Over the weekend our family went to see "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" at our local cinema grill (The promise of food was the only way to entice our teenagers along.)
Now, I've read some of those books with my 5th grader and figured the movie would be pretty good based on that. Turns out, the movie was even better than the books. If a movie about a bunch of 7th graders can make my 17 year old laugh out loud, that's noteworthy.
It got me thinking about books and movie versions of them. Sometimes the movie version is better than the book, but sometimes the book is better than the movie. The Notebook, for instance. Enjoyed the movie more than the book. Twilight, definitely enjoyed the book more than the movie. (Note to publishers trying to imitate that successful series: Stephenie Meyer's great storytelling made the books hit the bestseller's lists, not the vampires. Just saying.)
When it comes to Jane Austen, I love the movies but don't read the books. I just don't have the patience. Stephen King has tons of movies made from his books, but I'm too big a wimp to partake of either--though I admit to watching most of Misery and liking it. But hey, it's about a novelist, so what do you expect?
John Grisham has had his share of movies also, though I've only read and watched The Firm. I liked both the book and the film. In general, I enjoy Nicholas Sparks movies, but I don't have the patience for his writing, not to mention his sad endings. I can watch a 2 hour movie with a sad ending, but don't make me invest 7 hours of my life and have it end unhappily. But clearly, plenty of readers disagree.
I love movies and books--it's all story, and I'm a big fan of story. Do you tend to like the book or the movie version of the book better? Why do you think that is?
(Why did I post the cover of Driftwood Lane? Because someday I hope it'll be make into a movie. :-)