it's because I grew up watching the movie version and the movie version does such a great job of capturing the novel that nothing in the ...
590737
A lot of people told me I had to read this novel, so I finally did, but it was only okay. Mostly, it's because I grew up watching the movie version and the movie version does such a great job of capturing the novel that nothing in the book felt new or interesting. If I had grown up reading the books, I probably would have like it better, but I have to say that I like Louisa May Alcott much more. She has a similar writing style, but it resonates with me more than L.M. Montgomery.
3441573
Great movie and great rendition of a good book
3612332
I read the book as a kid, and decided to reread it when the movies started coming out.  the book is great, and I am not sure why they needed three movies to cover it.
4884534
It is obvious that fans of Jane Austen are divided on the subject of movie adaptions, especially with "Pride and Prejudice."  My father brought this film home from the library when I was 8 (I'm 18 now) and we all sat down and watched it.  Since then it has become a staple in our movie library.  Why?  Let me explain.  There are a few characters in P&P that really make or break an adaption if they are cast poorly -- Elizabeth, Darcy, Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Bennet, and Charlotte are a few I find important.  In this 80s BBC version, Elizabeth is played perfectly in all ranges of emotions (whereas the later A&E version's Elizabeth is just horrible and boring), Darcy softens before your eyes, Mrs. Bennet makes you love to hate her for all her nerves and nagging, Mr. Bennet is a perfect partner to Mrs. Bennet, and Charlotte really works well as Eliza's older friend.  All the characters I have mentioned are terrible in the A&E version, even though certain plot elements are present that are not present in this 80s adaption.  I really think it is important for any adaption not to feel hurried because it needs to capture the slowness of daily life that is only interrupted by planning for parties, throwing parties, and gossiping after parties.  If you feel that the Elizabeth in the A&E version falls flat, then I suggest you try this adaption.  The costumes are lovely, the scenery (especially at Pemberly) is beautiful, and Darcy and Elizabeth have some wonderful scenes together.  In another review it was mentioned that Garvie captures Elizabeth's sharpness and I would add, her quick wit.  I think your preference of adaptions depends on which characters mean the most to you from the perspective of the book.  I never liked Jane, for example, so I was glad to see her pushed somewhat into the background.  One thing I really miss from all versions is the commentary that is made by Elizabeth about her father, the point where she realizes what he has done to his family when with his intellect they could have all been so much more.  I also miss Lydia's letter in the end of the book, it always makes me chuckle.  Overall, I urge you to try this film out, the second part of it is superior to the first in my opinion but maybe I am just in a hurry to see Darcy and Elizabeth grow closer.
2682576
The Uninvited is THE great ghost movie of the 1940s. Nothing else made in that time quite approaches it. I saw it decades ago on TV, and later taped it (VHS) so I'd seen it a half dozen times and I knew the story before I finally bought the book. I thought that might ruin the book for me, but I was wrong. (For those unfamiliar, please do not reveal the ending to either the movie or the book.)

The book is better.

Hollywood did a good job. I still see Ray Milland as Roddy and Ruth Hussey as Pamela and Gail Russell as Stella. The wonderful production design and genuinely spooky effects (there was no CGI in 1944) still work. But most of the story and a lot of the people we encounter in the book are missing from the movie.

Dorothy Macardle was an Irish Republican known for her politics as much as her fiction. I haven't read anything else she wrote, but The Uninvited is a real masterpiece and comparatively, Lewis Allen's movie is abbreviated at best, simplified at worst. Macardle's work has such depth and emotion, mixed with charming 40s anachronisms, that it was almost impossible to put down.

So, if you've seen the film, read it anyway. You won't be disappointed. If you haven't seen the film, read the book first. And if you want the film later, (or just love it for itself) Criterion has an excellent Blu-ray restoration available right here on Amazon.
4759233
A great read! Way better than the movie rendition.
2891365
I read this book when I was in grade school, and it played a significant role in fostering my love for the old horror films. I especially developed a fascination for the silents, such as "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," "Phantom of the Opera," "Nosferatu," etc. Back in the 70's, it was nearly impossible to see these films outside of a film museum, but I eventually saw all those wonderful, fascinating films I read about (many times over) in this book. It is certainly not the most exhaustive (or accurate) discussion of the old classics, but it holds a special place for me, as it introduced me to these films and my love of them has lasted to this day. A note of irony: I bought the book solely because of the cover photo of King Kong (which my book has), and I was quite disappointed when I first got the book. Why? No color photos, and no photos of Godzilla! Yes, for a 9 year-old, that was quite a disappointment!
3593114
I read this book when I was in middle school (quite a while ago now) and loved it. I can't wait to read it again. I had seen the movie at that time (it was new) and have seen it many times since. I loved it then and still love it now.

