as per usual exceeds the film and is a great read, time after time
937270
The book, as per usual exceeds the film and is a great read, time after time.  One of my all time favorites.
635353
This adaptation of the movie was surprisingly more enjoyable, the writer goes so much more indepth and you get to see the ins and outs of all the characters, you see, feel and understand everything they do. It's like you're there in the story. If a lot of the things described in the book had been in the movie, I believe it would've been scores better but the movie was good in and of itself nonetheless
1305220
I'm glad I saw the film before reading the book.  After a second reading I saw the movie again and enjoyed the visual experience even more.
470234
It is very involved and follows the ovie quite well. If you haven't seen the movie, or read the book, you can become lost in the actionand where to go.
1097650
I have always loved the movie, and was very curious when I heard there was a novelization of it written by the man who wrote the screenplay of the film. I had heard that it was far superior to the movie, going into a lot more detail and character development than the film could afford.

And so...I made it my mission to get my hands on said book.

I was not disappointed.

It really does go into a lot more detail, and is much more fleshed out.  And in the end, I ended up loving this novel so much more than the movie itself...that I rarely watch the movie anymore, and simply read the book instead (I still love the movie, and still think it was fantastic).

If you're curious about this novelization, then don't hesitate to get a copy.  It's well worth it!
4678975
I have always said that the movie is never as good as the book, but I may make an exception here.  Finney's story 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' has been a favorite for many years.  Everyone knows the story:  people in a small California town are not what they seem to be.  People are being replaced by some type of alien that looks and acts just like the real thing.  Finney's original story is still gripping, suspense-filled reading fun, and I enjoyed it a lot.  The edition I read had many references to the year being 1976 and not in the 1950's (when it was actually written).  I wondered if Finney doctored the book a bit to make it fit the 1978 remake.  If so, I wish he hadn't.  The atmosphere and feel of the book are all out of the 50's...the 70's references are out of place.
In this case, I think the original 1956 film is slightly better.  Some parts are different, many are similar, but the feel of the film probably made a better connection with film audiences of the 50's than the book did.  I also think as far as the ending goes, less is better, which is what you get from the film.  I thought the book explained a little too much, and for me, that took away part of the fun.  Still, 'Invasion' the book still continues to be a science fiction favorite and deservedly so.
4065538
Really, really, really great book. I found it hard to put it down. As always, the movie does not have nearly as much as the book but it was an incredible read.
1022275
If you've seen the film, then read this. The two differ so much that it's possible to enjoy both no matter what order you came to them in.
2121223
Here the book is just as great as the film. Yet the book gives a better notion of the stressful episodes, particularly the death of the hidden handicaped sister of the mother, and the guilt of her parents, particularly her father, a guilt that he re-directs against his son-in-law that he accuses of all evil events, such as the death of his grand-child. The book emphasizes heavily on the dangers of trucks on American roads. The book gives a full account of previous uses of the  pet sematary  as a ressuscitating means : and the Indian background is better put forward. But all together the film is a good introduction to the book, the book giving more details, more flesh to the story. And that is Stephen King's essential genius : he dives into the thick material of American society and we are in the midst of the dramas of this society, dramas that are contained and carried by the contradictions of the society  itself. That gives to the magic of the living dead (a student who was killed when jogging on a road) and of the Indian folklore behind the story a realistic dimension that makes those elements a lot more acceptable and believable than they would be otherwise. Stephen King is one of the great writers of American literature because of this realistic dimension, and because of his language that integrates popular language in the most creative and dramatic way. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX.
392285
A movie simply cannot duplicate a story like this one.  The detail and emotion and creepiness is so much more amplified in the prose.  The movie was good and a commercial success but the book is absolutely worth the time to read it.
3925513
Once again the film of this follows the book closely, but the personal, first person perspective changes the narrative slightly, making this a highly enjoyable read, even after watching the film.  Nicely written with great social commentary.  Highly recommended.
981266
A most enjoyable adaptation of Tolkien's books. I liked the first film after I initially viewed it at the theater, but after watching it again on DVD I grew to love this film. The Two Towers made me feel the same after viewing it at the theater. I thought it was good, and was just slightly annoyed at a change or two from the original book. I'm not a purist, and after seeing it on DVD for the second time I believe I will come to love this film too. Jackson does such a wonderful job telling this mid-part of the story that I can forgive his deviation from the letter of the book (except maybe Aragorn fall). I still feel that the extended version of this film will be, like the first, a better film. If it is, it will pace itself much better, and flesh out the story to enhance the viewer's movie experience.
I gave the extended edition of Fellowship to a non Tolkien fan friend, and he said he felt a bit cheated that the theater version wasn't as good as what was on the version I had given him.
If you enjoy watching a great film again and again, you'll not be disappointed in this film.
2220634
I had seen the film and been a big fan of it for years when my brother suggested I join the world of the literate and read the book. Sometimes reading a book after you've seen its big screen adaptation can present problems--it could be hard, for example, to shake the image of John Cusack in a Chicago record store when the book takes place in the UK. But there were no such issues when reading High Fidelity. While there were definitely moments when the movie popped into my mind (mostly noting differences between the two), the novel was engrossing and extremely entertaining without distraction.

