Best Book to Movie Adaptation

[JustJon]

Since the other book to movie thread, I was wondering what are some good movies taken from books?

I think Fight Club is a great movie and book and the movie was a very faithful adaptation.

The Harry Potter movies are faithful to the books, but are compressed a bit due to the length of the books.

[EliSnow]

Three that come immediately to mind:

Silence of the Lambs
To Kill A Mockingbird

and finally, the Godfather has to be the best adaption of all time, given how much better the movie was than the book, and that the movie is arguably the greatest movie of all time.

[feralBoy]

I think 3 really good movies that came out of books are:
"The princess bride" based on "the princess bride"
"Blade Runner" based on "Do androids dream of electric sheep?"
and the best of all time in my opinion.
"apocolypse now" based on "heart of darkness"

[klaus_kinski_Jr]

Well from the five clips that are online it looks like No Country For Old Men looks exactly like the book.

From Russia With Love
THe Long Goodbye (Altman version) - dsure its very 70's but it keeps the ending.

[Dudeman]

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/all-the-presidents-men-DVD-cover.jpg

best real life -> book -> movie

[IMSlacker]

I thought they did a really good job with The Green Mile, and of course there's always The Shining.

[Recyclerz]

I think 3 really good movies that came out of books are:
"The princess bride" based on "the princess bride"
"Blade Runner" based on "Do androids dream of electric sheep?"
and the best of all time in my opinion.
"apocolypse now" based on "heart of darkness"


First two are very strong picks but Apocalypse Now from Heart of Darkness is the winner. Coppola made the great artistic leap of the half century and, even though you could quibble over tiny issues in the movie, wound up with a masterpiece.

As a follow up, maybe we could get Paul O to adapt The Quiet American and put it in current day Iraq. :wink:

[suggums]

the only movie that outdoes a phenomenal book:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1330/8991_0007.jpg

[PapaBear]

the only movie that outdoes a phenomenal book:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1330/8991_0007.jpg
Yeah. Denzel Washington was good in that one!

[King Hippos Bandaid]

I liked the adaptation of Of Mice and Men, Malkovich did a Kick Ass Job

:king:

[TooLowBrow]

I hope they do a good job with 'the time traveler's wife'

[kevcala]

At risk of sounding terribly trite, Fear and Loathing was pretty true to the book.

[DarkHippie]

First two are very strong picks but Apocalypse Now from Heart of Darkness is the winner. Coppola made the great artistic leap of the half century and, even though you could quibble over tiny issues in the movie, wound up with a masterpiece.

As a follow up, maybe we could get Paul O to adapt The Quiet American and put it in current day Iraq. :wink:

i wouldn't call apocalypse now a real adaptation though. There are far too many differences.

[Bay Ridge Tim]

Trainspotting

Each are good in their own right and different enough to be enjoyed seperately.

[prothunderball]

the Godfather has to be the best adaption of all time, given how much better the movie was than the book, and that the movie is arguably the greatest movie of all time.

gotta agree there. After watching The Godfather, I was expecting a lot more from the book. It's not a bad book, but compared to the movie it's really not all that good.

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Hardcore King fans will disagree but I thought Shining was a good adaptation and even improved on the book. The frozen hedge maze was vastly better than the hedge animals come to life.

[feralBoy]

Hardcore King fans will disagree but I thought Shining was a good adaptation and even improved on the book. The frozen hedge maze was vastly better than the hedge animals come to life.

The shining movie that king did with the guy from wings was atrociously unwatchable. Kubriks version is amazing. One morning I woke up for work early, and I turned on the tv. The scene from the shining was on, with the twins in the hallway. Even though I saw it 100 times before it still freaked me out, and I had to turn it off...at 8am. That moving is amazing.

[El Mudo]

I thought "Full Metal Jacket" stayed very true to "The Short Timers" for the most part...even if it didn't follow the book exactly (the Marine Colonel that bitches out Joker in Hue has him relieved of his duty as a combat correspondent and sent into the bush as an infantryman), I think it stayed true to the spirit of the thing

[Chigworthy]

Silence of the Lambs


I do agree that the movie was pretty good off the book, but why change the damn wine to Chianti? Everyone knows that you need a decent Amarone to go with human liver and fava beans.

