The movie was better than the book

[bobalooba]

I'm a noir buff and thought that the maltese falcon was a better film than novel. The novel was good and the story was good but it just didn't have that endearing quality. It was very pulp and the movie, I feel, is better than pulp.

Plus who doesn't like bogey?

 

[The Wolf]

I would like to argue with you but you make a good argument.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[BrewCrew]

Another Stephen King one: Stand by Me was a fantastic movie, The Body was a decent novella but not great.

 

[MisterGrey]

Yet another Stephen King: The Shining. The book was great, but Kubrick's vision is darn spooky and probably the scariest King adaptation. I think the biggest flaw made in adapting King to screen is that it's very hard to make the transition from his terrifying descriptions to the screen. He has a certain talent for portraying the frightening in prose that is very hard to capture in the flesh. It's perhaps the reason why the adaptations of his non-horror stories are so great and lightyears beyond most of the adaptations of his horror stories.

 

[yobbos1]

I agree Blade Runner and The Maltese Falcon were both better as movies than books.

 

[bobalooba]

stephen king again

I thought the shawshank redemption was a better film than book, I also agree on the body >stand by me transition.

I liked the shining book better but I thought the movie was good too, the only thing I didn't like about the movie was that they changed the end and there were no hedge animals. I also didn't like how the movie makes it seem like it could all be a crazy man's hallucinations when in the book it was obvious there was something malevolent about the house itself.

 

[just_me]

Yet another Stephen King: The Shining. The book was great, but Kubrick's vision is darn spooky and probably the scariest King adaptation. I think the biggest flaw made in adapting King to screen is that it's very hard to make the transition from his terrifying descriptions to the screen. He has a certain talent for portraying the frightening in prose that is very hard to capture in the flesh. It's perhaps the reason why the adaptations of his non-horror stories are so great and lightyears beyond most of the adaptations of his horror stories.

I totally disagree with this. I loved the book and went to see the movie the night it opened and really was disappointed. Some of the reasons:

Kubrick moved the main focus of the book from the boy, from the house to Jack Nicholson (who I normally like but way too hammy in this one). One of the things that annoyed me about the movie is that Nicholson started out bizarre so there wasn't all that far for him to go, whereas in the book he doesn't start out that way but gets crazier and crazier, which I think works better.

The Dick Halloran character was really important in the book but given short shrift here (I won't disclose spoilers).

The hedge animals were so incredibly frightening in the book and they weren't in the movie. Probably effects weren't at the point that would have made them real, but to me they were an integral part of the book. The maze in the movie didn't come close.

The ending was totally changed to something ambiguous that doesn't work.

I think this is one of the most overrated films ever made. Just my $.02. No wonder Stephen King hated it.

That being said, I might have liked the film a bit more if I hadn't read the book first. The book scared the **** out of me. I bought it in an airport when I was waiting for my flight to leave and I couldn't put it down. In fact, it was the first Stephen King book that I read.