Is there any film that actually does justice to the book?

You'll only get subjective answers to your question.

My opinion: Gone With the Wind and Trainspotting

In my opinion, To Kill A Mockingbird and Slaughterhouse-five.

For more recent choices -- I thought Cold Mountain was well done, and I also just saw The Namesake and really enjoyed it. I like movies that really don't change the book much at all. I liked Gone with the Wind but I didn't like that no mention was made of Scarlett's other children.

Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King

I'll play the politician and answer a question different from yours ;) I don't know that the film The Name of the Rose was all that great a translation of the book to screen, but we were mentioning in another thread that it definitely helped wrap our heads around the book. Additionally, although it's a different beast I think the movie works as a movie. I certainly enjoy it.

All Quiet on the Western Front You want the black and white version of the movie since, short of leaving a few details out due to time, it doesn't deviate from the plot. It's amazing and quite powerful.
Same thing with Johnny Got His Gun (Yes, the one that's clipped into an old Metallica video.)

I'll second To Kill a Mockingbird.

And I'll nominate the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma. It might have been for TV (I don't remember, and saw it through Netflix), but it kept very well to the book and fit neatly to the standard movie time slot.

I just read Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith, and would say the film did it proud. I agree with above, GWTW. I also liked Shining, The.

The Grapes of Wrath almost does, but then it lops off the last 1/3 of the book, ending it on a hopeful note instead of a happy-but-hopeless note.

I thought the movie version of A Room with a View did an excellent job of reflecting the book. The cast were excellent and really brought out the quirks of the characters, especially Dame Maggie and DDL.

If my memory serves me I thought the movie version of Of Mice and Men with Gary Sinise was a
good representation.

I'll give and aye aye for To Kill a Mockingbird.

I give a boo to the LOTR movies. IT's impossible to do justice to the books. They're great films, they just can catch enough of the books in the time allotted.

For me It was a good movie. As well as the stand. I know they were mini-series but...

The 1st HP movie did well I thought.

Before I opened this thread, the first movie that came to mind was To Kill a Mockingbird. I wonder if it's because it was made before marketing depts. and focus groups got so involved in film making?

I'd raise the ante (though it's technically a short story and not a book) and say that Paul Auster's "Auggie Wren's Christmas Story" isn't nearly as interesting as the film adaptation in Wayne Wang's movie "Smoke".

I thought The Prestige was actually better than the book (I enjoyed the book too, but I thought the movie was tighter and hung together a bit better). I wonder if my opinion would have been different if I'd read it first, then seen it.

I also vote for Gone With the Wind and To Kill a Mockingbird, and will add Dr Zhivago, all of which I consider great movies in their own right. Yet... all of these books were better.

I wonder if part of the equation is whether one reads the book before or after seeing the movie. I don't think anyone will visualize a book exactly as the movie-maker does, but if you see the movie first, then those visualizations carry over into the book.

As for Lord of the Rings, I do think that it did "justice" to the books, as well as anyone could, though it still falls far short of the written trilogy.

I remember thinking that the tv version of To Serve them all my days by R. F. Delderfield was pretty faithful to the book.

I think the movie version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is regarded as pretty faithful to the book.

When I was kid in the 1950's. I didn't like Walt Disney movies because I thought they were unfaithful to the books.

Oh, and The Godfather - the movie may be even better than the book.

I'll agree with the posters who cite To Kill a Mockingbird, but disagree with those who thought Gone With the Wind was faithful to the book.

Perhaps because I read GWTW incessantly as a teenager, I was quite bothered by the parts they left out (including 2 of Scarlet's children). I will grant, however, that the scenes they chose to film were great visualizations of the same scenes in the book.

The OP asked about movies that did justice to their book counterparts. To me, that's different than being faithful to the original book.

Out of Africa was very different than the book, but excellent. They're not really comparable.

I loved the book the Hours, but I really, really loved the movie.

The Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice is wonderful, as is Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. The movie Tristram Shandy is hilarious and watchable, while most people find the book almost impossible to read. Room with a View starring Helena Bonham Carter is superb, I found the book a titch boring. I really like what the film makers did with Virginia Woolf's Orlando. I also agree with many of the suggestions made already on this thread.

Did these films do justice to their book sources? In my opinion they did. A lot of LTers slag movies made from books, but many of my favourite movies were made from books, so I can't join in.

Lots of great suggestions here! A few have already commented on A Room with a View, but so far I don't see Forster's Howards End - one of my favorite books AND films ever. I saw the movie in the theater and liked it all right, then read the book for the first time several months after - just as the movie was coming out on video. I fell in love with the book, and immediately rented the video to re-watch the movie, which I appreciated 100 times more after reading the book. To me, it's as close to a perfect balance as one can have - not only both being excellent on their own, but COMPLEMENTING each other.

I don't know wha other people think, but I really thought the movie of Ian McEwan's Atonement was excellent. Not only was it faithful to the book - in fact I don't think I've ever seen a more faithful translation of any book to the screen - but it managed to catch the feel and flow of McEwan's writing.

Nickelini -- Was the Tristram Shandy movie this one directed by Michael Winterbottom in 2005?

I really enjoyed the novel (I guess it's at least something of a novel). I read the Norton Critical Edition that shows up, now anyways, at your link; I found the commentary, against expectation, to be tedious.

From a recent reading and looking into The Last of the Mohicans I have found that the BBC rendition has a good reputation; Barny Noble tells me he has shipped it. The Hollywood blockbuster does not have a good reputation, but I remember enjoying it despite that it was an almost entirely different story.

If I can tear myself away from the computer I'm going out to see The Golden Compass tonight. I finished the book before turning out the light last night.

Robert

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was true to the book. I recently saw The Golden Compass and thought it was accurate, but it's been a while since I read the book, so I'm not sure. (Hopefully rdurick can tell us!) The Last Unicorn was the best book-movie I've ever seen, possibly because it doesn't seem to be very well-known. The Importance of Being Earnest with Colin Firth was also fantastic.

Edit: Deleted the second message. Clumsy fingers pushing the submit button twice. :)

#26- Was the Tristram Shandy movie this one directed by Michael Winterbottom in 2005?
------------

That's the one!

29: Thank you. I'll have to order it while it is still on sale.

Robert

I agree with Message 15: krolik Show Affinity that Smoke was an excellent movie.
When I think of movies accurate to their books, I automatically think of The Cider House Rules.

The problem is, you're all citing "great" books (or at least "very good" ones). How about utterly crappy books that have been made into very good (or even great) movies?

Ever hear of Roy Chanslor? He wrote one Western that was a really soapy romance, but it's one of my personal all-time favorite movies (and I personally think the funniest movie ever made). Try guessing what it is. http://imdb.com/title/tt0059017/ HINT: One of its stars won the Oscar for Best Actor for playing TWO characters, one of them a drunk.

And Chanslor wrote another Western novel that I've got a copy of but have never gotten around to reading (and I wonder how many other LTers have), but the movie's a cult classic. http://imdb.com/title/tt0047136/ HINT: Its title character was played by Sterling Hayden, but the two real stars were a couple of "battling broads" (both on-screen and off!)

There really probably are a lot of movies out there like that, except we just don't think of them because we focus on well-known books.

Anyway, a well-known (and excellent) book, but where I think the movie is even better, is Bridge to Terabithia, where the look at the climactic moment on the face of one of the stars is so perfectly caught on film. I'm deliberately being vague here to avoid SPOILERS, but if you've seen the movie you should know what I'm talking about.

Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel is a movie that is very faithful to the book...most likely because Esquivel wrote the screenplay! In addition, recently the Coen brothers made a very faithful adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men Two excellent books and two excellent movies.

Laura, by Vera Caspary, was adapted into a splendid film. My only quibble is that I wish they had cast Sydney Greenstreet as Waldo Lydecker. Charles Laughton's only foray into directing made Davis Grubb's Night of the Hunter into an eerie, compelling, gorgeously filmed movie.

