The Book vs The Movie

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I'm gonna beat it anyway.  For as long as there have been movies based on books, people have been asking, "Which was better: the movie or the book?"  And most of the time the answer to that question has been "the book."

I have to admit that in general I personally agree with the populace at large.  There's only so much of a book that you can squeeze into a 2 hour movie; you'll get a good taste but you'll be left feeling hungry for more.  That's why sales of books made into movies, like Kathryn Stockett's The Help, have gone up and why the waiting lists for copies in libraries have grown.

One of my recent "boovie" experiences has been with Eat, Pray, Love.  I have to confess I saw the movie before reading the book; I liked the movie, but I liked the book so much more.  Why?  Because so many little things about the main character's personal growth were left out.  Somebody told me, "You can see how they got the movie from the book, but could you see getting the book from the movie?"  Undoubtedly no.

There are some exceptions to the boovie, though (and I apologize in advance to any Robert James Waller fans out there).  I absolutely loved the movie, The Bridges of Madison County.  The way Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood portrayed characters who shared a brief but intense union was truly magical.  I couldn't wait to put my hands on the book...and be disappointed.  Where was the magic?  All those little nuances between the characters came across much better in the movie.  This goes to show that talented actors can add different dimensions to a story from what can be found on the written page.

I'm sure the boovie debate will continue as long as books are made into movies.  Take your pick: sometimes you'll prefer the book over the movie and vice versa.  And for the record, I think the Harry Potter book series and the Harry Potter film series were equally well made and enjoyable.

Reviewing from the perch.