A few things: Something Im surprised yall didnt mention bout the differences is the fact that certain characters have some stuff that makes it into the book but not the movie (ie: details bout what caused Delacroix & Bitterbuck to walk the mile); some characters from the book dont make it into the movie (Assistant Warden Curtis Anderson, Arthur (the President) Flanders & the woman who was released to gen pop right before her electrocution); whereas one character (Brad Dolan) has some references from a few lines spoken in the beginning from a character that isnt him but otherwise isnt in the movie at all. There was something mentioned that we both remember being missing but I have an add-on to explain the reason. The part bout Janice Edgecomb's freak-out. The way the book has it built up to, Paul goes to one county to find out somethings, then another for some other stuff. Then at the table they rehash it & give the deets that what he found out is that yes, Wharton committed a similar crime before but wasnt booked for it. And he was painting the Detterick's barn but a month earlier & thought to have left, making his being there then heresay. So based on everything needing to be established detail-wise & the current runtime, the shortening of the runtime is why that was left out. Pertaining to ranking: Im not sure how exactly Id rank things. I can say for sure that I enjoyed both the book & the movie. I agree that the movie is more efficient with the length but I also get that the way the book is written is from the viewpoint of a 100+ year old man who has difficulty keeping events in order in his head, much less on paper. There's various parts I can understand why they were left outta the movie due to runtime but I think we shouldve at least gotten that bit from Coffey pertaining to the electric chair en route to the truck: Kinda paraphrasing here but it goes something like: "I can feel them. They're still in there (the electric chair). Screaming." I feel that Brad Dolan not being around in the movie version made for a happier ending given how things went at the shed in the 2nd to last chapter. I also feel that the events of Paul's life in the 50s in Alabama made for one last heavy scene that was interesting but just as well hit the cutting room floor due to not being too connected to the overall story. But overall Im glad I experienced both versions. Quite hard to rank though. The book is better in terms of providing more storywise. But the movie more efficient. Id also add in that the movie adaptation could fit somewhere on a Top 10 Best Movies of All Time List. Not sure exactly where but that statement doesnt seem illegit to me. On the otherhand, Im of the mind that the much more fluffy & lighthearted nature of the movie version of Shawshank Redemption (it literally had a couple of somewhat tense but never as tense as Green Mile scenes; and everything else made for a feel good story); makes for Green Mile being superior.
I know 2 years old but as you asked being a Stephen King fan I'd rate The Green Mile 9.9/10 and Shawshank 10/10 I've watched both several times, I got in to horror books at 9 years old grew up reading Stephen King and James Herbert
