houstonderek wrote:

Puzo's Godfather? Eh...

If I were a reconstructive surgeon obsessed with the inner geometry of the female reproductive cavity, I would have enjoyed about a third of the book a whole lot more than I did. (That, and my imagination could never have given Sonny's character half of what James Caan brought to the role).

Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?

I love the book and most of Palahniuk's writing, but the movie was just that good.

Darkwolf wrote:

Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?

Fight Club

I love the book and most of Palahniuk's writing, but the movie was just that good.

Cosmo wrote:

Darkwolf wrote:

Sure, but when has any movie been better than the book it was based on?

Fight Club

I love the book and most of Palahniuk's writing, but the movie was just that good.

Another one I've never read the book for. Gotta say the movie was fantastic. The first time I'd never picked the ending of a movie for a looooong time.

Dawn of the Dead. Original scared me to death when it first came out but the remake was just fab!

Total chick flicks, so you'll probably never see 'em, but I thought the Rosalind Russel "Gypsy" (1962) was worse than the Bette Middler (1993) version.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith. There I said it. Highly entertaining, but the original is nowhere near Hitchcock's best work.

The Quick and the Dead, one of the of the few westerns I can stomach. Also, I love sam Raimi.

I'll bite on the Mummy. Brendan Fraser is such a great tongue-in-cheek action hero...

Ocean's 11 (and it's sequels) are also highly entertaining. Not neccesarily better, but still good.

The second Hulk movie far surpassed the first or the television series.

The Thing

The Thing

On the subject of books made into movies, I vastly prefer the movie version of Children of Men to the P.D. James novel.

flash_cxxi wrote:

The Thing

Both are based on a the same short story by John Campbell called "Who Goes There?" John Carpenter's version, though updated from the source material, is damn near spot on the short story.

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

flash_cxxi wrote:

The Thing

Both are based on a the same short story by John Campbell called "Who Goes There?" John Carpenter's version, though updated from the source material, is damn near spot on the short story.

I did not know that. Awesome piece of trivia.

Evil dead 2 is a remake of evil dead and a better movie.

Evil dead 2 is a remake of evil dead and a better movie.

Often considered to be a remake of The Evil Dead (1981), however this is not accurate. The rights to show scenes from the original could not be obtained to re-cap what happened, so they recreated the beginning to explain how Ash got to the cabin, a headless Linda, etc.

Xabulba wrote:

Evil dead 2 is a remake of evil dead and a better movie.

Actually it is considered a sequel, not a remake.

IMDB wrote:

Often considered to be a remake of The Evil Dead (1981), however this is not accurate. The rights to show scenes from the original could not be obtained to re-cap what happened, so they recreated the beginning to explain how Ash got to the cabin, a headless Linda, etc.

I just watched the Bay remake of Friday the 13th--absolutely better than the original, however, I'm not sure what I would think if it were the original...

Technically, I think it's a re-imagining of all the sequels.

At the risk of getting amazingly toasted by flaming here, but I'd have to say Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings movies did far more for me than the books ever did, and I read them 4 or five times. I found his vision of them far more compelling and indeed had a more bleak outlook than Tolkiens books.

I just watched the Bay remake of Friday the 13th--absolutely better than the original, however, I'm not sure what I would think if it were the original...

Technically, I think it's a re-imagining of all the sequels.

I thought it wasn't as atmospheric as the original, and the kills were less "OMGWTF!*scare*" and more "Dude!*laugh*"

Wrath wrote:

At the risk of getting amazingly toasted by flaming here, but I'd have to say Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings movies did far more for me than the books ever did, and I read them 4 or five times. I found his vision of them far more compelling and indeed had a more bleak outlook than Tolkiens books.

Wow, another person who thinks this. Personally, I thought the books were TERRIBLE. So bad in fact, that I never bothered to start RotK after finishing tTT. I liked the movies, just avoid watching all three extended editions in a single sitting (my friends and I were yelling at the TV, "JUST GET IN THE G-D BOAT ALREADY!!!1!" by the end of RotK).

Two movies I'm torn upon as I also like the books even if they do diverge in different directions.

I am a fan of Exorcist III, but I also enjoy the novel Legion. Ironically, Blatty not only wrote the novel, but directed the movie.

The Last Temptation of Christ. Enjoy both the movie and the book. A very underrated movie and I prefer it much more than Mel's take... (don't get me started there...)

Batman

Speaking of superheroes I didn’t see this one mentioned yet (shockingly)...
The Incredible Hulk(2008) - which whoops the (2003) movie badly. Though personally I’ll stick with the original TV series (1970-80s) and Bill Bixby, over both of them. :)

The Blob(1988) - the original(1958) just had way too much dead space and dialogue for me, example being the 10-15 minute drag race/cop pull-over scene. I liked the (1988) version quite a bit, Shawnee Smith always helps.

War of the Worlds(2005) - I enjoyed this one more than the (1953) version, but I think that might be assisted (in my mind) by how awesome the Scary Movie 4 parody was... "Like men riding dragons, fighting maggots!"

Disagree...
Body Snatchers(1956) - The original was best IMO. The (1978) and (2007) remakes were both pretty awesome in their own right, but not better. The (1993) attempt was crap and probably Forrest Witaker’s worst movie ever, even with Tilly/Anwair nudity this movie was a Fail.

Cape Fear, maybe

Cape Fear, maybe

I agree. I like the original with Peck and Mitchum, but I'll second the remake as a better movie.

Knoq Nixoy wrote:

Cape Fear, maybe

Winner! I agree. I like the original with Peck and Mitchum, but I'll second the remake as a better movie.

Much like the Coen brothers' forthcoming True Grit will supposedly be nothing like the John Wayne movie, but rather will follow the novel a lot more closely. That's a MUCH different situation from Michael Mann's 1992 Last of the Mohicans, which is explicitly based more on the previous movie than on James Fennimore Cooper's book.

Always (1989) > A guy named Joe (1943)

With one major caveat: A guy named Joe has P-38s. I love P-38s.

Films better than the original books: LA Confidential.

On the remake front....how about :
Excaliber > all the previous (& subsequent) King Arthur adaptations.
Not a perfect movie, but far better than anything else Arthurian I've seen.

Stargate SG1 > Stargate movie.

Star Wars > The Hidden Fortress.

Films better than the original books: LA Confidential.

War of the Worlds(2005) - I enjoyed this one more than the (1953) version,

Daniel Moyer wrote:

War of the Worlds(2005) - I enjoyed this one more than the (1953) version,

Yeah, the actor may be more (in)famous for his personal beliefs, but he did some good work in that movie.

I particularly enjoyed the scene where Dakota Fanning finds the river and see all the bodies floating in it. Perhaps the best scene to illustrate the adaptable nature of humans though is the scene where the stop to let the flaming train roar down the tracks, nd nobody bats an eye.

------------------------------------------
Side Topic: Those of you who are/were interested in The Incredible Hulk series (1970s-80s) with Bill Bixby... How awesome would Willem Dafoe have been as reporter Jack McGee? I think they seriously dropped the ball on that particular character since the (2008) movie was suppose to be more reminiscent of the TV series.