I am one of those who, despite loving both the book and the film, does not think that the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird was as god as the book. There was so much in Harper Lee's book that the film doesn't begin to touch!

I think the adapations of both The Body and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption were well done. They might not have hit each and every detail correctly, but the spirit of both novellas is present and that's what makes them work. And the terrific acting.

The best adaptation I have seen from a book is Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides. Not only was it very close to the story but there was a very strange quality to the book which the film captured perfectly.

I have to agree with #35 lilthcat re: To Kill a Mockingbird the movie was good and faithful to the book, but bland. The book was magical -- I think partly due to all those folksy truisms of Atticus's - all of which were not turned into dialogue in the movie.

#33 Currerbell: Your first reference has to be Cat Ballou, right?

Not a clue on the second.

40> Just follow his IMDB links.

I just saw Kite Runner this weekend and I thought it was excellent. (It made my husband cry.) The only part I remember from the book not being in the movie was how hard it was to get the little boy out of the country. As always, the movie made it look so easy.

A River Runs Through It - Ok, the movie doesn't try to follow the book. For example, in the book the narrator is in his 30's and married, in the movie he is ~20 years old and just meeting his wife. But, this allows the movie to become something else. Much of the spirit of the book is captured, just cinema-tized.

Moby Dick with Gregory Peck was much more satisfying than the book by Melville.

Fight Club! I think it's even the only book/movie where I can't decide which one I liked better. Usually it's either one or the other.

My vote would go for The Maltese Falcon. The film of The Big Sleep has excellent performances, but the plot was amended, with the effect of making it incomprehensible.

The Talented Mr Ripley although a good film, also suffers in my view from unnecessary changes to the plot.

Don't Look Now is a cracking film, though I've not read the short story on which it's based.

>#45 Thalia: Thank you! I had given up hope of someone mentioning this when i read the first 40 posts. I agree that the movie and book are different but equally good. It's the best example i can think of to demonstrate the strengths of each medium.

LOTR, i enjoyed the films but love the book more. Of course, if the movies had followed the book faithfully, they would be unwatchable except to Tolkien purists. And clock in at about 1,000 hours.

For the Golden Compass i can't agree the film comes close to the book. I felt that the movie discarded the redeeming features of the book (for example, the ambiguity of the "good" and "evil" characters), and left little but a simplistic disneyesque tale.
Except that the movie did have armored polar bears. That was pretty cool.

Gone with the Wind seems to crop up a lot and I agree, the film was as faithful as it could be to the book whilst still trying to contain it to a managable four hours or so.

Cold Comfort Farm with Kate Beckinsale and Rufes Sewell is also a fairly accurate representation of the book.

The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles was made into a movie with Debra Winger and John Malkovich... a rare case where I liked the movie better than the book. Agree with >45 Thalia: re No Country for Old Men, I never would have thought someone could bring a McCarthy novel to the screen successfully. The Remains of the Day, maybe?

The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles was made into a movie with Debra Winger and John Malkovich... a rare case where I liked the movie better than the book. Agree with >45 Thalia: re No Country for Old Men, I never would have thought someone could bring a McCarthy novel to the screen successfully. The Remains of the Day, maybe?

The Maltese Falcon with Bogart.

The BBC version of The Day of the Triffids

In the Heat of the Night

They Were Expendable a WWII propiganda film starring John Wayne. Somehow they stayed very close to the non-fiction book but stopped the movie just before Japanese aircraft destroyed the last PT boat.

How about Jurassic Park?

Close enough to the book to "do it justice" but with a lot more action. (That's just my opinion, no offense to fans of the book.)

I thought Misery was great. Usually King's works get mangled in film because of the large number of characters. There's not enough time to develop them and they're what make his works compelling. But Misery had a small number of characters to work with, so it went really well.