I remember being pleasantly surprised that the book was as enjoyable as the movie - more so. Sometimes it's hard to read a book after seeing the movie since you already know the outcome but it didn't matter with The Princess Bride.

The book in no way diminishes the movie or vice versa. The book fills out and enriches the story for the movie-viewer. It provides additional detail, background, backstory. And the way "reality" is injected throughout both the book and the movie is so entertaining as well.

This book can (and really should!) be read after the movie.
2382010
This is the original graphic novel that the movie was made from - and the movie took some interesting liberties.  I love the movie so I had to get the book.

While scenes in the book are quite different from the movie - especially he Houses of Parliament and the Old Bailey - it's an absorbing read with very good graphics and an excellent story line.

As soon as I finished it, my son grabbed it and I may not see it again unless I threaten him with a baseball bat!!
3602946
I've always loved this movie, and only recently realized it was based on a novel.  The book is quite a bit different than the film.  Mainly due to the relationship of the main characters (It was subtly implied that the relationship was romantic in the film, but the book makes it very obvious that this is the case).  Overall, the book is great, there are so many different story lines going on in the novel that the didn't include in the film.  Most likely because of time restraints, I'm sure.  My favorite part of the novel was the development of the character Evelyn.  This was mostly covered in the film, and we all know Kathy Bates is the best, but you can really understand her thought process better with the novel.  I'd definitely recommend.
2078572
I noted this DVD at Amazon recently, when I was browsing the sale DVD's. I remembered reading this John Grisham book many years ago, so decided to give it a try.

It wasn't quite as good as the book but that's usually the case imo. Few film adaptations live up to the quality of a story in it's original book form, especially when that story is coming from one of the best US story-tellers that there is. But I really enjoyed the film as well, due in large part to the acting of Matt Damon and Danny Devito, they really were both such perfect choices for the parts they played.

I love when I watch a film and really get drawn into it and almost forget that I'm just watching a movie. That happened with The Rainmaker. Evocative and engaging throughout.

Loved how it was filmed too and the music score was spot on. Two things that can add or detract so much to a movie .

If you enjoyed the book (or even if you didn't read it) definitely worth a viewing.
2255689
Sure, most of us have seen the movie version.  I don't know why it took me so long to actually pick up the book and read it.  I'd read Red Dragon years ago and just got lazy...and maybe just a little busy with all the other books I decided I just had to read...so I just  never got around to The Silence of the Lambs.  I'm glad I finally decided to sit down and give it a go.

It's hard to get the image of Sir Anthony Hopkins out of your head when reading, but it didn't distract or detract me from the story.  It plays out much the same as the movie but it is tighter and paced well.  The characters are all well drawn and unlike a lot of thrillers in this genre, you actually find yourself rooting for Dr. Lecter...or at least I did!  Granted I still wouldn't like to be invited to one of his dinner parties!

If you've never seen the movie, definitely start with the books.  If you've already seen the movies, what are you waiting for?
1173732
Loved the film version of this when I was a teenager, now that I am about to be 60, the book read was better.
4873500
I recently saw both the classic and remade versions of the movie and bought the audio book after because I enjoyed the movie. The book always has more details than the movie, I was just as captivated by the audio book as I was with the film.
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!
3319204
When the movie was released in 2004, my friend was so ecstatic about seeing it hoping it captured the magic of the book.  I've never really opted to read a book in place of a movie (most people are shocked when I say this), so, I thought I would give this one a go just to see what I was missing out on.

Although the movie captured the essence of the story, there are some differences.  The book spans 14 years, and, if our math was accurate, the movie spans 7.  The book details additional insightful information about his father, the war, her paintings, and the many years in-between which are excluded from the movie.  The ending is also different - (no, I'm not going to spoil it).  Both endings are good, just different.  If you liked the movie, you will absolutely LOVE the book.  If you haven't seen the movie, read the book....it's better.

It is such an easy read.  Sparks' first person perspective and writing style contribute to the personalization of the story and the smooth flow of events.  The reader is immediately drawn in, feeling all of the emotions with each turn of the page.  I love Sparks' simple conversational style of writing.  There is a classic simplicity that makes the delivery of the story better than others I've read.  It doesn't feel as if you are reading something conjured up with a dictionary or thesaurus full of metaphors - just a simple, personal story from a man's perspective.  This is an absolutely beautiful story that is a must read.
3790361
I read the short story and the novel back in the early 70s while in the Navy.  The story stuck with me and I have never forgotten it.  I am not an overly sensitve guy but I have now seen the movie twice and I have cried at the end both times.  The portrayal is that moving for me.