Bad books into good movies?

[Catrandom]

We've all seen plenty of good books turned into bad movies, but I'm in the middle of an e-mail debate with an acquaintance, and we're discussing the opposing possibility.

Somewhere along the way a middling-to-bad book must have been made into a really good movie, but we can't think of any examples. A bit of help, y'all?

[Falcon]

Well, I thought Last of the Mohicans wasn't that good of a book, and I adore the movie.....

But that's just me.

[divemaster]

How about Forrest Gump? I really liked the movie, but the book was ridiculous.

I've heard the the book version of The Exorcist was far inferior to the movie; but I never read it.

This should probably be in IMHO.

[Freudian Slit]

No. The Exorcist is equally as good a movie as it was a book. If anything better as I felt the movie left out too much.

I thought Shawshank Redemption made a better movie. (It was a good book and I liked it better after watching it, but I still enjoyed the film more.)

That's all I can think of. I'm not much of a movie person, so I'm stuck for now...

[Persephone]

Although I've not read it myself, I've heard that Shoeless Joe, the book upon which the movie Field of Dreams was based, was pretty mediocre. The movie was, IMHO, outstanding.

[andygirl]

The book Forrest Gump was horrid.

Mrs. Doubtfire was beyond horrid. Don't even read it to see how bad it is- the book has no redeeming qualities, save that a decent movie came from it.

[InternetLegend]

I know they made a movie of "Bridges of Madison County," and it's hard to imagine it could have sucked as badly as the book did. I don't know firsthand, though - I had the misfortune of having read the book, so I couldn't see the movie for fear it would trigger flashbacks.

[Typo Negative]

'To have and have not' with Humphry Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Great film based on a horrid Ernest Hemmingway story.

[CalMeacham]

I'm sorry to admit that I've neither read the book it's based onm, nor seen the movie all the way through, but it's my understanding that Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" is based on a pretty forgettable book. What I've seen of the movie is superb, but it's clearly a case of the film-making transcending the source.

[AWB]

Books to be ignored: those written after the movie. Star Trek has done this a number of times. Each book was not worth the recycle value of the wood pulp it was written on.

[Hamadryad]

I think "The Witches of Eastwick" is an entertaining story. It doesn't make for any great strides in feminism or anything (snerk), but it's a really fun litle movie. I bought the (John Updike) book on the assumption that the book is ALWAYS better than the movie, which had been my experience.

I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

The book - by the supposedly fabulous John Updike - sucked the glistening pustules off of a dead rabbit's gonorrheaic testicles. I heartily do NOT the hell recommend it.

[Bottle of Smoke]

InternetLegend -- I saw the movie The Bridges of Madison County, and it was actually a very good movie. Of course, it helped that it starred Meryl Streep and Clint Eastwood (and was directed by Eastwood), two people who know their way around a movie.

I had the same intial reaction as you, though. I didn't want to see it because I had read the book (well, tried to read it) and it sucked so bad that I didn't think a movie could be made that didn't carry some residual suckiness.

[egkelly]

This is going back a bit, but two I can think of:
THE GODFATHER was a lousy book, but the movie version was excellent. also JAWS-the book was infantile-it read like it was written by a 5th-grader-but the movie was pretty entertaining (of course they had tpo throw in lots if skin).

[Ruffian]

I can think of several examples where a mediocre book was translated into a mediocre-to-maybe-slightly-above-average film, but not bad into good.

I enjoyed the film version of The Firm better than the book, and found its ending far more interesting, satisfying, and believable (though I don't remember it now). That's about as close as it gets.

Mainly, if a book sucks, I don't read it (or, at least finish it). By far the biggest pile of literary crap I've read in recent memory is The Horse Whisperer; to borrow the phrase from another Doper, I cannot imagine the film sucking as much as that book did. Anyone read it and see the film have a comment on that?

[Enderw24]

I saw the subject of this thread and a milisecond later Forrest Gump came to mind. I'm so glad I wasn't the first to say it. The movie was absolutely nothing like the book except they had the same main characters. For that I am eternally grateful because that book was just one big disaster. Did they bother with an editor?

I actually liked the books The Godfather and The Firm, but I agree, the movies were better.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Schindler's List. I gave up halfway through the book because the author's grammar and style were so atrocious.

I also think the film version of Washington Square was better than the book, but since I don't like Henry James anyway, I am probably biased.

[idiotboy]

Jurassic Park is one book I think of as being much worse than the movie. As with most Michael Crichton books, the extensive lengths he goes to to write technical background for half of the book before the first character is even introduced. However, the movie was very exciting and I understood the whole "Technical" side of the story in a quick 30 minutes of a movie rather than a boring 200 pages of a book!

[Geek Mecha]

Originally posted by Ruffian
I enjoyed the film version of The Firm better than the book, and found its ending far more interesting, satisfying, and believable (though I don't remember it now). That's about as close as it gets.

McDeere nailed them with numerous counts of mail fraud. Personally, I didn't care for that ending, and I would have preferred them tackle it the book's way. I can imagine Annie Potts playing the secretary, dragging suitcases full of documents back and forth...

The Firm was the best Grisham novel-based movie, IMO. The Pelican Brief was lame, as were A Time to Kill and The Client.

[Ruffian]

idiotboy, I too thought of Jurassic Park, but that was more a case of an okay-to-mediocre book (IMHO) being turned into, well, a mediocre-to-above-average movie. JP (the movie) would have been considerably better if they hadn't gone for the cheap shots (cutesy kids, lovable grandpa, ridiculously cartoony nightvision glasses, etc); develop the characters more, and it could've been on par with Jaws.

Hmm...this was the case of another book ending by Grisham that I thought was rather lame. The movie's ending was more fun, if nothing else.

The Lost World, on the other hand, just plain sucked--the book, in particular. The movie was marginally better, but couldn't be anywhere near "good."

[Scupper]

Christine - A horrid Stephen King book turned into a quite creepy film.

Jaws - A mediocre book with a dreary, unsatisfying conclusion turned into a fantastic film.

[ThisYearsGirl]

I thought Fight Club was a very mediocre and badly written book; it's only good quality is that it could be read within a few hours. But the movie was great.