MovieChat Forums > Cell (2016) Discussion > Read the book!

Read the book!

posted 8 years ago by kiraalt
14 replies | jump to latest

I watched the film and am nearly finished with the book.
I implore you to read the book as is it much better. Helped me understand far more. Also spends much more time on the "telepathy" and flocking nature of the "phone crazies"

I didn't mind the film as much as some but felt it would've played better as a limited/mini series on TV maybe? You certainly could keep Cusack as the main character.
But it would need to stick closer to the book than the film did. I think that is why the film doesn't quite cut it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot fix faith, River. Faith fixes you. - Shepherd Book, Firefly

[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

dose it make it more clear they are talking about islam?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jerebear-1 8 years ago

The book is very good. The movie ... not so much. I can only figure that King himself changed it to make it more commercially appealing, since it is his screenplay. Sure wish he hadn't.

[–] dont_trust_clowns 8 years ago

I agree. I love love love the book I have read it so many times. It does go into so much more detail. I didn't mind this film I think what they did just made it more storylike for people who have not read it. I agree it would be brilliant as a mini series. While I was reading it I had clay as John in my head so yeah keep him. But change the other people. I always pictured Tom as the guy who played Olli in the mist adaptation. At least with a TV series they could explain more and ramp up the suspense to where it is through most of the book.

[–] LibHater (99) 6 years ago

More like made for the average 'Murican ... who cannot read

[–] lewis0910 7 years ago

how the hell can a book be better than a film?
I'm not saying the films brilliant, I'm only 40 mins into it but how would the airport scenes be better in a book?
They Can't be. Same goes for any movie

[–] kaleidoscope0_0 (479) 7 years ago

The books are ALWAYS better than the movie adaptation. I dare someone to challenge that. Triple Dog Dare

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I actually prefer the movie of The Shawshank Redemption to the novella (which is also very good). Another that comes to mind is Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is (imo) better than the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory book.

[–] LenkoPenko (157) 5 years ago

It really depends.
Like the person before me said, Shawshank Redemption was an amazing film. I thought it was better than the book, too.

A couple more films I much preferred over the book were Chocolat and Fried Green Tomatoes.

[–] Banjo (63) 7 years ago

The opening sequence/chaos is not only better in the book but its IMO the best part of the book. Really strong, and the book is okay but never quite as good after they reach the field.

The opening airport stuff in the movie, on the other hand, I found the weakest part of the movie.

[–] LibHater (99) 6 years ago

Are you effing kidding ?

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Is this some kind of a joke?

[–] peter_t_2k3 (957) 4 years ago

Can't decide if your a troll or not but sometimes the imagination is far better than what can be seen on screen.

Also most books have a lot more backstory. I remember the first time I watched the shinning and thinking what is all the fuss about as it's often claimed to be one of the best horror films but years later I read the book and was amazed. The book goes into a lot more detail with the leads past e.g. his dad being a violent alcoholic and his worries that he is repeating his mistakes. He is scared of his past as the hotels past comes to life. His madness is also much slower. But films are limited by time.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

It seemed to me that they tried including a lot of the ideas and storylines from the book, but then realized they didn't have the time or money to properly wrap everything up.

They had to end it somehow though, so we got Cusack's very quick journey to find his kid and an anti-climactic confrontation with the guy in the red hoodie that just raises more questions.

It wasn't too bad about halfway through. They followed the book more closely up to that point, which helped. Then it goes off the rails. I think Stephen King did the first version of the screenplay and then it was rewritten, so that might explain some of that.