I'm hearing pretty good things about the Coen Brothers' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "No Country For Old Men." How can you go wrong?

[suggums]

i guess my picture didnt work and i cant edit, so:

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/OneCheswickMcmurphyChief.jpg

[PapaBear]

i guess my picture didnt work and i cant edit, so:

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/OneCheswickMcmurphyChief.jpg

Good adaptation, but it falls into the catagory of "Don't read the book first." I would have liked the movie more, if I hadn't already read the book.

BTW... Don't feel bad about the bad picture link the first time. It offered me the opportunity to make a joke that could have been good.... if I were good at jokes.

[Yerdaddy]

First two are very strong picks but Apocalypse Now from Heart of Darkness is the winner. Coppola made the great artistic leap of the half century and, even though you could quibble over tiny issues in the movie, wound up with a masterpiece.

As a follow up, maybe we could get Paul O to adapt The Quiet American and put it in current day Iraq. :wink:

The book already IS about Iraq. The latest movie is excellent except that one key part is way understated: the idealist/intellectual/ideological/academic background of the neocons that infected these people in the same way that they infected Pyle, and the willingness of the U.S. of the government to act on these impractical and untested theories an the public to accept the retarded premises that this combination present as justifications for our actions. In many ways both wars were wars to defend ideologies but presented as defending "Ameircan values", while they both were in fact monstrous violations of American values.

The book demontsrates this so honestly while the movie merely tries to suggest it - probably in an attempt to not offend the huge segment of the public that still backed those ideological premises at the time. And it's a shame.

Great book, good movie.

[Yerdaddy]

I do agree that the movie was pretty good off the book, but why change the damn wine to Chianti? Everyone knows that you need a decent Amarone to go with human liver and fava beans.

I'm hearing pretty good things about the Coen Brothers' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "No Country For Old Men." How can you go wrong?

Only thing that scares me about No Country is that the Coens could do no wrong until they adapted their last two films and they sucked ass.

So far their record is:

Original screenplay = 9-0
Adapted = 0-2

I'll be crushed if this one stinks.

[Yerdaddy]

i wouldn't call apocalypse now a real adaptation though. There are far too many differences.

That's exactly what I like about it - it demonstrates a monstrous achievement in adaptation because it does retain the themes of the book in a contemporary setting. I think, especially since it was made so soon after the Vietnam War. And in order to appreciate the work you have to see the documentary "Hearts of Darkness" that Coppola's wife made of the filming of that movie. It shows just how important Conrad's novella was to everyone involved in the making of that picture in the chaos of the Phillipines at the time - everyone except Brando that is.

[Yerdaddy]

[SPOILER] If you like the movie "Out of Sight" don't bother with the book. Even though he's my favorite contemporary author, Elmore Leonard's book ends with Karen Sisco shooting Foley in the leg and taking him to jail. Soderberg added the bit about Sisco arranging the ride with Hejira Henry to aid Foley's escape, which is a much more fun ending than the original. Leonard approved, i understand.

"A Clockwork Orange" is much better as a movie than a book despite being largely faithful. I couldn't get passed having to learn this pseudo-language from the glossary to get very far into the damn book. But with Kubrick's direction and McDowell's early shark-jumping performance I never struggled with the vocab.

"The Big Sleep" was a masterpiece in adaptation for the mere fact that the movie was able to get through the studio system while still being just as confusing as the book.

I found "Fear and Loathing" to be really interesting as a movie because, while it was largely faithful, the tone of Hunter S. Thompson's antics feel innocent and fun but put to film seem rather pathetic and sinister. And I think he would approve of this quality. I know he liked the movie.

All of Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespear to samurai pics are masterpieces.

