If you've already seen the movie and enjoyed it, would you read the book on which it is based, or would you be content with the story as the film depicted it?

I've seen both these movies, and read The Name of the Rose. 

Thank you.

You should try The Accidental tourist. It´s a good book.

I will. Thanks.

I'd be content with what I saw.

I usually am too.

I'd much rather read the book first, movie is secondary. Case's in point, Two of Clive Cussler's novels were used in movies, "Raise the Titanic" and "Sahara" glad I read the books, the movies didn't do justice.

Agreed. Your imagination has free rein reading the book first, whereas doing the movie first will constrain it. It takes a particular temperament to accept the movie's rendition as an equal alternate to your own understanding. The movie maker may also have his own agenda or other influences such as political correctness affecting his judgment.   

I did it with this movie The Hunger.

The movie was better but the book was worth reading.  I'm glad I did it in the flipped direction.

The book is almost  always better than the movie, you have to be careful with that one.  When  a movie is really great, it follows the book as closely as possible.  Sometimes you have to be a genius to make that happen. 

I would read the book.  I nearly always enjoy the book more.  There is so much more to the story in a book that a film lasting a couple of hours cannot possibly portray.

Yes.

I saw the Accidental Tourist first and then bought the book.

Same with The Name of the Rose,

Both wonderful movies and wonderful books.

Yes and the book is always better :-)