Okay, so it's fairly rare that you hear people say that a movie was better than the book it was based on. Usually it's the exact opposite. My friend Nhia and I got chatting about this fact at work recently. Her example of a movie one-upping a book was "The Last of the Mohicans" and I have to whole-heartedly agree with this one! What a great film! And I'm sure the book is good, but the one time I tried to muck my way through it, I didn't even get through the first chapter. Ugh.
Another one in my humble opinion is "The Princess Bride" and yes, I have indeed read the book by William Goldman. (I was THAT big of a fan!) The book is funny, I'll grant you, but not nearly as entertaining or addictive as the movie.
Rumor has it that Forrest Gump also falls into this category, but I've never read the book, so I can't really say -- although I find it hard to believe it could be as fun as the movie was.
Can any of you think of any other examples of movies over books?? It's rare, lemme tell ya!
1 comment:
Do plays count? I suppose not since they are MEANT to be seen... not read... but I'd rate almost ANY version of a Shakespearean play on film over the text version! (Just for understanding's sake if nothing else...) Plus, I REALLY love it if a director keeps the setting true to the script!
Certain of Jane Austin's pieces are if not better, at least more FUN, seen than read. "Pride and Prejudice" comes to mind... Mr. Darcy is much more tantalizing with a visual reference than the way Jane describes him!
Post a Comment