So my review is directed at people like me who have seen and liked the movie: the book is (as the case often is) far better than an already great movie, and it's absolutely worth your time to take it in.
4383406
I saw Sean Penn's excellent movie adaptation of this book first.  By comparison, the book contains more information, particularly around background and context, which I found very valuable.  However, its drier tone - and the avoidance of too much creative license - means that the powerful (and, some would suggest, overly romanticized) atmosphere created in the movie was not nearly as prominent in the book.  Nevertheless, I found this a thoroughly engaging read - and one that added to my enjoyment of the movie.
1925993
The thought of making a film out of this enormous novel, long on talk, short on much action, seems daunting, but Hans  Geissendrfer's film does a creditable job, with some allowances for the excesses of late 70's film making (this film dates to 1982, but it really harks back to the 70's in artsy style, much theatrical staging of scenes, an interpretation that is faithful to the book in meaning but not in style, I think.)

The novel, which deals with the seven year sabbatical of a young engineer at a tuberculosis sanatorium right on the cusp of World War 1, is one more in the long line of novels that discuss the huge change in Europe that occurred after this war. Old Europe, and its descent into decadent lifestyle is depicted in the hermetic environment of an indulgent health resort in the Swiss Alps.

The film does a good job of depicting the social decadence, and the conversations between Castorp, his humanist mentor Settembrini, the Jesuit Naphta and the dionysian Peeperkorn are fairly well handled and Rod Steiger (dubbed into German) is superb as the off-the-rails alcoholic Peeperkorn. The casting of many of the main characters is uncannily correct--Marusja, Joachim, Frau Englehardt and even the dwarf Emerentia. The casting of Castorp and Clawdia Chauchat, however, are not as pleasing; Chauchat is too French and seductive, Castorp too young and callow. Settembrini is too much "Groucho Marx" and not enough the urbane Italian humanist. Charles Aznavour is amazing as Naptha.

Many scenes have been deleted from this DVD, so I actually recommend you purchase the set of three Mann films,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Thomas-Mann-Collection/dp/B000MR9C3W/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Thomas Mann Collection</a>&nbsp;which has the whole series of this film plus a very long miniseries of Buddenbrooks, the novel Mann wrote in his 20's, which is an incredibly good production of his debut novel.
2375300
Spoiler alert:  I'm going to compare the film to the novel.  Don't read this if you haven't read the novel or seen the film.  (Unless you want to know how the film differs from the great novel by DeMille.)
If you haven't read the book, you should, and my take on the film is of course governed by the fact that I read the novel first, and it's excellent.  The film has to take shortcuts and leave out certain elements, some which I consider key to the story, in order to tell a very complicated story in 2 hours.  You don't get the story of the wives of the general and his adjutant, which are very important to the novel, at all.  You don't get the depth of the plan the general's daughter has to get back at her father.
So many details and relationships are absent in the film it's just too compressed for me to say "great movie, great adaptation."  So while it's okay, and my wife enjoyed it a bit, I really wanted more of the intricately woven plot Nelson DeMille has created in the novel.  Long story short, if you've read the novel, there's really no point in seeing this film.
3441573
Great movie and great rendition of a good book