T. E. Lawrence would have hated "Lawrence of Arabia". It distorted his story in such a way to make him not only the center of all the action - a historic period no less - but also to make him responsible for all of its events. While accused of being a shameless self-promoter in his lifetime his books make clear that he was not a driving force behind the Arab revolt but simply a witness and a liason between the British government and the Arabs. He had so much to say about the Arabs - bad and good but always, in my experience with them, honest and accurate - and yet the movie says almost nothing meaningful about them. Instead it's an homage to Western superiority over them, which Lawrence would have found contemptible, I think. It's a great epic adventure of a movie which is a shameful distortion of a great epic adventure of a book.

[badorties]

I do agree that the movie was pretty good off the book, but why change the damn wine to Chianti? Everyone knows that you need a decent Amarone to go with human liver and fava beans.

I'm hearing pretty good things about the Coen Brothers' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "No Country For Old Men." How can you go wrong?

i thought she was much more vunerable in the book thgat made for a better character than the wonder FBI rookie in the film

gotta agree there. After watching The Godfather, I was expecting a lot more from the book. It's not a bad book, but compared to the movie it's really not all that good.

the book was so horrible and lowbrow that the movie's brilliance transcends

[EliSnow]

Three that come immediately to mind:

Silence of the Lambs
To Kill A Mockingbird

and finally, the Godfather has to be the best adaption of all time, given how much better the movie was than the book, and that the movie is arguably the greatest movie of all time.

gotta agree there. After watching The Godfather, I was expecting a lot more from the book. It's not a bad book, but compared to the movie it's really not all that good.


the book was so horrible and lowbrow that the movie's brilliance transcends

Exactly. That's why I think it's the best adaption ever.

[badorties]

gost world and sin city were really great, and mother night was pretty strong

[Bay Ridge Tim]

[SPOILER] If you like the movie "Out of Sight" don't bother with the book. Even though he's my favorite contemporary author, Elmore Leonard's book ends with Karen Sisco shooting Foley in the leg and taking him to jail. Soderberg added the bit about Sisco arranging the ride with Hejira Henry to aid Foley's escape, which is a much more fun ending than the original. Leonard approved, i understand.

I hadn't read the book, but I hated that ending in the movie. The movie goes through so much trouble to establish her character is a strong-willed woman who isn't going to put her feelings for a man ahead of doing her job and ahead of doing the right thing. Then, in the very last scene, the movie undermines her entire character.

[Yerdaddy]

I hadn't read the book, but I hated that ending in the movie. The movie goes through so much trouble to establish her character is a strong-willed woman who isn't going to put her feelings for a man ahead of doing her job and ahead of doing the right thing. Then, in the very last scene, the movie undermines her entire character.

Good point, but I don't think it's a departure from her established character. She's not going to jepardize her job by NOT arresting (and shooting) Foley, so she does it. But she's at least smitten with him and, more importantly wants to keep playing the cat-and-mouse game (that we just found so entertaining in the movie} and possibly take some more "time-outs" so she waits an extra day to pick up the escape artist so Foley can escape without her getting fired. That's why I like the ending - the story goes on.

[realmenhatelife]

[SPOILER] If you like the movie "Out of Sight" don't bother with the book. Even though he's my favorite contemporary author, Elmore Leonard's book ends with Karen Sisco shooting Foley in the leg and taking him to jail. Soderberg added the bit about Sisco arranging the ride with Hejira Henry to aid Foley's escape, which is a much more fun ending than the original. Leonard approved, i understand.

"A Clockwork Orange" is much better as a movie than a book despite being largely faithful. I couldn't get passed having to learn this pseudo-language from the glossary to get very far into the damn book. But with Kubrick's direction and McDowell's early shark-jumping performance I never struggled with the vocab.

"The Big Sleep" was a masterpiece in adaptation for the mere fact that the movie was able to get through the studio system while still being just as confusing as the book.

I found "Fear and Loathing" to be really interesting as a movie because, while it was largely faithful, the tone of Hunter S. Thompson's antics feel innocent and fun but put to film seem rather pathetic and sinister. And I think he would approve of this quality. I know he liked the movie.

All of Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespear to samurai pics are masterpieces.

