Better than the book

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Amazingly I agree with Joe on the potter book/movies. I'll take any book over any film.

I had high hopes for the first movie, but for me it's far too close to the book and sacrifices what makes a good film IMO. I think Potter would make a good TV series. It fits the episodic nature of the books, and would allow it to be 6 hours long.

And I haven't read the Shawshank short story, but I'll bet anything that Darabont's masterpiece is better.

You'd lose that bet, King's story is phenomenal, its his Count of Monte Cristo.

I completely disagree with BB, sorry BB I think you're off base. Durabont is fine in his adaption but it lacks the stunning beauty of the ending, the joy you feel when Red(who is not a black man in the book, but a redheaded irishman, though Freeman nails the role) makes it to Zihuatanejo. There is magic in the novella when Red finds the old stone wall, its just another scene in the movie. The novella has elements of horror, not supernatural, but what man does to man, and the double cross at the end is better realized in the story than the film. The film is great, but the novella is even better. I will agree with BB about the Breathing Method, its the best story of the four, but almost unfilmable, and the ending is so graphic and shocking, it may be King's greatest single moment of horror ever. Carrie is a better movie than book IMHO, the Green Mile is a great movie, but it lacks the same things that Shawshank lacks, the extra something, its hard to put your finger on. it.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I completely disagree with BB, sorry BB I think you're off base. Durabont is fine in his adaption but it lacks the stunning beauty of the ending, the joy you feel when Red(who is not a black man in the book, but a redheaded irishman, though Freeman nails the role) makes it to Zihuatanejo. There is magic in the novella when Red finds the old stone wall, its just another scene in the movie. The novella has elements of horror, not supernatural, but what man does to man, and the double cross at the end is better realized in the story than the film. The film is great, but the novella is even better. I will agree with BB about the Breathing Method, its the best story of the four, but almost unfilmable, and the ending is so graphic and shocking, it may be King's greatest single moment of horror ever. Carrie is a better movie than book IMHO, the Green Mile is a great movie, but it lacks the same things that Shawshank lacks, the extra something, its hard to put your finger on. it.

All righty, let's talk Stephen King for a minute or two.

In my opinion, yes, I do think that The Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" is a novella. Not by enough to get worked up over, or anything. But there are places where King's prose is a little iffy, and the equivalent of that never happens in Darabont's movie. I will say this: I'm tired of hearing people, most of whom don't have any idea what they're talking about, say that Darabont's movie must be better since, after all, the book was by Stephen King. Darabont would not only disagree with that, he'd proably be offended by it. The movie is great, I don't think much question of that remains; but it's great because of King, not despite him. I may prefer the movie, but I love the novella, too. Speaking of the movie, I prefer its linear approach to King's more anecdotal (and extremely jumpy, timeline-wise) approach. This is simply because I find more emotional satisfaction in the culmination of Darabont's movie. But again, this is not something King's novella ought to be criticized for; the jumping around in time makes sense, since the entire story is being told to us by Red, and it feels very natural that in telling the story of his friend Any Dufresne, he'd jump around so as to be able to better accent one element or another. This is a good example of prose being prose; that approach wouldn't have worked for the movie, but it's no reason to criticize the novella.

Sticking strictly to books for a moment, let me say I'm thrilled to find someone else who loved "The Breathing Method"! It's some of King's best writing, in my opinion, both from a storytelling standpoint and from a quality-of-prose standpoint. It certainly seems as if it might be unfilmable, but I think the right guy -- Frank Darabont, say, or (given the oddness of the structure) maybe even J.J. Abrams -- could do it well. And if it were done well, it'd be very memorable. I think the key would be to have the film's primary focus be on the old gentleman who is being inducted into the club; in other words, the theme of storytelling would have to somehow be the backbone of the movie, and not just an afterthought. At the same time, obviously, the main "story" that gets told -- for those who don't know what I'm talking about, let me just say that it's the story of a difficult birth -- would have to receive a major amount of attention. I'm not sure how you'd do that, but then again, I'm not paid millions to know how to do so; presumably, someone who is would know how. (Speaking of storytelling as a theme, Joey, have you noticed how each of the four novellas in Different Seasons have that as a major theme? It's hardly the only theme shared by the four novellas, either . . . but that's a discussion for some other message board.)

