the first two films were wonderful and really brought Anne to life. The books are beautiful, and the movies really brought that out.