I thought the movie Cold Comfort Farm was actually better than the book.

Some good adaptations:
I though the BBC series of Tipping the Velvet was great, and it definitely did the book justice.
A Clockwork Orange takes quite a bit of liberties but keeps the essence intact.
The Dutch childrens book Krassen in het Tafelblad was adapted wel, as was Polleke by the same writer. Actually, I think a lot of Dutch childrens books have been adapted well recently: Pluk van de Petteflet, Minoes, ...
Oh, childrens books! Charlie and the Chocolate factory by Tim Burton.
I think both film versions of Solaris are good, though I definitely prefer the Tarkovsky one (hope I spell that right).
Bright Lights, Big City was well done as well.
The more I think about it, the more films I come up with...

About the Golden Compass - the film did a lot of things very well that I was afraid of they were going to mess up, particularly the treatment of nonhuman characters.
But I was shocked that they left out the end. I know, it's a trilogy and they can still have that bit in the second movie, but I feel they changed the complete feel of the book that way. I would not recommend the film to anyone who has read the book recently, but I would recommend it to anyone else.

I must admit, I'm getting a bit wary of films after books. The Harry Potter films are all so much more childish than the books. I don't feel like seeing the Kite Runner at all - the clips I've seen just don't feel right to me.

And I still have to read the Orchid Thief - when I saw Adaptation I thought they had invented the book for the film!

#52 Oh, I have to disagree. I'm not a huge fan of Crichton, but there was a good story in the book Jurassic Park. I thought the movie was about special effects. I recall that it more-or-less ditched the substance from the story, and replaced it with something much sillier. The movie might have done justice to the dinosaur genre in movies, however.

Masterpiece Theater recently showed a great adaptation of Jane Eyre -- I am pretty sure it is a new version. (though I have never seen another) -- anyway it was incredibly well done. The woman who plays Jane (Ruth Wilson) was perfect. And they did a great job with the oh so gothic feel to Thornfield.

The Third Man by Graham Greene

jhowell - The Masterpiece Theater Jane Eyre is quite new - it first aired in two parts in late January/early February 2007, so this was just the second showing. And yes, I too thought it was excellent. :-)

#57

Being picky, isn't The Third Man a book of a film, rather than vice-versa? Brighton Rock is a cracking Greene adaptation.

I agree with amancine in #20. The Godfather was a fun book when I read it 18 years ago, but I knew it was basically lurid pop-trash, not meant to be taken any more seriously than your typical James Patterson book. The films (at least the first two) are classics because they transcend the book by allowing us to feel the emotions of the characters and because of the amazing performances by the actors.

Enchanted April by Elizabeth Von Arnim. Just wish they'd get round to putting it on DVD.

#16, fyrefly98 - I felt much the same about the two versions of The Prestige, and I read the book before I saw the movie.

I think the filmmakers did a really good job with High Fidelity. A lot of the writing came straight from the book, and it captured the tone just perfectly.

I don't see it here, but Gettysburg the movie I thought was an excellent rendition of Killer Angels.

According to Norman Sherry's volume II of The Life of Graham Greene, Alexander Korda wanted to make a movie in Vienna and had already worked on "Fallen Idol" with Carol Reed and Greene, so he approached Greene for ideas...Greene and Reed went to Vienna to research the film where Greene wrote the short story The Third Man albeit a rough draft for the movie. (I think there was some debate for the title and Orson Welles ignored a great deal of the script written by Greene and added his own 'flair'...so to me, the film is a lot different from the book).

>59 joehutcheon: I'm pretty sure that Greene wrote the novella on a commission from MGM (or whomever), and then the script was adapted from the novella...

I recently read The Princess Bride, and I'd vote for that beeing one of the rare cases where the movie was actually better than the book.

i've never read a book that the movie did justice.. like with Ella Enchated i refused to see the moviue since it was so inaccurate.. and A Series Of Unfortunate Events nothing was in order... they went book 1 book 3 book 2 then beack to book 1, in in one movie. and with sisterhood of the traveling pants they threw out so many parts...

all though i just remembered.. for one more day was completely accurate. and was an amazing movie.. too bad it didnt get to theatres...

