Same; although, I will say that Kubrick, as always, did a fantastic job in translating the book into the movie. There are parts of the book I like more (for instance, Burgess' ending is more complete and satisfying, but on the other hand I also realise that Kubrick made his movie more effective as a *movie* by making whatever changes he did) and same for the movie. All in all, I think that, yes, I enjoyed reading the book more because, as is mostly the case, it is much easier to digest things and understand them at one's own pace and from text than from what a director CHOOSES to show his audience--but, what I'm trying to say is that of all the book/movie directors I've seen (several), I find myself mostly agreeing with Kubrick because he never gives too much information as to make the audience biased.
For instance, in A Clockwork Orange he definitely doesn't, speaking figuratively, get up at the end and tell us all about his REAL opinions on criminal rehab vs. prison, or give us an analysis of Alex's character, or...whatever (insert any other part of the story)--it's much more as if he opens the paths in our minds and gets us thinking about the movie more; at first, things seem painfully obvious after watching the movie, but eventually I think it's natural to realise that perhaps you--that is the audience member--were not correct all along and there are other facets to explore...and of course the book points a few things out that could not be made clear in the movie.
Similarly, 2001: A Space Odyssey (which Clarke turned into a novel during the screenplay's design and editting process) explains various things more in depth in the book, but unlike ACO, I prefer the movie inasmuch as it is even more open-ended and thought-provoking than the book. So, there are some disadvantages to having the omniscient author describe things in detail as opposed to a wise director, namely Kubrick, present the story without dumbing its intricacies down to make what is inherently obvious even more manifest and deleting the subtleties of the text; that's when a movie is worse than the book.
That's why I can watch Kubrick's movies (incidentally, Barry Lyndon has been one of my favourites recently, and I think it is also based on a novel but I haven't read it) so often and not grow tired of them, and it's also why I consider him the absolute king of directors in my present, admittedly limited, experience. Typical movies just grow old so fast, for the most part before I even watch them or on average after the first viewing, it's hardly even worth it at all.
Ok sorry for the somewhat disorganised post, I'm in "one of my moods" heh; hope it makes sense!
Poll
Topic: From American Graffitti, to fast times at ridgemont high to american pie (Read 2248 times)