I may hazard some criticism here, but I thought No Country For Old Men was a far better movie than a book. I thought the book was pretty good, though, if nowhere near McCarthy's top rung.

Not a movie, but I think Dexter as a TV series surpasses the books.

I haven't read the books, but from what I've heard, yeah.

I remembered that The Shining is not a great movie, plot- and character-development-wise. It's stunning and effective from a visual point-of-view. I must re-read the book to remind me whether the original story makes any more sense than the film's version. Jack turns up in 1921 how exactly? Random.

I just re-read the book, Seska, and, yeah, the book is much, much better in the plot- and character-development departments.

Jurassic Park the book bored me to tears, as well as many other of his books.

I love both the movie and book! But I am a Crichton fan.

I found Fight Club to be nearly unreadable, but it's one of my favorite movies.

I liked Princess Bride the book, but LOVE Princess Bride the movie.

These are actually two of my examples of great books that made great movies.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

Let's get stoned together. I had to force myself to finish the books.

They were more or less concurrent IIRC (similar to Princess Bride, actually).

William Goldman did write the screenplay for the movie, so that may be why you got that impression.

Many of Hitchcock's other works were great adaptations. He just had such a way of making things his own, whether they were good or bad to start

So...like Shakespeare, then?

I just watched The Omen. It was weird because I've seen so many movies that were obviously influenced by it, but it was still pretty good on its own terms.

I saw "The Omen" when I was 14 and then read all 4 books. The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

This is an odd choice, but the book The Wolfen scared me more than just about any other book I've read (Totally a freezer book for me), and the movie just didn't do much for me.

Of course, I hid my eyes for chunks of the movie, but still.

The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

I never read the book (or knew there were three more). For flat-out unbelievable, I have to go with Son of Rosemary, although that at least had a twist.

I think the movies that suffer the most in translation from book to screen are often horror. The Exorcist was a terrifying book, and yeah, the movie is a classic, but even so the effects *now* look so cheesy. And we just watched The Mist, which was a really perfect, scary little Stephen King novella, and then the movie ... added all the special effects, and it's just never as scary (or as believable) as what you can imagine.

And we just watched The Mist, which was a really perfect, scary little Stephen King novella, and then the movie ... added all the special effects, and it's just never as scary (or as believable) as what you can imagine.

Yeah. While watching it, I kept on thinking, "This should be awesome... but it's merely OK."

Plus the crazy-ass Christian lady was too much even for me.

I don't remember her from the novella, which means I should probably reread it. I also thought the new ending completely missed the mark. Horrific, yes, but too coincidentally so.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

Try the audiobooks read by Rob Inglis. Absolutely riveting. Plus, you get to hear all the songs sung to a tune. I have Two Towers out of the library right now, for probably the 6th time.

Wolfen

Oh my, Perkins. My DEXH and I loved that book. I think he read it over and over again for a long time. The movie? The one and only flick he ever walked out of...after about 10 minutes. His love for the book was too pure to have it wrecked. I tried watching it again years later and it wasn't that bad, but like Forrest Gump, it didn't seem to have even a glancing relationship with the source material.

I don't remember her from the novella, which means I should probably reread it. I also thought the new ending completely missed the mark. Horrific, yes, but too coincidentally so.

I remember her from the novella, but she didn't bug me. Maybe she was just less believable in the movie?

I also disliked the new ending.

Many of you will now stone me, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies more than I enjoyed the books (that I have never been able to get through).

This. I've said this on fandom messageboards before, and met with aghast reactions. But the books are just too much like hard work. And I've read some big books.

I just re-read the book, Seska, and, yeah, the book is much, much better in the plot- and character-development departments.

I need some easy reading during final-month-of-dissertation hell. I shall dig out The Shining and see how it compares.

The 4th book was incredibly disturbing and flat out unbelievable.

Never read The Omen books - but I think American Psycho was far, far scarier in book form than what passed for an adaptation on the big screen.