Which was better?

**yog-sothoth** · September 3rd, 2009

The short...but I love John

**Sawney Beane** · September 3rd, 2009

The movie wasn´t very good,but frankly the short storie wasn´t great either,to me it was just a filler.

**qu33n0f3mpir3** · September 8th, 2009

this movie was good but weird, i have to see where i can find the book.

**constantreader1313** · September 8th, 2009

To be honest I saw the movie first, which I hate doing, and thought it was pretty good but kind of slow. Then when I read the short a few days ago I couldn't get John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson out of my head. After concentrating for awhile and being able to put my own faces to the characters I got into the short more than I did the movie. So it's the short for me...

**Churchill502** · September 8th, 2009

i actually thought the movie was very good. Way better than most of Stephen Kings movies. Alot of the times the movies come off very cheap and have horrible actors. This movie had me intrigued from the very beginning.

**sai slone** · September 8th, 2009

I thought the short story was better. I just wish the powers that be would respect Mr.King alot moor by putting as much time,effort and tallent into the movies as he puts into the stories.

**dejolane** · September 15th, 2009

The movie of course.

**Terri** · September 18th, 2009

The book, absolutely.

**Jake Featherston** · September 18th, 2009

Originally Posted by Terri

The book, absolutely.

Yeah, by a factor of like 50 to 1. The short story was one of the best short stories King has written, in my opinion, while the movie was one of the worst things I've seen in years.

**BruinLZ** · September 21st, 2009

The film was...less than satisfactory to say the least. However, for pure entertainment value...it was alright...I didn't really expect to look at it from the point of view that it would live up to the Author's work...that is almost always the case. It should be noted though that it put some money in Mr. King's pocket and that is alright by me...