Don't Watch the Movie First
589738
Don't judge a book by its movie, right? I absolutely LOVED the film version of Gone Baby Gone, so much so that I went right out and grabbed Moonlight Mile, the sequel book, which I also loved. I noticed a couple of discrepancies between the first movie and the second book, the most notable being that in the film version of GBG, Bea and Lionel were a childless couple. A son was mentioned in Moonlight Mile.

Before I get too far off-track, Gone Baby Gone is the story of Amanda McCready, a four-year-old girl who's gone missing from her mother, Helene's, `unlocked' apartment. Helene is an unfit parent, no two ways about that, and her brother, Lionel, and his wife, Beatrice (Bea), step in where they can to fill the void left by her absentee parenting. When Amanda goes missing, Bea hires Patrick Kenzie and Angie Genarro, two private detectives, to augment the police investigation, which immediately (and conveniently) turns up no leads. Patrick and Angie are reluctant to take the case, having found too many dead kids and unwilling to face the personal toll it takes on them, again. Something about Bea changes their minds. The deeper they look into Helene, the more shady characters emerge from her drug muling past as probably suspects in Amanda's kidnapping.

I'm going to stop there to avoid spoilers, but I'm going to go back to the film/book comparison because while so often Hollywood destroys a story with the cutting of scenes to pare down run time, in GBG's case, the film did some things really right. The book features an extended cast of characters, including Bea's son, which detracts from the believability that she'd go so far to `save Amanda'. There's a line in the film where Helene criticizes Bea for `God making her barren' (Helene is an ignorant, hateful character), and that simple fact made me believe that Bea would mortgage everything down to her socks to save this child who is, by proxy, `hers'.

Several of the characters names were changes, as were their descriptions, the most notable being Cheese "Olamon" who was an overweight white inmate in the book, and was a Haitian drug lord in the movie. Remy Broussard is Remy Bressant in the movie, and his partner Poole, was much less present. A drug transaction between Bubba and the Trents (in the movie) was a gun transaction in the book, but the end result of that grisly scene is the same. These minor changes were no big deal, but there's a football scene in the book that I, not being a sports fan, didn't enjoy, and it dragged on across a couple of chapters. The book seemed to take the long way around to the things the movie managed to accomplish in a line or two of succinct dialogue.

All in all, the story is incredible, but if you've seen the movie and enjoyed it, you, like me, might find the book a bit less powerful. The book deals a lot in low-level crime and more so in the police angle than in the Kenzie and Genarro's dynamic. Angie is particularly unlikeable in the book, by comparison. Her squeaky clean movie image was tainted by her chain smoking, tough girl persona in the book. Helene's character was lost in the book, which seemed less about Amanda and more about the Boston PD. I give the book four stars because I'm a Lehane fan and I'm not sure I can rate the book objectively since the translation to film was my biggest hang-up. I know, in my heart, that's wrong. But I liked Moonlight Mile better.
4972718
I always like to read the book first, then see the movie.  I like the detail of reading the book first in case all the detail was not included in the movie.
2640340
i can't review a book without spoilers, but if you have already watched the movie, you will see the differences are plenty, and if you watcht the movie are reading the book, don't go in with high expectations.
1597246
This was a well done movie.  Effects were amazing.  The screenplay was really well done.  I would have given this 5 stars if I hadn't just read the book.  The changes necessary to bring this to the screen were just too fresh at this viewing.  I am sure that after some time, I will watch this again and Love It.  Next time I will wait until after I have seen the movie to read the book!
4879554
I should preface by saying I read the book, years before the movie came out. It follows the main points of the story, but there are quite a few differences. Even with that, it did not spoil my enjoyment of the story. I recommend this movie, it will give you fun things to think about.
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.
2907501
If you read the book don't see the movie, and if you saw the movie  read the book, because it is a lot better. It is full of some very interesting history. You might even want to have a map out to follow along.
4565782
This is one of those movies you can't watch if you know the ending or any of the twists in the middle.  It is hard to figure out the killer.  But once you know who it is, if you watch again you can see the hints you missed.  Even though you think you know the answer, you will change it throughout the movie.  Overall, it was a pretty good movie for me.  I was really surprised at a couple of things in the movie I did not at all expect or ever see before in a movie like this.  And I was disappointed in a couple of others.  I have read a few reviews where some other people were disappointed for the same reason, but I don't want to ruin the movie for you.  If you like this sort of movie, you'll be entertained just fine.
42551
I saw the movie before reading the book.  Although it is not always the case, the movie as better than the book.
2594937
I normally always read books before I watch movies, but I made the mistake of watching the movie first, and I honestly liked the movie better. It was a very human story, and touching, but it just didn't quite click with me.
4773249
This was so good to read and now they have a movie out which I haven't seen yet. I think you should always read the book first because a lot can be left out of the movie version.
419403
glad I didn't read the book first!  I would have been disappointed/dismayed by the artistic license of the movie.  The book is great as written.
685018
Great movie...better book. Read the book first but definetly follow up with the movie.
3741627
I actually saw the movie first and can honestly say the movie was better in some aspects. There were certain details in the book that were a tad too fantastical for my tastes, which were reigned in with the movie. However, the characters of the book are slightly more complex, whereas the characters in the movie are incredibly straight forward.
1607030
I think it would be hard to understand this movie, the characters and all that takes place, without watching "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel".  I know why the main characters had moved to India and what their back stories were about.  If I watched this movie without seeing the first, I would have given a much lower star rating.
1882483
It is difficult to go from one movie to the next and the default is to start on Episode 1 which, while chronologically the first of the story, was not the first movie produced.  As I am trying to watch it with my son, who has not seen the series before, this presentation will take away from many of the surprises that come in later Episodes.
390258
Usually I like to read a book before I see the movie, but this time it was the other way around.  I enjoyed both.  The book was interesting, but in a darker way.  The story is written in first person, alternating between Vianne Rocher and the priest of the village.  It is much more in depth about Vianne's past and present.  I missed the Count de Renoux character from the movie, for in the book that place is filled by the priest, who has a very dark side.  Some of my other favorite characters from the movie are also missing.  So all in all, it was a good book, but it made me want to see the movie again.