Good Book to Movie Adaptations

In My Humble Opinion
1

This was inspired by some recent threads, but particularly this thread, where Pyrronhist seems to suggest that there is no such thing as a good movie adaptation of a book. Personally, I disagree, and I thought I’d start this thread to see if any others can name exceptions to this. Of Mice and Men has already been mentioned in the earlier link.

Not that Pyrronhist is totally off-base. I do believe that in nearly every instance where a book was adapted to the movie, the book version remains superior to the film version. Part of this may be Hollywood’s inclination to muck about with the original story in order to make it more palatable for the mass audience (Memoirs of an Invisible Man, for instance). Part of this may be the screenwriter’s incompetence (David Lynch’s Dune). Part of this may be that the novel is a fundamentally different medium for conveying a story than the big screen, and therefore many of the elements that make for a successful novel do not translate well to a foreign medium (The Color Purple).

But in my opinion, there are a few that are at least as satisfying as the original source material, or perhaps even better.

The first example that comes to mind is Fight Club, based on the book by Chuck Palahniuk. I saw the movie first, and was amazed when I read the book how accurately they captured the spirit of it. At least I believed they did.

I felt that the miniseries adaptation of Stephen King’s The Stand was a damn good adaptation, especially for the television medium.

Thomas Harris’s novel The Silence of the Lambs was made into a movie that I believe will someday be regarded as one of the classics of the 20th Century.

I was pretty satisfied with the movie adaptation of What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?, starring Johnny Depp.

I haven’t read L.A. Confidential, but I’ve been assured by friends who have read it that the book is an impenetrable prose swamp, and that the movie version (which I have seen) is far superior in clarity.

The Wizard of Oz was based on the book by Frank L. Baum (?), and I think that movie’s reputation is pretty well established.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was based on a Roald Dahl book. Great adaptation, in my opinion.

As for Pyrronhist’s comments regarding movie adaptations of Shakespeare, I have this to say: Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be seen and heard, not read. That’s why I’ve never had a problem with film adaptations of Shakespeare’s works. Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V was a brilliant adaptation, as was Roman Polanski’s Macbeth.

All these titles come off the top of my head. I’m sure others out there can name a few that I’ve missed or haven’t seen. Anyone care to back me up on this?

2

I agree with Of Mice and Men.

I think that Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas was done pretty well, or at least as well as it could be done.

I haven’t read it, but the lady and I just rented Wonder Boys, and she read the book first. She said it was very well done – I trust her opinion.

3

…Keeping the Stephen King vein, I’d have to say:

  1. “Stand By Me” which was based on the short story “The Body”

  2. “The Shawshank Redemption” from “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption”

  3. “It” was pretty close to the book, and pretty good for a miniseries.

  4. “Misery” The only difference being that, in the book, Paul Sheldon’s foot (or feet…been a while since I read it) was actually amputated by Annie Wilkes.

  5. “Delores Claiborne” WAS true to the book. But, since the book was written purely as a statement to the police following the death of Delores’ boss, there was some tinkering that had to be done. Overall, it stayed pretty true to the book, though.

  6. “The Green Mile” I’ve watched this a few times, and I haven’t found any differences worth really noting.

4

The Andromeda Strain was one of the most faithful adaptations of the book to a movie I’ve seen. The biggest change was the sex of one major character, from male to female. And this was seven years before Alien got raves for doing the same thing.

Goldfinger was actually better as a movie than a book. The villains (aside from Goldfinger and Oddjob) weren’t as cartoonish in the movie as in the book (believe it or not), and the premise was made more believable.

I’m gonna get hit for this, but I thought ** Gone With the Wind** was adapted fairly well, despite the changes.

Day of the Jackal, my all-time favorite thriller, maintained its suspense and edge as a movie. They had to cut some of the book out, but they didn’t want a six-hour movie. Ignore the lame remake.

1984, the John Hurt/Richard Burton version actually made in 1984 (in areas of London, for authenticity) was amazingly faithful – far more than the Edmund O’Brien version from the 1950s.

Manhunter. Despite what was said in the “Bad Adaptations” thread, I thought the first movie to feature Hannibal Lektor (the way they spelled it here) was better than the book. At least they got rid of the very cliched “is he alive or dead” ending of the book. The film, directed by Michael Mann, was stylish and well done. William Peterson’s agent Will Graham was presented as a human, not a thinking machine. I loved the scenes between him and his son. Brian Cox was superb as Hannibal, and stole the show. I’m sure this is what convinced Thonas Harris to write sequels giving Hannibal more “air time”.

