/lit/ - Literature

Jurassic Park.

Godfather
Psycho

The Shining
Fight Club

American psycho

The classic that started it all: Apocalypse Now

>>7941108

Stalker, based on A Roadside Picnic.

My favorite movie of all time.

>>7941108
BR/ DADoES is not a fair comparison. The adaptation is extremely loose

>>7941108

2001 A Space Odyssey
To Have and to Have Not
No Country For Old Men
Shawshank Redemption

>>7941108

>>7941747

No Country

Lord of the Rings

>>7941780
you a funny guy

i think i would agree tho

The Prestige

>>7942148
>No Country For Old Men
Any movie adaptation of Cormac McCarthy is guaranteed to be better than the book.

>>7942156
Haven't seen the film but the book was excellent.

the warriors

>>7941108

The Thing (1982)

(based on 'Who Goes There?' by John Campbell)

Some are on par for me, like Maltese Falcon or American Psycho. Movie is very faithful and not much better or worse IMO. As for Blade Runner, totally different from the book but both are amazing in their own right.

Also, I've never read Oil!, but There Will Be Blood is one of my favorite movies. Anyone read the book? Is it superior?

LA Confidential. The screenplay is tight and well-paced, the book is anything but.

>>7943320
Take your b8 somewhere else

>>7941839
Are you me?

>>7941729
>Fight Club
yes
>>7941747
>American psycho
no
>>7941780
>Apocalypse Now
yes
>>7942169
>Lord of the Rings
no

also this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067815/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

One flew over the cuckoos nest

A Clockwork Orange

>>7941108
The Iliad

>>7941839
Also, Solaris

>>7941780
I guess since I studied them both in high school I feel like I can't look critically at either anymore but I think I agree with you. The book was good but took too long to get going.

The Conformist

Blade Runner has a good aesthetic + acting, but the screenwriting sucks balls. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is ten times more interesting and exciting than that bland piece of pseudo-artistic crap.

Ender's game.

>>7943320
i haven't seen movie or done book but heard the book was much better. is this wrong?

>>7943842

you're either the same person who posted the bait above or you're dumb enough to take his bait.

the book is widely considered much better. the movie is considered trash. read and watch on your own to form your opinion.

>>7943824
i dont believe you have ever read DADoES

your statement appears so copy paste its not funny ...and just to blow your mind Blade Runner is a book

But for the sake of it i will throw it out there Pappillion

Battlefield Earth mother fucker

>>7943883

The actual book 'Blade Runner' is completely different though.

I did read DADoES a couple of times. It's bellow average Dick novel but still better than the movie, which basically got rid off all the interesting parts of the plot and made it bland af.

>>7943883

Also I haven't seen the movie, but Butterfly was a pretty tight read, hard to imagine it being better as a motion picture.

>>7943782
Nah, Tarkovsky took a book questioning space travel and extra-terrestrial contact, and turned it into a boring religious film about Love .

>>7943360
>4chan poster likes widely loved classic film which is specifically adored by the 4chan /tv/ and /v/ boards

Are you me?

>>7943994
>a boring religious film about Love
this is a bit of a misrepresentation of the movie but it is true that solaris is one of his weaker movies and definitely less interesting than the book. Tarkovsky and Lem both had quite a lot to say about the film, definitely worth a read if you've seen the movie and read the book: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Solaris.html

>>7944044
and a little bit more by tarkovsky:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/On_Solaris_2.html

The Shining

>>7943740
llMaO

>>7943911
>It's bellow average Dick novel
Which makes it utter shit now doesn't it?

The movie is widely considered a masterpiece.
>you're trying too hard
>this time, you're the pleb

>>7943102
I saw the film first and read the book after so I'm biased but I highly recommend watching the film.

>>7944185

I don't care how the movie is "widely considered". Funny that you call me a pleb and then take into consideration the judgement of the "wide" audience. Perhaps it would be better for you to re-examine your own position.

Blade Runner is a fucking meme and everyone with a bit of brain knows it. It's still better than most sci-fi flicks (speaking purely in terms of technical cinematography, it is very good), however it's completely void of an interesting plot. It has atmosphere, sure, but nothing of substance to feed on it. If the two screenwriter's weren't giant ass-bags and actualy left in some of the wacky complex ideas from Dick's book (like the Voidt-Kampf tests, which is probably the only thing that survived), the movie would be way better. Things like the covert android police station, Mercerism, Deckard's post-sex scene with Rachel Rosen,... But no, instead we got a bland cyber-noir flick, the memory of which quickly disappears, like tears in rain.

The books isn't utter shit. It's just not as tight as some of the Dick's true masterpieces (VALIS, Scanner Darkly, Man in the High Castle). It's still very good, as far as his unique style of sci-fi goes. But it's not the creme de la creme that a lot of Dick's pseudo-admirers hail it to be.

>>7943740

>>7943824
You didn't watch The Final Cut.

>>7946197
>the memory of which quickly disappears, like tears in rain.
Ironic quote mate. You sure showed that movie.

Wolf of Wallstreet

>>7942204
Yeah, All The Pretty Horses was a fantastic adaptation.

>>7942169
aw hell no. movies were great but the books are much better.

the road
movie was okay at best...but was really good despite the haters.

>>7941729
man I hated the ending of the shining. Kubrick did it better.