The weird thing is that it’s not even suspenseful. You’re never introduced to the character; you just have a group of rabbits and then a hawk flies over and yoink! “Hey, Violet’s gone!” (Who?)
Only thing I can think of is to explain why there’s no female rabbits (in the book it’s just an oops and poor planning) although poor Violet was going to have a rough time of it if she was the only doe in the new warren. Maybe better that the hawk got her 
Like the aforementioned The Andromeda Strain, both are a couple of the very few real “science” fiction movies. The protagonists are scientists who are faced with a technologically-based problem, and have to solve it using existing scientific knowledge and technology.
Most “science fiction” movies are just adventure movies with fantasy props, like light sabers and alien monsters and time travel and wormholes.
Real “Science” Fiction movies would probably be a good thread topic.
Robert Wise did another excellent adaptation with The Haunting.
Another Crichton adaptation that I liked and was faithful to the book was The 10th Warrior.
To answer the thread title, no. There have been movie adaptations of books that I have loved (or at least greatly appreciated), such as 1408, The Princess Bride, Gone Girl, and The Fight Club. And in some cases, if I like the movie enough I will read the book afterwards. But I cannot think of an example where I read the book first and then adored the movie. Makes me wonder if I might have adored the movie had I not read the book first.
I never read the book, but Hitchcock did a fantastic job of placing front and center the one character that is never seen or heard. I find it hard to imagine how the book could convey the overbearing presence of a person who is not there the way that movie did. I think it ranks as one of the best movies of, well, ever.
I’ve probably watched this movie 50+ times. I love everything about it. Mrs. Van Hopper stubbing out her cigarette in the jar of cold cream (which she also does in the book). George Sanders is divine–the way he chucks that chicken drumstick out of the car window–priceless! I love how the heroine, in a stroke of du Maurier genius, is never named, while Rebecca’s name is on the cover of the book, fer chrissakes! I love when Mrs. Danvers shows Joan Fontaine all of the beautiful clothes in Rebecca’s closet-- including underwear crocheted by nuns. I love the huge breakfast and how Joan doesn’t eat ANY of it! I love most of all how once Maxim reveals his true relationship with Rebecca, Joan matures overnight, changing her hair and her clothes and finally speaking to the butler with easy authority.
It won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Cinematography and was nominated for
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Laurence Olivier
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Joan Fontaine
Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Judith Anderson
Best Director
Alfred Hitchcock
Best Writing, Screenplay
Robert E. Sherwood
Joan Harrison
Best Art Direction, Black-and-White
Lyle R. Wheeler
Best Film Editing
Hal C. Kern
Best Effects, Special Effects
Jack Cosgrove (photographic)
Arthur Johns (sound)
Best Music, Original Score
Franz Waxman
There have been other versions, including a miniseries with Charles Dance and even one with Jeremy Brett as Maxim (I acquired a bootleg video of it), but none of them even comes close to the 1940 movie.
EAT: here’s a bit of trivia I just read on the IMDB:
Hitchcock was a genius bastard.
I always go with 1984 when I answer this question. I have never seen a movie which so perfectly captures the mood/spirit of a book. Plus it is extraordinarily faithful to the story as written. A nearly perfect adaptation - casting, production design, even the washed-out color palette.
I’m going to go against the grain here and say the LotR movies did not meet my expectations. While there were a lot of great things in the movies (especially the sets - they absolutely nailed Minas Tirith, Edoras, and Helm’s Deep), and I don’t hold cutting elements (Bombadil, etc.) for time (although I do wish they could have fit in the Taming of the Shire), I really despise how they reduced Merry and Pippen (and to a lesser extent Gimli) to comic relief. In the books they played key roles in planning and executing Frodo’s escape from the Shire - they were not two fools who were accidentally caught up in the quest. I also did not particularly like the casting/acting of Elijah Wood as Frodo - I never got a feeling from the book that Frodo was a whiny, spacey wimp.
As an adaptation of the stage musical, yes. As an adaptation of the book, not so much (although in the movie version they do include a few tidbits from the book that aren’t in the stage version).
