Did You See The Movie Or Read The Book First?

Just this past week I finished reading John Godey's The Taking of Pelham 123, a nicely done if somewhat deliberately paced subway thriller of almost 400 pages. The basic premise is four desperadoes get the bright idea to hijack a New York City subway car and hold its passengers hostage for a one million dollar ransom. Easier said than done. But one of the desperados is a former motorman who has the right inside knowledge to implement their caper.

The paperback edition I read advertises the 2009 movie starring Denzel Washington (who I really like watching act) and John Travolta. I also remember the original 1974 film adaptation with Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam and Héctor Elizondo. I haven't seen either movie although I'm more inclined to see the original one than the reboot which don't seem to fare too well. Goodreads friends who have seen the two movies have recommended the first one over the second to me.

When I do catch the movie, it will be interesting to see how closely it follows the book. Or if the movie takes off on a tangent of its own. If given a choice, however, I prefer not to have read the book first. It keeps me from enjoying the movie as much as I'd like to because I'm constantly comparing it to what happened in the book.

True Grit is another such example. This time I saw both movie versions before I finally got around to reading the book. All three were good in their own way. I like the Duke in just about all his movies I've ever seen, so I'm favorably biased about him starring in the first True Grit flick. What is your preference, seeing the movie or reading the book first?