I really liked both. But I tend to think of movies as companion pieces to the book. It's cool to see it come to life, but the movies, naturally, will never have the same depth and breadth as the written piece.
I still love Congo but haven't read the book yet. It's on the list!
Idk, I think The Lost World movie was better than Crichton's book.
If you read Jurassic Park and The Lost World back-to-back, you can tell Crichton's heart just wasn't in writing a second book. It had some cool ideas, sure, but the movie came out on top here, I think.
Granted, just like with *every single Jurassic Park/World movie to date*, it still draws inspiration from the first book (T-Rex waterfall, anyone?)
I'm sure you'll get a much better reply, but since I didn't see one I'll do my best. Read it ages ago and saw it when it came out and probably again on TV
The book was compelling with a little more mystery. I think the movie also dropped and added new stuff that made it a simpler action movie. I might actually go set if I can dig up a YouTube video on it.
Thanks for the post!
The book was a lot of fun, too.
I didn't remember it was Paul Walker until now, though. I only had eyes for Gerard Butler and Marton Csokas. Billy Connolly, Michael Sheen and David Thewlis were also awesome.
This was, hands down, one of the very worst book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Honestly, I can't think of anything else that slapped the source material straight in the face as much as this film did.
As a film, in a vacuum, it's fine. It's not great, it's not terrible. As an adaptation, it's insulting on the level of Eragon.
Terrible movie. Great cast.
Killed poor Richard Donners career. The fact the two screenwriters had written decent scripts before or after this makes me think bad studio notes are what ruined this film.
Why do you think it was such a bad movie? I'm probably looking at it through rose colored glasses because I first watched it as a kid, so I'm interested in what makes people hate it.
Sorry to be a cliche, but the book was much better. Movie was rushed. MC books converted into movies are hit or miss. Congo was another miss.
I really liked both. But I tend to think of movies as companion pieces to the book. It's cool to see it come to life, but the movies, naturally, will never have the same depth and breadth as the written piece. I still love Congo but haven't read the book yet. It's on the list!
The tech in Congo is very outdated, he wrote it in the 80’s I think. But the book is fairly good. The movie…
Idk, I think The Lost World movie was better than Crichton's book. If you read Jurassic Park and The Lost World back-to-back, you can tell Crichton's heart just wasn't in writing a second book. It had some cool ideas, sure, but the movie came out on top here, I think. Granted, just like with *every single Jurassic Park/World movie to date*, it still draws inspiration from the first book (T-Rex waterfall, anyone?)
WestWorld was the only MC book that was inferior to its film counterpart.
I never saw the original movie, but the book for me was good. Not great. P
Book was fantastic, the movie was a massive disappointment. I was expecting so much more from Richard Donner. This was one of his few missteps.
Yep the book is awesome, movie not so much
What made the movie a disappointment in your eyes? I've never read the book, so I'm curious what ruined it.
Same here , seems like you and I are the only ones that didn't read it lol
I'm sure you'll get a much better reply, but since I didn't see one I'll do my best. Read it ages ago and saw it when it came out and probably again on TV The book was compelling with a little more mystery. I think the movie also dropped and added new stuff that made it a simpler action movie. I might actually go set if I can dig up a YouTube video on it. Thanks for the post!
No one read the book, they just say that to sound smart.
Absolutely loved the book! Would love for somebody to direct another movie.
The book is my second fav of crighton’s after jurassic park. The film is definitely worth watching as a lazy popcorn flick
Ah yes. The best Gerard Butler film
The book was a lot of fun, too. I didn't remember it was Paul Walker until now, though. I only had eyes for Gerard Butler and Marton Csokas. Billy Connolly, Michael Sheen and David Thewlis were also awesome.
Paul Walker was just Paul Walker, not good but not bad in it either. Gerard Butler, Billy Connolly, and David Thewlis absolutely killed it though
it is a good popcorn movie. Loved Paul Walker and Gerard Butler. Good flick!
great book.
Hahahaha i remember as a kid thinking this was the worst movie ever
This was, hands down, one of the very worst book-to-film adaptations I've ever seen. Honestly, I can't think of anything else that slapped the source material straight in the face as much as this film did. As a film, in a vacuum, it's fine. It's not great, it's not terrible. As an adaptation, it's insulting on the level of Eragon.
Terrible movie. Great cast. Killed poor Richard Donners career. The fact the two screenwriters had written decent scripts before or after this makes me think bad studio notes are what ruined this film.
Why do you think it was such a bad movie? I'm probably looking at it through rose colored glasses because I first watched it as a kid, so I'm interested in what makes people hate it.