Books vs film adaptations?

I read an article this morning about 'A Clockwork Orange' and whether or not the film still had the power to shock, after its ban was lifted (and in the advent of a Blu-ray version about to be released).

I've never watched the film version of 'A Clockwork Orange', but I did read the book aged about fourteen, and it haunted me for months afterwards (though it's only recently, since learning Russian, that I finally got an understanding of the "unique" slang used throughout the story!)   Like I say, I haven't seen the film, but I have no idea how anyone could possibly have made that story into a film in the first place, or how they could possibly have made the imagery as strong as it was in my head in the first place.  The ban of the film made no sense to me; the story, in all its arguably more gruesome form, was still readily available to anyone who wanted it, just not on the screen.

I'm annoyingly precious about books I've read being turned into films, and I would never, ever recommend going to the cinema with me if it's a film that's been made from a book I've read.  It makes no difference whether or not I actually enjoyed the book.  Even the film adaptation of John Grisham's 'The Chamber', which is the only John Grisham book I've ever read because I thought it was utter pap, annoyed me because Chris O'Donnell didn't look anything like the main character did in my head.  I refused to even watch 'The Beach' because I felt Leonardo diCaprio was such a bad choice to play Richard (also because I've always found Leonardo diCaprio bloody irritating anyway, for some unknown and unfair reason).

It's fine if I've seen the film before reading the book; step forward 'Gone With the Wind', for example.  But if I've read the book first then I've already formed a relationship with the characters; I already know exactly what they look like and I understand their stories and how they relate to one another, and I've never seen that relationship properly replicated on screen (God, don't I sound like a pretentious cow?  But it's true!)

Maybe it's because characters have always mattered to me more than plot or story.  I myself am rubbish at writing stories with explosive or intricate plots, but I like to think I can create a good character or two. I can also take a lot more death, gore and horror if I'm reading about it rather than watching it.  Sarah Waters' 'The Little Stranger' is a good example of this; if it had been a film I know I'd have been too scared to finish watching it.  Luckily though, I was actually sitting on the tube in the middle of the Central Line when I got to the scariest part of the book, so I read on with confidence that I was safe (that didn't stop me from later worrying about looking in my bathroom mirror without it jumping across the room and smashing itself in the corner, but I dealt with that in my own way!)

The worst film adaptation of a book I've read?  Easy - it's actually a TV adaptation of Christopher Brookmyre's 'Quite Ugly One Morning', which I thought was rubbish from start to finish, mainly because the TV company had taken liberties with the original plot and for some reason James Nesbitt had been chosen to play thin, wiry, sandy-haired Scotsman Jack Parlabane.

"This is really rubbish!" I spluttered at the screen, while my husband, free from all the constraining expectations of the book, mentioned that he was quite enjoying it.

For future peace of mind, maybe I should just stop reading and rent 'A Clockwork Orange' on Blu-ray.