As a book lover, I’ve read my fair share of Stephen King novels. But, as a movie lover, I’ve also seen my fair share of Stephen King adaptations. That said, many of them, unfortunately, are either pretty bad or even terrible.However, the good adaptations are often REALLY GOOD. I know everybody likes to point to The Shawshank Redemption as the gold standard (this website even called it the best movie of the ‘90s! - even though I think it’s just good), and I’d like to also add The Shining, The Green Mile, Stand by Me, Carrie, and Misery as cinematic masterpieces based on King’s work. Oh, and one more - The Long Walk. In fact, in many ways, I think The Long Walk movie is better than the book…but not completely. I’ll explain. Oh, and major spoilers on the walk ahead. (Image credit: Lionsgate)Why The Film Is Better Than The Book: The Landscape Is Even More Desolate In The FilmFor those unfamiliar with The Long Walk, it’s essentially a dystopian story in which an alternate-timeline America has become controlled by a totalitarian government. Each year, there’s a competition where young men walk for as long as possible, and the last one standing gets whatever they wish for.People walking for hundreds of miles doesn’t sound like the most riveting story in the world, but this is King we’re talking about here, and he makes this as disturbing as he can for hundreds of pages. Well, in the novel, even though we see the aftermath of what we’re told was a civil war, there does seem to be a lot more people out and about cheering on the walkers. At one point, there are even groupies who want to hook up with them, and, like, cool. It almost seems like a game show of sorts. However, I actually like how much more desolate the movie feels. The backdrop is even more depressing and hopeless in the film, and I think it works in its favor…for the most part, which I’ll get into later. (Image credit: Lionsgate)The Friendship Aspect Is Even Sharper In The FilmOne of my favorite movies and books of all time is Battle Royale (which Quentin Tarantino, it should be noted, maintains The Hunger Games ripped off). I bring up this story for two reasons. One, it’s similar to The Long Walk since it’s all about a group of people that gradually thin out, and two, because you have to keep track of a lot of characters, and you grow to care about many of them. Well, in the book, The Long Walk, we get lots of characters, but the most important ones are Ray Garraty (our protagonist), Peter McVries, Stebbins, Art Baker, Gary Barkovitch (our main antagonist, outside of The Major), and a few others. Now, while friendship is a HUGE part of the novel, I think the one formed by Ray (Cooper Hoffman) and Pete (David Jonsson) is better in the film. Their friendship is pretty pronounced in the book, almost leaning into a possible gay interpretation, whereas in the film, we don’t have the homoerotic undertones between them (Though, I do think it’s cool that you can interpret it that way in the book). Instead, their friendship is more the heart and soul of the movie, which I think is very effective.Instead of the focus being more spread out to multiple characters like it is in the book, the movie mostly focuses on Pete’s and Ray’s friendship in particular. So, instead of this being a story about many, like in the novel, it really feels like a story about just two people surrounded by many, which works. (Image credit: Lionsgate)The Film Is Also Somehow Even More Dire Than The BookWhen we initially reviewed this film, we called it “The Bleakest Stephen King Movie Since The Mist…” and yeah, that’s an apt description. Even though I find the premise of The Long Walk terrifying, I actually don’t find the book to be all that “bleak.” I don’t know, perhaps it’s the chummy way the story is written, but I feel King didn’t make it as bleak and hopeless as some of his other stories like Revival, Cujo, or Pet Semetary. However, I do think this bleakness really elevates the movie. All of the characters feel like they’re doomed from the very start, and even though they’re joking in the beginning, as soon as that first person gets shot, the story just gets bleaker and bleaker. This consistent dire tone makes the movie stand out from other King stories, which really works in its favor. Because this film is bleak, even despite its ending. Oh, and speaking of which…(Image credit: Lionsgate)Why The Film Is Not As Good As The Book:The Ending Of The Book Is WAY BetterNow, we’ve already written about it, but the ending of the movie is VERY different from that of the novel…and I don’t think in a good way. In the book, Ray makes it to the finish line, but after his traumatic and exhausting experience, he doesn’t stop walking. In fact, he sees a phantom ahead of him, and he chases after him, ultimately leaving an ambiguous interpretation about what his fate will ultimately be. Trust me, I’m no Stephen King, but the way he writes this moment is truly terrifying. The film does a MAJOR swerve, though, in that Pete is actually the victor, and not Ray. In fact, Ray says he doesn't see a future for himself, and by the time Pete realizes what’s going on, it's too late, and Ray gets his ticket punched. The Major, played by Mark Hamill, says that Pete can get anything he wishes, but Pete chooses a carbine, just like Ray wanted. Pete then kills the Major and walks off, which is different, but I don't think anywhere near as haunting as Ray's spiraling into insanity. So, the book ending shakes me to my bones, and the movie ending doesn’t. Simple. (Image credit: Lionsgate)The Major Was Even More Mysterious In The BookWe don't see much of Hamill's Major in the film, but when we do, he pretty much steals every scene he’s in. Now, I love Mark Hamill, but I think he’s TOO much of a presence in the movie, whereas the book made The Major a mysterious figure, which I prefer. In a lot of ways, The Major doesn't even seem like an antagonist in the book. He's more like a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself, and I’m much more in favor of that. He’s very much a background figure, which is where I think he should be. The movie does a great job of making the Major an actual flesh-and-blood character, but I really liked the mythic quality of the Major in the book. It was more effective. (Image credit: Lionsgate)The Walk Itself Feels Much More Like An Event In The Book As Opposed To The FilmNow, I know I made a point earlier about how much I liked how desolate this film feels, but another part of me prefers how the walk is more like an actual event in the book.One of my favorite Stephen King movies that’s nothing like the novel is the original The Running Man with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I love the game show aspect of the film as opposed to the kind of bland approach that the book takes. However, The Long Walk film feels like the opposite, whereas the event is more exciting in the book than it is in the movie. So, I think the book handled that aspect better in a lot of ways. That said, both are great. Is The Long Walk book better than the movie? I’d love to hear your thoughts.