I don't agree with you about Carrie. I like the movie, but I love the novel. King himself dismisses it far too frequently; I think it's pretty close to being a masterpiece. Sure, there are some sections where the writing is a little rough; but for each of them, there are five sections where the writing is tremendous. To me, the novel has an air of real tragedy that the film loses in favor of operatic tragedy. That's a long way of saying that the book makes me feel, whereas the movie fails to make me feel, but tries really hard, maybe too hard. A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I don't like Piper Laurie very much in the role of Carrie's mom; if I did, I might not feel the same way. I also miss the section of the novel in which Carrie goes on a destructive rampage on the way back home to mother, although this lack is somewhat offset by DePalm's technical virtuosity during the prom scene.

In the case of The Green Mile, I'll agree with you that the book is better. Again, though, it's not by much. I think it's one of King's very best works, so saying that the movie isn't quite as good is no insult to the movie. And I think it's very easy to pin down what the novel has that the movie doesn't: the novel has King's narrative voice. It's not hard to find literary types to crap on Stephen King, but I think my English degree allows me to comment on these things with at least a marginal amount of authority, and I think that those people can afford to crap on King: they're often so full of it that they have to get rid of some of it, or they'll explode. I can appreciate "literature" as much as the next dude with an English degree, but I don't think it's the alpha and the omega of prose; I tend to be more of a populist, and feel like if you're writing things so dense and packed with meaning that you need a degree to be able to follow even the story, then you've lost touch. I don't think you should write to the Lowest Common Denominator, but if you're purposefully trying to write above most people's heads, then I think that's a shame; whatever the opposite of LCD is, I'm not a big fan of that either. I think all the fun is to be had somewhere in the middle: there's a lot to be said for literature that can speak deeply and entertain, and at his best, that's what King does. He often does so with an extremely effective and distinctive narrative voice. That voice has rarely been better than it was in The Green Mile. So no matter how good the movie is -- and it's real, real damn good -- it was always going to be slightly handicapped by not having that voice to benefit from. The movie gets a lot of that handicap negated through absolutely masterful casting. Again, this is a case of me loving both the book and the movie.

Ultimately, it's very important to realize that books are books and movies are movies, and there's no way to ever do a truly faithful adaptation. You can get very close -- Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind -- but you'll never be able to get 100% of it. The best solution is often to not worry about it too much. That goes for filmmakers, but it also goes for fans, who sometimes, I think, get bogged down in fretting over trivia at the cost of losing sight of things that are done well in an adaptation.

Speaking of Stephen King and adaptations, I'd like to be the first to propose a new film version of The Stand. It still needs to be done on television, but this time it needs to be on HBO or Showtimes, and it needs to be a series that runs a minimum of three seasons. Check out Carnivale and think of The Stand done that way, and if you're a fan, you might get a little giddy at the potential.

[Wojo 2,442]

The Princess Bride

I've seen the movie a few times, long before I ever read the book, but even after reading it, I still think the movie is better. The book starts out really funny by making the narrator talking directly to the reader, instead of simply dictating a story to a point over the reader's shoulder, but this does get old. By writing large passages of fake autobiography and putting S Morgenstern on a pedestal as one of the greatest and most widely read fake authors that you've never encountered in literature class - but ought to have - the book takes on an air of pretentiousness that never lets up. Also, by commenting on how this version is an abridged translation of a larger work, you grow to wish that Goldman had been "allowed" to present you the unabridged version and let you skip the chapters you want, rather than talk about all the legal, practical, and bore-inducing reasons that he could not include them. The back stories presented in the book do help flesh out lesser understood characters onscreen, particularly Fezzik and the Sicilian, but neither of these are as interesting as Inigo's tale, which is condensed to its most critical elements onscreen.

The book is a good satirical representation of modern fantasy, especially when it takes the seemingly happy ending -- they get away, true love triumphs, evil is thwarted -- and turns it on its head. I would have been happier if the book had ended there, instead of the next few paragraph that describe what happens within the next few minutes of story time. And the preview of "Buttercup's Baby" wrings out even more sappy happiness from the ending.

