Also it's one of those few adaptations that's better than the book
In horror it's actually not uncommon for the movie to be better than the book - Don't Look Now, The Birds, The Lair of the White Worm, The Haunting, Psycho, The Stepford Wives, etc. If you count Herzog's and Murnau's versions of Nosferatu as adaptations of Dracula they're both better than the novel. If you count HItchcock's Rebecca as gothic horror it's definitely better than the novel. A Clockwork Orange is another (obviously borderline horror). Ken Russell's The Devils, although it's based on a work of non-fiction so I;m not sure if that counts. Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound.
There are quite a few I'd rate as being every bit as good as their literary sources - the 1932 version of The Mummy, The Innocents, The Village of the Damned (the 1960 version), Roger Corman's 1964 The Masque of the Red Death. The Devil Rides Out is another.
That's true, although I would debate over "The Stepford Wives" since I really do think Ira Levin is a better writer than people often give him credit for being (although I will admit that the gap of notoriety between his writings and the fame of the film adaptations is pretty wide).
since I really do think Ira Levin is a better writer than people often give him credit for being
I liked the book a great deal. just thought the movie was perhaps even better. I need to read more Ira Levin.
It's odd to find a very good book made into a very good film., More often it seems like very good books become mediocre movies, whilst mediocre novels can become great films.
Which is not surprising since the qualities needed for a great movie are so different from those needed for a great novel.
Right there with you on Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Creepshow and The Shining, all rank in my top horror choices (and the others are good, too, just not personal favorites).
Glad you'd agree, especially on Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A lot of people seem to agree that the 1978 remake is superior, and I can see why, but I think the original captures something that no remake can replicate.
The remake is good, but you just can't improve on the original in my mind...sure it has that tacked on studio ending, but so what, they still might lose...and the paranoia is raw and well served by the fact that the back drop is squeaky clean goody-two-shoes 1950s America.
Comments 9
In horror it's actually not uncommon for the movie to be better than the book - Don't Look Now, The Birds, The Lair of the White Worm, The Haunting, Psycho, The Stepford Wives, etc. If you count Herzog's and Murnau's versions of Nosferatu as adaptations of Dracula they're both better than the novel. If you count HItchcock's Rebecca as gothic horror it's definitely better than the novel. A Clockwork Orange is another (obviously borderline horror). Ken Russell's The Devils, although it's based on a work of non-fiction so I;m not sure if that counts. Roger Corman's Frankenstein Unbound.
There are quite a few I'd rate as being every bit as good as their literary sources - the 1932 version of The Mummy, The Innocents, The Village of the Damned (the 1960 version), Roger Corman's 1964 The Masque of the Red Death. The Devil Rides Out is another.
Reply
Reply
credit for being
I liked the book a great deal. just thought the movie was perhaps even better.
I need to read more Ira Levin.
It's odd to find a very good book made into a very good film., More often it seems like very good books become mediocre movies, whilst mediocre novels can become great films.
Which is not surprising since the qualities needed for a great movie are so different from those needed for a great novel.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The remake is good, but you just can't improve on the original in my mind...sure it has that tacked on studio ending, but so what, they still might lose...and the paranoia is raw and well served by the fact that the back drop is squeaky clean goody-two-shoes 1950s America.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
"Showgirls."
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment