The Da Vinci Code, 2006
Book: Symbologist Robert Langdon uncovers an ancient secret that will shake the very foundations of Christian belief and will reveal the truth about the Holy Grail. But a powerful organization will do anything to keep this secret a secret, and he has to outsmart them if he wants to get to the truth and stay alive.
Movie: Let us put it this way: Tom Hanks is no Robert Langdon.
Verdict: Definitely the book. Although the movie is pretty decent and we all love us our Tom Hanks, he and Tautou are completely miscast. And you know something is seriously off when the action scenes are more thrilling in print than in the movie.
Twilight, 2008
Book: Bella, a typical teenager, catches the eye of the brooding and mysterious Edward Cullen. They fall madly in love despite the fact that he's a vampire.
Movie: The movie pretty much sticks closely to the plot of the book, even copping some of the more popular lines (i.e. the lion and the lamb). It sent the careers of its stars Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, and Taylor Lautner soaring into the stratosphere. Its sequel, New Moon, will be out this month.
Verdict: It's hard to say. We're fans of both, no doubt about it. But we are well aware of the book and the movie's glaring weaknesses. One of which is that there's enough sap in it to put the maple syrup industry out of business. But we can't help ourselves. Both the book and the movie are serious (very) guilty pleasures.
"No disrespect to J.R.R. Tolkien, but the movie trumps the books. The books are excellent, but they require focus and determination." So the movies are better because they don't require focus and determination? What? The movies has great visuals, yes, but the books win by its sheer brilliance, inventiveness, and imagination. Plus I would willingly kick out one of the chick lits for a comparison of the Narnia books to the movies, because CS Lewis is more relevant.
Silence Of the Lambs bu Thomas Harris. The book is better but the movie nails the mood and atmosphere big time!
Of all the Harry Potters, only Goblet of Fire and Pisoner of Azkabhan edged out the book versions. Only because, for Goblet, Rob Pat is in there and guys from Pulp and Radiohead had funny cameos as Weird Sisters. Tony Takitani - Saw this one at the Eiga Sai fest last July. Remained faithful to the Murakami short. More like an audio book. Roald Dahl based movies: Matilda? Charlie and Chocolate Factory??? When will the Americans leave this beloved British author alone? James and the Giant peach is Ok and i haven't seen Fantastic Mr. Fox. But judging from the trailer of Mr. Fox, I think it's gonna be a great movie if its not a Dahl's classic adaptation. Worst adaptation; My Sister's Keeper. The different ending was the least bothersome about the film.
The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl Streep was just amazing! :)
Twilight? Seriously?!
a good book is sacrificed for those who cannot at least conceive or as always to cater the purse at their expense.
have to agree with gecko. the list has too many chick flicks on it. Wouldn't mind having a horror flick/novel featured. Or any older movie would have been nice too. Say Love Story? And you really can't choose between Twilight movie/book. They both sucked. "special effects were nothing to sneeze at" -- for LOTR how about creating an entirely new language? No matter how good the visuals of the movie were, it wouldn't be able to match the sheer brilliance of Tolkien's work. Great topic and props for the effort though.
Isn't Twilight for adolescents?
For me, book always trumps movie. Reading lets your own imagination run wild with the author's words. Turning a book to a movie is tough because there'll always be a question of how loyal the movie was to the book, and how far the movie must stray from the book to please both readers and non-readers. I have high hopes for The Lovely Bones adaptation though. And anon - high five! :)
twilight... 'nuff said.
The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini