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

the book is better than the movie

posted 11 years ago by svetlana_murad
6 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] Spiny_Norman 11 years ago

Cost?

[–] cmertes-1 9 years ago

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.

[–] chas437 9 years ago

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.

[–] lazarillo 8 years ago

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"

[–] July (57) 5 years ago

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.

[–] PaladinNJ (21529) 5 years ago

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