66> I have to disagree about The Princess Bride. Did you see the movie or read the book first? I read the book long before the movie came out and the movie just didn't have the same impact as the book. A lot of the beginning stuff about the writer's fat son bored me and I didn't mind that being cut, but the loss of the backstories of the giant and the swordsman, especially the swordsmen, pulled a lot of punch from their storylines. It was a good movie, but not as good as the book.

I will agree with #20 on The Godfather. The book was pulp paperback, the film was grand opera.

I don't know if anyone mentioned Kubrick's Lolita. Quite divergent from the novel in key details (Lolita being 16 rather than 12 or whatever), given the mores of the time, but a smart piece of art in it's own right. Some love the Adrian Lyne version, but it made me want to cry it was so bad.

#68 I originally saw (and loved) the movie long before reading the book, but I checked the movie out from the library for a re-view after reading the book. I thought that everything that was great about the book made it into the movie, and everything that dragged in the book (e.g., the author's personal life stuff, and the "Zoo of Death" details) was left out of the movie. And the "perfect kiss" makes much more sense at the end then at the beginning. Just my opinion.

I thought that Holes was very well done and true to the book. I also remember thinking the movie Eye of the Needle was at least as good as the book.

#36 I agree with Bookmarque that The Shawshank Redemption film adaptation was wonderful, and I just love the movie adaptation of The Green Mile, also by Stephen King. In fact, I watched it again the other night and it was just as good the second time around!

As far as LotR goes, while it's disappointing that they weren't more faithful to the book (I really miss the part where Frodo meets Farmer Maggot and the hobbits go into the Old Forest and meet Old Man Willow and Tom Bombadil and Goldberry and the part where they get trapped by the barrow wight, and the bit where the Riders meet Ghan-Bury-Ghan (sp?), and a number of other scenes that were cut), if they had followed the book in its entirety, I suppose each movie would be 20+ hours long! I've got the extended versions of all three on DVD ~ they are much more satisfying than the versions shown in the movie theaters and, I would say, very good adaptations.

I also agree with Nickelini that Colin Firth's adaptation of P&P is magnificent, as was the recent Jane Eyre as suggested by jhowell. Oh, and Lion, Witch and Wardrobe ~ not the recent Hollywood film, but the old BBC version ~ was a wonderful adaptation!

Rebecca and Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights both are excellent adaptations.

The movies Terms of Endearment and Sophie's Choice to me were those rare instances where I thought the movies were far superior to the books, especially Terms of Endearment; I was really disappointed in the book and thought they had done a fantastic job converting it to such a good movie!

#72 And, while we're speaking about Stephen King books, how about The Body (fromDifferent Seasonsand filmed as Stand By Me)?

I agree with #72. I thought that The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile were wonderful. I tend not to watch movies after I read the books because I usually very disapointed either in the adaptation of the story or how I envisioned the characters to look or act. I wish that the makers of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy would make a movie of The Hobbit

See above Booksloth. It's there.

I have pretty much given up hoping for a film to do justice to a book, so now I'm just content with it not being completely destroyed. To that end, I was pleasantly surprised by how closely The House of Sand and Fog stayed to the book, and more recently, I was also happy with how The Kite Runner came out.

I also agree with To Kill a Mockingbird.

> 73 md10pc

I haven't seen or read Terms of Endearment or Sophie's Choice (shame on me, I know), but your mentioning Terms reminded me, the mini-series of McMurtry's Lonesome Dove, with Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, is absolutely wonderful. I read the book a LONG time ago, so not 100% certain, but I seem to recall the mini-series keeping to much of the story and spirit of the book.

Eeek! How did I manage to omit Lonesome Dove?!? Yes, Heath, that was an excellent film adaptation of the book too.