The Stephen King movies I and others have already mentioned – ** Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Stand by Me, The Dead Zone, Dolores Claiborne**

5

A Clockwork Orange. And I ditto the fact that 1984 was a great adaptation. Not only was it filmed in 1984, but it was syncronized to the correct dates. The part where Winston was writing out his diary on April 4, 1984 was actually filmed on April 4, 1984. And etc.

The October 2000 TNT adapation of Orwell’s Animal Farm was pretty cool. I thought it was a lot better than that crappy cartoon that they showed us my sophmore year in high school.

6

I can’t believe no one has yet mentioned The Princess Bride. Goldman wrote the screenplay based on his own book, but still… I was amazed when I read it (after repeated viewings of the film) that much of the dialogue is lifted verbatim.

There are slight changes, but they only make the movie better from a movie standpoint. The book’s Buttercup is rather stupid, and that wouldn’t play well on film. And the ending in the book is a great book ending, but would make movie audiences howl in outrage. (I won’t be a spoiler for those who haven’t read the book. But read the book!)

AFAIR, no new characters are added and all the important characters are pretty much intact and are true to the book (Buttercup excepted). Even Peter Cook’s bishop is based on the way the book’s bishop talks. Billy Crystal’s Miracle Max is another example. All directly from the way these characters are described in the book.

The other story, with the kid and his grandfather, is a reworking of a similar plot device in the book that also would not translate well to the screen.

The Princess Bride rocks.

7

High Fidelity. The book was awesome and the film was great. The major difference was the change in musical references, which changed the meanings somewhat, but overall made it more accessable to the American audience that it targetted.

Forrest Gump. True to the book, to say the least.

Fried Green Tomatoes. Same spirit, two different stories. Both were good.

8

“Greed” was an excellent version of “McTeague.” Extremely faithful to the book – which is why it originally ran eight hours.

Roald Dahl is very well represented in films. Not only with “Charlie/Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” but also with “James and the Giant Peach” and “The Witches.” Not to mention Alfred Hitchcock’s version of his short story “Lamb to the Slaughter” for television.

The John Huston version of “The Maltese Falcon” also does the book justice, especially since it was extremely faithful. Huston also did a good job with “The African Queen.”

The Alaistir Sim version of “A Christmas Carol” does the originaly story justice, though with so many attempts, it’s not surprising someone got it right eventually.

Similarly, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a decent adaptation of the original story (“The Greatest Gift”), though much more sentimental and less subtle.

“Tune in Tomorrow” was a nice adaptation of “Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter,” managing to translate a South American magic realism novel into an American setting.

9

This is a joke, right?

10

I’ll echo Lamia, and ask if you’re kidding. I’ve read the book, and it is stunningly different from the movie. Despite its detractors (and it does have plenty of them), I actually like the movie quite a bit. The book is moronic, and I’m not referring to the quality of the protagonist. It is just so poorly written that it makes me wonder how it ever got optioned for movie rights. I think that this is a clear example where the movie version was definitely superior to the book version.

You’re right, DAVEW0071, how in the world could have I forgotten The Princess Bride? A more perfect adaptation of a book I cannot imagine.

11

“Where the Heart Is”–Wonderful book, and I think the movie added to its sweetness.

I’ve worked for Wal-Mart for 10 yrs, and found a lot of the Wally-world spoofing both true and very funny.

Gone With the Wind (although it’s been a long time since I read it)

12

Well, the first one that came to mind was Fight Club. Most of the film comes from the book verbatim, with changes made in several scenes and the ending. I actually like the changed scenes (specifically how the narrator meets Tyler, and how they get fat). They’re different, but good. However, I was kinda disappointed by the movie ending. The rest was great, though.

Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was a great movie/book adaptation.

High Fidelity was very well done, IMHO. I was really surprised at how well, actually (I thought such a popular book would be impossible to do justice). A lot of what was in the film came right from the book. Sure there were changes (plot shortened up, ending, British-to-American) but it still captured the soul of the book. I was actually surprised at how few songs were changed.

13

When I was a young man and Branagh’s Henry V was new on the screen, I thought it was an excellent adaptation too. Years later, I saw a staged production of Henry V, wondering how they would fit all that grand action on a little stage, and came away, after a stunning performance, with realization that Branagh had have had his head up his backside when he made his film with all that unnecessary cinematic gobbledygook. The play is the thing and the lushness of film simply distracts and does not enhance.

