MovieChat Forums > Cracks (2011) Discussion > the book is better than the movie

the book is better than the movie


I've just finished reading the book, and it was great. Better than I've expected. I wonder why didn't they set the movie in South Africa, as in the book.

reply

Cost?

reply

It's funny that I could tell by watching the movie that it was based on a book. It felt rushed at many places and the characters weren't given time to properly develop. It felt like a story that took place on a totally different time scale than a movie could offer.

So yes, I have no trouble believing that the novel is a completely different experience than the movie.

reply

It's funny that I could tell by watching the movie that it was based on a book. It felt rushed at many places and the characters weren't given time to properly develop. It felt like a story that took place on a totally different time scale than a movie could offer.


That's a good observation, I agree. Truly great film adaptations are rare.

reply

I don't think it's fare to compare a book to a movie. They're very different art forms. It's like comparing a painting to an opera. It is very different though.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

reply

Although I love this film, the book it's based on is vastly superior to it - VASTLY. We can presume the geographic setting was changed to England for budgetary and logistical reasons. But they didn't have to change the time period from 1960 to 1933.

reply

Most books are usually better than the movies from which they are derived.

reply