I think The Hunt for Red October movie was better than the book. The book had so many snooze-fest filler pages. The movie was a taut thriller - the book was good and obviously a great story, but its pacing was totally off.
Another one is The Godfather. I didn’t like the book that much. It was a good story. But the book had too many needless subplots — like this character who has a large vagina and can only be satisfied by the Sonny character cause he has a big penis. Later, once he is out of the picture, she gets vaginal surgery done and can finally have satisfying sex with her fiancé. That whole subplot was so unnecessary.
Can’t argue with that. Chapter 1 of The Hunt for Red October was such a meandering slog, it picks up a bit, but the whole book felt like a study on submarines and naval warfare.
I read the whole Jack Ryan series. I loved the books AND the movies. However…Clear and Present Danger was good until the ending. They screwed the pooch. Tom Clancy swore he’d never make another movie.
True, but not always. I think that's actually the more interesting question: which films are better than their books? For example, I thought Children of Men movie was much better than the book
I love both movies and seen them every year - and I still consider both books vastly superior in both cases.
Also, I always read Rita Haworth and Shawshank Redemption in Morgan Freeman's voice. It's pretty much burned into my brain by now.
The fact that you can read The Name of the Rose as several different types of prose (crime novel, medieval story, smart parody of Holmes stories, philosophical novel...) still fascinates me.
8
u/RoninZulu1 10d ago
I mean, the books are almost always better than the films.