Quite topical today, though I meant to add it a few days ago - Brokeback Mountain. Always a struggle for me to get through Annie Proulx books, even short stories.

No country for old men - Should I read the book before seeing the film, or vice versa?

#81 I don't know about this particular one but surely there is no excuse for EVER seeing a film before reading the book?

OK, wrist firmly slapped! I'm trying to think of an adequate riposte but I haven't come up with one - I'll be back.

A rather weak excuse is that films appear at the local cinema and then disappear - I don't want to have to go to Romford or Portsmouth to see it. ;-)

#82

Perhaps if the book in question was in a foreign language and there was no translation available.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound that stroppy. It's not a hanging offence (unlike turning to the last page to see what happens at the end).

#82 And, yes, you're right, there are some excuses for it. Doh!

> 51
The BBC version of The Day of the Triffids
I had no idea they did one. Do you if the was the one released in 2007? My library system has a copy of that (but it's out now). If that's it and you think it does the book justice I'd love to see it.

I'd also add Jaws to the list. It dialed up the good stuff and dropped the dead weight.

Also The Silence of the Lambs on the strength of some great performances.

>87 lucien:

> 51
The BBC version of The Day of the Triffids
I had no idea they did one. Do you if the was the one released in 2007? My library system has a copy of that (but it's out now). If that's it and you think it does the book justice I'd love to see it.

Yes, that is the one! I went to Internet Movie Database and checked, I was wrong about it being from BBC it was produced by ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I did not know they had put it out on DVD but now I will be adding it to my Netflixs que.

A cow-orker was raving to me last night about House of Sand and Fog, both the book and movie last night.

I think a case can be made that if you see the movie first and you like it that you will also tend to enjoy the book as it goes more in depth then the movie could. But if you read the book first you will probably be disappointed in all the things left out of the movie.

But surely, once you've seen the movie you are stuck with those images inside your head? I know it's disappointing when the movie turns out to be quite different from the people and events you've been imagining but, for me at least, that's better than never being able to read a book without seeing someone else's images in my head. I think I have finally learned to view book and film as two completely separate entities though that takes some doing.

>91 Booksloth: Yes, Booksloth, I do share this feeling. My question about No Country for Old Men came after reading that Tommy Lee Jones 'was' the sherrif. It can work out - Bogart 'is' Philip Marlowe (even if Rick or Captain Queeg 'aren't', if you see what I mean) but Elijah Wood 'isn't' Frodo in my book.

Re. No Country for Old Men my husband and I agree that reading the book AFTER the movie in this case works. The movie is so visually stunning that it provides a nice mental backdrop for the movie if you are unfamiliar with west Texas landscape (as we are). Also, the movie is such a faithful adaptation that nothing jars and instead, reading the book is like adding a layer of knowledge on top. In addition, not to be taken lightly, the heavy dialect in which Cormac McCarthy's characters speak is better understood having seen the movie first.

I think there are times when the movie adds to the enjoyment of reading a book. Really. I do.

Thanks TRTN - just the advice I needed!

91> I guess I'm not that visually oriented, so I don't form very strong mental images of what the people in books look like.

I'd say the first 4 Harry Potter movies. I didn't particularly like the 5th and it was my favourite book of the lot.

I really loved both the novel and the film version of The Namesake. And while the film version was pretty drastically different from the book, I enjoyed both versions of Sweeney Todd.

I also LOVED the film version of Brokeback Mountain and really didn't care for the novella nearly as much.

#45 & 47, agreed. Fight Club: the film meets and exceeds the merits of the book--despite the fact that the book involves a conceit that seems unfilmable.

#16, I did read The Prestige before the movie was released, and I prefer the book. But I concede that the movie was worth watching. (Not as good as The Illusionist, though!)

Woman thou art Loosed by T.D. Jakes. The movie was almost eerie because it folowed the book so much.

#82 Gotta disagree with you.

