In my opinion comparing both the written and film version of the Maltese Falcon I believed that the written version showed the intrigue of the story to be a little better than the film. This was because with the written version it was more prolonged than the film version which gives you a bit more to know about than the film. An additional reason I have chosen the novel to be a little more interesting is that in the film some of the acting was lame and wasn't as good as I hoped it to be, with the exception of Humphrey Bogart's role.
There were many differences between the novel and film. One such difference was that in the film the director Mr. Huston did not bother to add pointless stories like in the novel. A pointless story that was in the book but pointless in the film was the story with the man named Flitcraft that left his family because he so had a near death experience, it was a good choice of the film director Houston because I thought that the story had to do with the main plot. Another difference in the film is that Houston completely cut out Gutman's daughter, Rhea Gutman from the film. A further difference between the both is that in the end of the novel Tom Polaus came into Gutman's room were Brigid and Spade were and told Polaus that Wilmer just shot Gutman when they got there, but in the film when Tom got to Gutman's room he told them that they caught all three Gutman, Wilmer, and Cairo downstairs.
The actors performances did and not impress me at times I think that the director Houston did a lame job with some of the actors performances with the exception of the looks of them. .
One character that the director did a lame job in my opinion was the short young man known as Wilmer. In the novel the author expressed Wilmer as a young man about 20 to 21 years old. In the film Wilmer looks like a man who is in his mid 30's. I believe that the man who played Wilmer in the film did not fit his role which made me upset.