The 13th Warrior, actually*, but I agree with you. It’s one of the more interesting adaptations of Beowulf (I have a collection of these videos. For some reason a lot of them came out about the same time). I understand that Crichton himself took over directing at the end, because he thought it was departing too much from his book and tone.
*I remember the number because, even though we think of 13 as “unlucky”, the Antonio Banderas character was chosen as the thirteenth member of the party to make it a lucky number. If that sounds very reminiscent of Bilbo Baggins being chosen as the unlikely 14th member of the Drwarves’ party, congratulation! Tolkien lifted quite a bit from Beowulf for The Hobbit.
Was there 13 warriors in Beowulf?
The Fact Site states that 40 real squirrels were trained to handle the nuts in the movie, by an animal trainer. It took 19 weeks of training. Though there may have been more shown in the movie, they were real, not CGI squirrels.
Yeah, thanks for the correction. I must have been thinking of the 10th Victim, which was a not so bad adaptation of The 7th Victim.
I thought the Vikings were still pagan in the novel and film, so probably didn’t consider 13 as unlikely - which was probably a Christian belief from the number at the Last Supper. But the Norse also supposedly considered it unlucky, as Loki was the 13th guest at a party in Asgard.
I noticed that, too. And yes, it is not too faithful in parts but as an immensely “dense” novel, I thought the play and movie both did a good job of condensing the fantastic number of subplots.
I will go even further against the grain, against all modern convention, even. The place where they truly lost me was a particular shot that followed Legolas as he swung on a rope under one of those oliphaunts.
And I find this true of most action sequences. They go on waaay too long. I get bored of all the excess motion or the fighting, because it is, besides being unrealistic, almost always artless. Jackie Chan is one of the few who was able to portray amusing combat, but most fights drag on to “alright, already!”
Agreed. Also disappointing was the Council of Elrond, where the wisest persons of Middle Earth, some of them thousands of years old, are shown acting like selfish children. Also, Jackson likes to magnify the powers of some of the evil characters (Uruk-hai, the Witch King) just to juice up the fight scenes. The movies are too dumbed-down.
Lonesome Dove was an excellent adaptation of the novel. Of course, it was six hours worth of miniseries, so they had plenty of time to work with all the characters.
The animated version of The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath is, to me, excellent. The art is dead-on perfect, the limited animation is effective enough, and the musical score is fantastic. The voice acting kind of sucks, but it’s a low-budget indie animated film. Given the constraints, it’s very good. It follows the story so closely you can just watch the soundtrack-only version and still follow it, if you know the tale.
I thought Predestination was a fantastic version of Robert Heinlein’s ‘All You Zombies’. And easily the best Heinlein film. I figured they’d leave the gender change stuff intact since it’s so integral to the plot, but was amazed they stuck with that ‘past future’ setting, with '70s space travel and such.
And while there’s no individual ‘book’ per se, I thought The Adventures of Baron Munchausen captured the feel of the original stories quite nicely. And it may be the only movie adaptation improved by adding a small child to it, to keep the Baron moving.
Clarke’s book, 2001 A Space Odyssey, was a good adaptation of the movie. 
I think, technically, they were done together, but the film was started first. Not surprisingly, the book is quite good. If you liked the film, the books make it crystal clear what was going on at the beginning (the ape-man sequence) and the end (the psychedelic part).
I read the book several times before seeing the movie. The book has that goofy fuck-up with Enceladus blinking at us, but I still prefer Saturn to Jupiter.
I love The Langoliers. It did a great job with the source material. It had its problems (some truly atrocious acting from Dean Stockwell and whoever played Dinah the little blind girl, and the bad CGI of the Langoliers themselves) but most of the main actors did a good job (particularly Mark Lindsay Chapman, David Morse, and Bronson Pinchot chewing the hell out of the scenery as the villain). I own the DVD and still watch it occasionally.
As for other movies, add my vote for Watchmen. Loved the graphic novel, and the movie did a great job of capturing most of it.
I did not know that either Kadath or Predestination existed, so thanks!