T. E. Lawrence would have hated "Lawrence of Arabia". It distorted his story in such a way to make him not only the center of all the action - a historic period no less - but also to make him responsible for all of its events. While accused of being a shameless self-promoter in his lifetime his books make clear that he was not a driving force behind the Arab revolt but simply a witness and a liason between the British government and the Arabs. He had so much to say about the Arabs - bad and good but always, in my experience with them, honest and accurate - and yet the movie says almost nothing meaningful about them. Instead it's an homage to Western superiority over them, which Lawrence would have found contemptible, I think. It's a great epic adventure of a movie which is a shameful distortion of a great epic adventure of a book.

I have to go the exact opposite for Clockwork orange, the movie misses the biggest point that Alex grows out of destruction and realizes the value of creation. At the end of the movie Alex is still a cocky hero, but in the last chapter (21, no coincidence) of the book he is humbled and changed.

Is the original question truest adaptation or best movie from material already made, cus these two things are way different.

[Yerdaddy]

I have to go the exact opposite for Clockwork orange, the movie misses the biggest point that Alex grows out of destruction and realizes the value of creation. At the end of the movie Alex is still a cocky hero, but in the last chapter (21, no coincidence) of the book he is humbled and changed.

Is the original question truest adaptation or best movie from material already made, cus these two things are way different.

Like I said, I never finished the book. Too many paper cuts flipping to the glossary. It what you say is true I like the movie better unless there was a really good reason for Alex to make a 180 degree turnaround. Sounds unrealistic and the film ending works as social commentary. But, like Kubrick, I'm not an optimist.

[burrben]

and the best of all time in my opinion.
"apocolypse now" based on "heart of darkness"

agreed

[KnoxHarrington]

I thought that "Fight Club" actually improved on the book in one regard: the ending. The movie's ending is far better.

I'll have to give a shout-out to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, in two regards: first, it actually took the time and the risk to take the amount of time required to really tell the story (rather than trying to compress it into a single movie), and, secondly, it gave a lot of the characters emotional depth and heft that Tolkien didn't. Tolkien wanted the book to read like one of the old epics, like a Beowulf or Song of Roland or Gilgamesh, so he didn't bother too much with making the characters like real people. Jackson filled in some of that missing background, and for the most part, it really, really worked.

[docgoblin]

I always thought many of the King adaptations were very good. Kubrick's Shining was terrific. The Green Mile was excellent. De Palma's Carrie still holds up. Misery was great. I loved Cronenberg's The Dead Zone because of Christopher Walken. Shawshank was pretty faithful to the short story. I even liked the mini-series' they did based on "Salem's Lot," "The Stand" and "It." Unfortunately most of the adaptations of his books are crap. Firestarter, Cat's Eye, Christine, Cujo, Children of the Corn (all of 'em), Pet Sematary and so many others are god awful. The remakes of The Shining and Carrie were terrible as well. If you check IMDB he's got like 6 movies in pre or post production. Didn't he say he was burned out about 15 years ago? The man never stops working.

[LiddyRules]

I always thought many of the King adaptations were very good What I realized about King adaptations is that when people try to humanize the books, they turn out really, really well. When they don't, well, you know.

For example: Carrie, Shining (Kubrick Version), Shawshank (which I didn't care for but others seem to like), Misery, Stand by Me, Dead Zone, etc. All very human stories with an occasional touch of supernaturality.

But when they decide to go overboard with the horror it doesn't work.

This is strictly about movies, I don't have my verdict on the tv movies yet as I haven't seen either Stand or It in years (though I do remember liking It in my younger days), Steven Weber's Shining was shit, and haven't seen the others.

[foodcourtdruide]

For risk of being made fun of, I have to go with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I thought the movies were on par with the books and one even got an oscar for best picture.

I can already hear Ron hanging up on me disgusted.

[docgoblin]

I thought Clint was very true to the book with Flags Of Our Fathers. The oly critcism I had was there was too much left out. But the movie would have to be 4 hours to fit everything. I guess that's the case for most book adaptations.

[docgoblin]

I just saw a trailer for a new movie, "1408," with John Cusack. It's based on a King book. The trailer looks great. I never read this book but was thinking of picking it up today. Has anyone read it? If so, I'd like some input.

[furie]

Dune