I watched Nora Roberts' Sanctuary for the first time a few weeks ago. I thought the movie was one of the new ones, but discovered it was made in 2001. I've never read the book, so I can't compare the two. I'm sure it's difficult to pare a book down to fit into two hours, but the movie seemed choppy or disjointed in places. It's not one I'll watch over again and not just because I know who the stalker is.
The last two Monday nights I've watched the two new Nora movies on Lifetime: Angels Fall and Montana Sky. I enjoyed both movies to a degree. Again, I haven't read the books so I can't compare.
I find several of the Harlequin movies good. Is it a coincidence that I've never read those books? However, I know of one author who did not like their take on her book.
Rose Hill made from Julie Garwood's For the Roses was horrible. You could hardly recognize it. It wasn't even a romance. And then, they killed off one of her brothers, who had his own book. Then, there was French Silk by Sandra Brown. So, I didn't like Susan Lucci as the heroine, but have loved Lee Horsley since his Matt Houston days.
I can't think of one movie made from a book I've read that I liked. Why? Is it because two hours doesn't allow for the character development a book does? Because they have to leave out subplots that give a novel depth? I've taken literary license myself, so that in itself doesn't bother me. I've yet to figure out the answer.
Have you ever read a book, then enjoyed a movie made from it? Or am I a lone wolf?