 This is going to be fun. Hello, everybody. E here. Welcome to a brand new show. This is called Book Vs. Movie, where we are going to be answering the age-old question, is the book always better? My first episode was supposed to be on JAWS, but somehow I lost my paperback copy of JAWS, so instead we are doing Congo. Or as some of you know it, Congo. So now we are going to go through both of these to find out which one is the better overall experience. Foyler alert, this is no JAWS. So if you are reading the book, first thing you are going to notice is that there of course is more like any literary experience, there is more in-depth background on the characters. I found this interesting in Annie's case, because we got to know much more about the gorilla herself. While the book is better in this regard, it does take quite a bit longer to get going. While Annie's history is interesting, the book takes a while to get off the ground. There is quite a bit of boring technical detail that was a chore to get through. Annie's dreams aren't mentioned at all in the movie, and that was probably my favorite part of her story. I think the biggest change throughout other than the introduction of Tim Curry's character, the biggest change for me was there is no sign language to speech aspect in this one. It is all sign language between her and the main character. As far as the female lead is concerned, there is no love interest. All that was added for the movie version. She plays more of a villain role than she does in the movie. In fact in the movie she doesn't play a villain role at all, she plays one of the protagonists. The entire last third of this book is completely different than the movie. And I think that's to the detriment of the book. I did prefer, even though it's just as unbelievable, I did prefer the movie's ending to the book's ending. And there's no Ross love story. She ends up going over there to try and find the diamonds she wants to find the diamonds, albeit the diamonds are used for something different in the movie version and the book version. But she goes over to try and find the diamonds, whereas in the movie she tells the guy if I'm going over there for the diamonds and not my love interest, which is not in the book, if I go over there and find out, then I'm going to enact revenge. And that I also liked more in the movie than in the book. Now, how does the movie stand up to the book? Bruce Campbell! Anybody else confuse Laura Linney with Helen Hunt? Or is that just me? Amy is far more relatable in the movie than she is in the book. In the book she comes across as just a side character, a support character, and you have the main male character kind of playing the main role, whereas in this one Amy kind of overshadows the main character. Who's Tim Curry playing? In the book, the reason for the lack of communication was solar flares. But in the movie is because Amy knocks everything over. I'm going to go ahead and give it to the book this time, because the monkey knocking things over. Solar flares were at least a little more believable. I want a monkey knocking things over, sure, but if your entire whole second half of your movie depends on monkey shenanigans, then the ghost tribe from the movie is not mentioned at all in the book. One of the coolest aspects that they got right from book to movie transition was the hippo scene. I liked it in both aspects. While I did like the book version a little bit more, they both go by very quickly, but that is one of my favorite parts. The gray gorilla attack scenes look terrible. Time has not cast a good sheen on this movie. The special effects are atrocious. There's a lot of very quick cuts. There's a lot of in your face, try to jump scares. There's a lot of slow mo and speeding up of film and time, and it just comes off very, very badly. But the book's not as action oriented as the movie. So they try to turn a scientific expedition slash communication story into an action film. The director did a terrible job relating that aspect. I have to say, I enjoyed the movie a lot more as an overall experience than I did the book. And the reason for that comes down to time wasted and time spent consuming the product. If I had to choose between either one of these things, I would go for the movie 10 times out of 10. And that is only because I didn't care for the book at all. Now I don't know if this comes through because of nostalgia. I did watch the movie way back in the day when it first came out. I did not read the book until probably about two months ago. And then I watched the movie directly after. So what did you think about Kongo? Would you like the movie more or the book? Are you impartial to either one maybe because of nostalgia? Maybe because of Tim Curry? Let me know down there in the comments below. But until next time, I have been E, you have been U. This has been Book Versus Movie. I'll talk to you guys later. Bye-bye!