I truly awful film version of Shakespeare, the one that forever has cause me to forsake Shakespeare on film, was Ian McKellen’s Richard III. I had seen it on stage by the Royal Shakespeare with McKellen and thought it was a brilliant production. I was quite looking forward to the movie at the time, believing I’d re-see the excellence I’d seen on stage. How wrong I was. It was like expecting a meal of filet mignon and being served horseflesh instead. The same words, same actors, and same concept did so well on stage, but bombed like Dresden on the screen in comparison.

Sorry for the hijack.

14

To Kill a Mockingbird was both a great book AND movie! The movie was faithful to the book, sort of a Readers Digest Condensed version, but it didn’t muck about with the characters or themes.

15

Cold Comfort Farm- can’t remember the author right now, but I thought the movie was a great adaptation… it has some excellent actors, too. Sort of a coincidence, eh? (That’s where I got ‘Flora Poste’)

16

The Talented Mr. Ripley, by Patricia Highsmith, was translated to the screen very nicely. (Director: Anthony Minghella)

17

Rear Window was a novella that ran 91 pages.

Hichcock shot it. With one little twist.

18

I liked Branaugh’s version of Henry V, but wasn’t as impressed with his Hamlet.

Generally, I tend to prefer the BBC versions of Shakespearean plays to Branaugh, Olivier, or the other movie treatments (Titus, Midsummer, etc.)

The Brando as Mark Antony version of Julius Caesar was far better than the mediocre Charlton Heston as Mark Antony version. (Jason Robards is incredibly wooden as Brutus)

Not a movie but a miniseries, but I, Claudius was excellent. My favorite miniseries of all time.

19

My nomination of an excellent book-to-film adaptation, Never Cry Wolf, is a very good example of what needs to be done to successfully make the transition.

Farley Mowat’s wonderful book is folksy, chatty, and very detailed about the behavior. He, himself, doesn’t play much part in the book, except as an impartial observer. If the movie had tried to follow that specific superficial approach, it would have been almost unwatchably boring. The closest cinematic form is documentary, and if you try to do what is essentially a documentary in a story format, it’s dull, dull, dull. Do a documentary, or do a fiction-type story; don’t try to mix them. The results are rarely (I won’t say never; there are occasional exceptions) worthwhile.

However, the overall objective of the book was to convey Mowat’s fascination with the wolves, and his changing perception of them. He did this with his own inimitable writing and storytelling style, but the overarching point was how he had to erase his preconceptions and learn about wolves anew.

The filmmakers, very wisely, recognized this basic truth, and abandoned Mowat’s superficial documentary-style methods as unworkable. They changed the focus of the movie’s story: Instead of just looking at the wolves, they looked at how the protagonist looked at wolves. We identify closely with a human protagonist, and therefore, in the end, the movie succeeds in bringing the audience on the same journey as the book, but it does it in a radically different manner.

The movie is very smart about including small details from the book (the bureaucratic lists at the beginning, the weird stuff they send with him, etc.), and they also make a point of manufacturing some quirky, offbeat adventures to communicate the same gently grinning tone as the book. The filmmakers also invent wholesale the bit with the wolf hunter at the end, in order to put the necessary dramatic “button” on the movie, without which drama simply doesn’t work.

So: You have a movie that operates very differently from the source book, but in doing so it arrives at the same ultimate effect and conclusion.

Rather an instructive example, I think.

20

Let’s file this one under wishful thinking, but all I’ve read and seen so far indicates that Lord of the Rings is going to rock!

The director, Peter Jackson, has a sound resume for good movies (“Heavenly Creatures”) and he’s a nut for the fantasy/sci-fi genre. He was the one who convinced the backers that three movies absolutely had to be done, and helped figure out how to shoot the Hobbit actors so they don’t look like midgets.

The snippets in the preview look GREAT as well! Just ignore the music and the voice-over and look at the pictures. There’s a sharpness about them, a lushness that’s almost painterly (I’m thinking particularly the scene in which the Fellowship crosses the mountain ridge). It just doesn’t look like a buncha actors in rented costumes.

See, I’m NOT a drooling fanboy and had been burned before by LOTR (remember Bakshi’s version? Oh, Ghod!). And I know some of the female parts have been bulked up because Liv Tyler’s in this and she has to do something other than look etherial.

Well, we’ll find out in December, won’t we?