I know, I know... at first glance this seems a nonsensical statement. EVERYONE knows that the book is always better than the movie. But then, I started thinking. Readers' tastes have changed over the years, and there are some book that may be considered classics but are just painful to get through. Writing styles at one time were very flowery, very wordy, very descriptive...and would take days to get to the point of the story. But, some of those same books, boiled down to the essence of the story, make for good movies. So here, in no particular order, are some movies I really enjoyed but the books may have been a bit more difficult to get into:
Moby Dick - especially the version with Patrick Stewart
Many of Charles Dickens' books (and I love a lot of them). But the movies often really catch the essence of his work.
I'm not really including Jane Austen or the Bronte sisters in this group, because I adore reading them... but they have also had some good runs as movies.
What about you?
I forgot all about the Bronte sisters...duh. Good post. :-)
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with your list more. I've never actually been able to get through Moby Dick.
ReplyDeletePatrick Stewart was a great Ahab. In total agreement on all your choices.
ReplyDeleteGreat choices and I agree with them all! Thanks for sharing! Here's mine. https://www.tenastetler.com/movies-that-were-better-than-the-books-lsrs-blogging-challenge/
ReplyDeleteI honestly think a ton of classics could be put here. When the books were written, they didn't have the visual library we do know, and everything needed to be heavily described. Not so much anymore. Good choices!
ReplyDeleteI certainly think Charlotte Bronte's novels made better films - shockingly I like her sisters' novels better than hers.
ReplyDelete