Perhaps my preference for the film rather than the book is analogous to Fred Savage's desire that his grandfather skip to the good parts as he reads him the movie's version of the book, and thus guides the movie along. but the movie is more enjoyable.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

The Princess Bride

I've seen the movie a few times, long before I ever read the book, but even after reading it, I still think the movie is better. The book starts out really funny by making the narrator talking directly to the reader, instead of simply dictating a story to a point over the reader's shoulder, but this does get old. By writing large passages of fake autobiography and putting S Morgenstern on a pedestal as one of the greatest and most widely read fake authors that you've never encountered in literature class - but ought to have - the book takes on an air of pretentiousness that never lets up. Also, by commenting on how this version is an abridged translation of a larger work, you grow to wish that Goldman had been "allowed" to present you the unabridged version and let you skip the chapters you want, rather than talk about all the legal, practical, and bore-inducing reasons that he could not include them. The back stories presented in the book do help flesh out lesser understood characters onscreen, particularly Fezzik and the Sicilian, but neither of these are as interesting as Inigo's tale, which is condensed to its most critical elements onscreen.

The book is a good satirical representation of modern fantasy, especially when it takes the seemingly happy ending -- they get away, true love triumphs, evil is thwarted -- and turns it on its head. I would have been happier if the book had ended there, instead of the next few paragraph that describe what happens within the next few minutes of story time. And the preview of "Buttercup's Baby" wrings out even more sappy happiness from the ending.

Perhaps my preference for the film rather than the book is analogous to Fred Savage's desire that his grandfather skip to the good parts as he reads him the movie's version of the book, and thus guides the movie along. but the movie is more enjoyable.

I only read the novel once, and that's been twenty years ago at this point, but I remember feeling pretty much the same.

The Princess Bride is one of those movies that a lot of peolpe love, but I just shrug at. I like it fine, I just don't personally find much in it to love.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

The Princess Bride

I've seen the movie a few times, long before I ever read the book, but even after reading it, I still think the movie is better. The book starts out really funny by making the narrator talking directly to the reader, instead of simply dictating a story to a point over the reader's shoulder, but this does get old. By writing large passages of fake autobiography and putting S Morgenstern on a pedestal as one of the greatest and most widely read fake authors that you've never encountered in literature class - but ought to have - the book takes on an air of pretentiousness that never lets up. Also, by commenting on how this version is an abridged translation of a larger work, you grow to wish that Goldman had been "allowed" to present you the unabridged version and let you skip the chapters you want, rather than talk about all the legal, practical, and bore-inducing reasons that he could not include them. The back stories presented in the book do help flesh out lesser understood characters onscreen, particularly Fezzik and the Sicilian, but neither of these are as interesting as Inigo's tale, which is condensed to its most critical elements onscreen.

The book is a good satirical representation of modern fantasy, especially when it takes the seemingly happy ending -- they get away, true love triumphs, evil is thwarted -- and turns it on its head. I would have been happier if the book had ended there, instead of the next few paragraph that describe what happens within the next few minutes of story time. And the preview of "Buttercup's Baby" wrings out even more sappy happiness from the ending.

Perhaps my preference for the film rather than the book is analogous to Fred Savage's desire that his grandfather skip to the good parts as he reads him the movie's version of the book, and thus guides the movie along. but the movie is more enjoyable.

I only read the novel once, and that's been twenty years ago at this point, but I remember feeling pretty much the same.

The Princess Bride is one of those movies that a lot of peolpe love, but I just shrug at. I like it fine, I just don't personally find much in it to love.

its a perfectly fine movie but not one I care to go on about. I agree with you BB. I've seen it once in at the movies and once on tv and thats enough

[Wojo 2,442]

I bought it on DVD five years ago and have watched it twice since then. Don't plan to watch it again anytime soon.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I bought it on DVD five years ago and have watched it twice since then. Don't plan to watch it again anytime soon.

For a while there, it had quite a following, but that seems to have started to fade a bit. Could be due to the fact that none of the people involved -- either in front of the camera or behind it -- are particularly notable these days. Mandy Patinkin has done alright, I guess, but probably not with younger audiences; and if people aren't discovering the movie anymore, it's on the decline.

[Wojo 2,442]

The same could be said of any old movie, though. It goes in cycles. You could have studios and the mass media shoving movies down peoples' throats year after year, like Star Wars and The Godfather, to the point where people start to get sick of them. Or you sit back and stop promoting an older movie, be satisfied with a version or two of it on DVD, and just let it air from time to time in syndication. You'll still have older people treasuring movies from their youth, and young people discovering such movies for the very first time, even without over-saturation.

I see the point about much of the cast having faded into obscurity. Aside from that show on CBS that he just left, I can't name anything Mandy Patinkin's been involved with because I do not follow the theater. Cary Elwes seems to have faded from the American movie spotlight, as has the girl who played Buttercup. But isn't what the cast doing these days of secondary concern? The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind are still very popular three generations after the fact, and not too many of the people involved -- either in front of the camera or behind it -- are particularly alive these days.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

The same could be said of any old movie, though. It goes in cycles. You could have studios and the mass media shoving movies down peoples' throats year after year, like Star Wars and The Godfather, to the point where people start to get sick of them. Or you sit back and stop promoting an older movie, be satisfied with a version or two of it on DVD, and just let it air from time to time in syndication. You'll still have older people treasuring movies from their youth, and young people discovering such movies for the very first time, even without over-saturation.

I see the point about much of the cast having faded into obscurity. Aside from that show on CBS that he just left, I can't name anything Mandy Patinkin's been involved with because I do not follow the theater. Cary Elwes seems to have faded from the American movie spotlight, as has the girl who played Buttercup. But isn't what the cast doing these days of secondary concern? The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind are still very popular three generations after the fact, and not too many of the people involved -- either in front of the camera or behind it -- are particularly alive these days.

Good points all.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

its hard to name anything Mandy Pantinkin is involved in because he's a quitter. Every tv show he signs on to he quits. One of my least favorite actors, and its a shame he's talented.

Older movies seem to becoming less and less popular. No one here every watches them.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

After rereading Christine for the first time in a couple of decades (sheesh!), I'm tempted to say this this is a case of the movie being better than the book. Ultimately, I think it's a stand-off: the novel isn't exactly one of King's best, nor is the movie one of Carpenter's best, but they both have elements that make them enjoyable. For me, if for no one else...

The novel, I think, suffers from the fact that the premise is just unavoidably silly. A haunted car that's driving around killing its enemies . . . not a graceful premise. I suspect that it's no conincidence that this novel was the first one King published after writing and filming Creepshow: the premise has a very E.C. Comics feel to it, and I wouldn't be too surprised if I found out that the idea began as an idea for one of Creepshow's segments, only to outgrow that format once King began developing it. That's pure speculation on my part, but the timing makes it at least an educated speculation.

But yes, it is (to me, at least) a rather silly idea, and while it might have really floated as a short story, as a novel -- and not a short one -- it becomes a bit hard to maintain any belief in the whole thing. It is an immense credit to King's skill as a writer of prose that he is able to get any chills out of the premise at all; the fact that the balloon deflates on him is maybe unavoidable, but if you'll pardon the pun, I think he got better mileage out of it than most other writers might have gotten. Of course, most other writers might have had the good sense to kill the idea while it was still on the vine...

As for Carpenter's movie, he's working from a second-rate novel, so he's already got a handicap. He jettisons a lot of the plot, including one of the novel's central ideas: that the car isn't a malevolent entity unto itself, but rather a tool that has become possessed by its former owner, a very angry and unpleasant man. This makes only a little sense in the novel: if Roland LeBay (that ghostly, demonic former owner) is the cause of Christine's supernatural qualities, what is it about LeBay that made/makes those qualities possible? I don't necessarily want or even need a logical explanation for the supernatural, but if there's not going to be such an explanation, then the text needs to be free of anything that might reasonably make me start looking for such an explanation. Carpenter and the screenwriter seem to have agreed. They go the route of making the car both a bit more obvious (it's possessed thanks to blood having been spilled on it during its manufacturing) and a bit more subtle (we never have to see a ghost driving the damned thing; imagine how badly this would have been handled by, oh, let's say by Mick Garris).

In the end, Carpenter succeeded in making the movie more fun than the novel; and if a story about a murderous car mowing down those who have done it wrong can't be fun, then what's the point?

Carpenter also loses most of the emotional resonance of the novel. The novel isn't wholly successful on those grounds, but King writes fairly well about the friendship between Dennis and Arnie, and while he stumbles quite a bit in depicting the relationship between Dennis and Leigh, he earns major points late in the novel when he goes into the ways in which that relationship was unable to sustain itself. King's coda is also terrific.

I'm going to call it a draw, but if some hard-core John Carpenter fan wants to tilt it in the other direction, that's cool by me.

[Romão 1,931]

The Prestige. A interesting one, but the film is more restrained and classy, I think.

Karol

Very good pick. Though, when one watches the film more and more, you begin to notice several little plot-holes and the semi-mishandeled twist at the end of the film. Still one of the best of 2006, though.

I agree with both posts