Love Comes Driving Up The Road Book Vs Movie Essay

Many people may agree that the movie was better, but personally, i think the book was better. The book let your imagination go wild, but the movie just held your imagination back by showing you the scene on a screen. Unlike the movie, the book gave a more vivid description of “The Tell Tale Heart” by telling you every single detail. That is why I think the book was more enjoyable to read instead, of watching the movie.

I much preferred the movie version to the novel. For me, author William Kennedy’s style of writing is needlessly vague and difficult to follow, yet he did a wonderful job adapting

Is the novel making the same point about the value or ideas as the film? If so, how? If it is making a different point about the value or idea, how is it different?

Following on to why the book is more superior than the movie. The persuasion of the fact that the novel was better, is that the story line was a little bit slower, and easier to follow along in the Flipped book. This is easy to realize when watching the movie. They had rushed along a few things, then backtracked. For a representation, some words were repeated two or three times

Despite having many differences the film remains faithful in capturing the novel and putting on film. While one may not get everything from the movie as from the book, the majority of it is there. So for die hard fans of the book there is no need for disappointment. All the main parts of the book are there, the characters, the plot, the setting

The perception that the novel is usually better than the movie version in this case is true; I preferred reading the novel over watching the movie. The novel

A minor difference between the movie and the book was concerning the scene about Sir Henry going to the moor. In the book he was pretty upset that people were trying to keep him from going there, but in the movie he showed the least bit of emotion. This was not a major impact on the story but it definitely added character to Sir Henry. In the movie Sir Henry was somewhat timid and in the book that scene showed he was not afraid to stand up for himself.

- This book is a really good book not a very good movie because they have so many differences if they would have not started in the middle of the book then it would have been really good and entertaining but it just doesn't give me the vision in my head of the whole book . A movie to me is where a book comes to life and, but it still was a good movie but could have been

One example of the imagery being better in the book is the forest. In the book the forest sounds big and beautiful. But, in the movie the forest is quite overgrown and there was not as much wildlife as I expected. Even though the forest wasn’t as beautiful as the book portrayed it, it is still quite an amazing sight.

The book tells the same story as the movie but in a different way it cuts out thing the movies has or the movies adds thing that's not in the book. The book has some not many similar but . I feel the director was unfaithful to the book.The book and movie version of Our America had many differences.

With many scenes taken away because some characters are never mentioned took away a lot of the overall meaning of the story. I didn’t feel to relate to the movie as much as I did with the novel. Leaving an apt amount of scenes out, took away some of the anticipation I was building up to. Which made me a bit disappointed.

I thought that the movie was a good adaptation to the text because of the elements in the book were captured and brought to life in the movie. You can feel the different moods of the movie,just like in the book. The town and characters seem to spring off the page and onto the screen,with mild exceptions. The mood is set very well with the lighting and sound,just as it would be in the books. An example of this is with the lighting,music and the costume choice.The choices that the

In my opinion the movie helps to understand the situation and the topic of the novel.

It very much contrasted for me – to read ‘No Country for Old Men’, for a kid who grew up on romances, one thing was very apparent – there was no mental digging of the main character (except for Bell’s interludes of course, the best part of the book). No insight into Moss’s head lead to my inevitable subtle disinterest to the book. But, back to the point, this was the prime characteristic why the book-movie transition would do so well – lack of mental digging, which is very hard to transition into visuals, or without using ‘inappropriate’ for this movie narration of Moss’s head. Also, the ‘short size’ of the movie lands itself perfectly into the movie’s

I actually liked the book better than I did the movie. The book just left me with lots of cliffhangers, which is kind of annoying, but it makes me want to read more. I also liked the book better because there were no restrictions on how I imagined things. There was a lot more detail than the movie. The only part I didn’t like about the book was when King died but that’s it. The book was a little juicier and suspenseful. Like when he was captured by the farmer, or when he heard something running up behind him, and it was King. It was sad, but after David and King escaped the farmer, they were walking around in the forest,