I'm delighted that I saw Bridge to Terabithia before I read it. While the book is excellent, the movie has become one of my all-time favorites. It's the climactic scene, when one of the characters gets a look on his or her face when told something by another character. You can really sense this character's shock from the facial expression of the actor/actress, far more so than you do in cold print. I'm just glad I didn't know the climax when I saw the movie, or that scene might have lost some of its impact.

(I'm obviously been a quite vague here, to avoid SPOILER for anyone who doesn't know the story, and unfortunately LT doesn't have that SPOILER code that the IMDb recently installed. If you know the story and especially if you've seen the movie, you should know what I'm talking about. )

#72 - That was one thing I liked about the LotR movies was that they cut out Tom Bombardil. I hated him in the book because of all that awful singing. Pages of it. So I was quite pleased in the film that he wasn't there.

#75 - I would swear that I actually saw a movie trailer for the Hobbit at the cinema ages ago. I could be wrong because I haven't seen the final LotR film but I am certain it was the Hobbit. It's going to get on my nerves now, so I'm going to have to look it up somehow.

#101 let me know what you find out. Friends of mine thought that they could remember a cartoon Hobbit
#91 I am the opposite. I have a specific look for my characters when I read a book and I just can't get past it when I see a movie. The mother in Stephen King's Pet Semetary is a prime example. She should have been a brunette with long hair instead of the short haired blonde in business suits. Oh well, call me crazy!

#102 - I agree, just the appearance of an actor in a film can ruin it if they don't look (or sound) the way I pictured them. And sometimes they then creep in when I next read the book and ruin that too.

It's one of the reasons I don't want to see The Golden Compass - I didn't picture Daniel Craig at any point while I was reading that book. And the girl who plays Lyra looks nothing like my idea of her.

I just know I would sit there saying "He looks wrong...she doesn't talk like that...that didn't happen in the book..." and getting on everyones nerves (including my own). So I'm happier just to reread it and keep it how I imagined it to be.

I'll let you know if I find out about the Hobbit.

An animated version of The Hobbit was made into a TV movie in 1977.

Thanks. I thought that there was an animated Hobbit. Too bad, I think that it would be a great movie.

According to www.imdb.com, the movie version of the Hobbit will be in theatres in 2010. It is being done by Peter Jackson and the same crew that made the LotR movies. So hang in there, it's on its way . . .

Thanks Nickelini. That will be a great movie. I loved TLOTR trilogy.

Revive this thread.

Any updated postings.

Movies that were better than the books in my opinion:

The Graduate
M*A*S*H*
A Year in Tuscany (It seems they threw the book out - big improvement!)

It happens sometimes!

Sarah's Key was very well done and I thought stuck very close to the book.

Hugo was also very good. THE INVENTION OF HUGO CABRET

1) My top movie pick of the year is The Great Gatsby with Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby and Tobey Maguire as his only friend, Nick Carraway. The Great American Novel finally gets a deserving adaptation. Fine acting by both, really fine. Well-directed, stylish, original, which is not easy for such a well-known novel, and faithful to the story. Nominated for and won awards.

2) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was turned from a lean, forgotten F. Scott Fitzgerald short-story into an extraordinary, imaginative movie. Brad Pitt is in the same position as Robert Redford, a victim of his handsome looks so that he doesn't always get the respect he deserves. Both are talented men. For an example of Pitt's verstile acting chops, compare his role here to his unhinged character in 12 Monkeys. Nominated for and won awards.

3) A River Runs Through it, directed by Robert Redford, again starring Brad Pitt, based on Norman Maclean's autobiographical novel. Beautiful movie. Improves on the book. Nominated for and won awards.

4) Seabiscuit, based on the true story by Laura Hillenbrand, one of our best writers, received a faithful and inspirational adaptation. Although the book grew tedious at times, dutifully following many historical horse races, the movie, starring Tobey Maguire, brings the drama to life. Nominated for and won awards.

5) The Coen brothers strike again. No Country for Old Men is a dead-on adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's philosophical western. Tommy Lee Jones, always fun to watch, is perfect as the laconic, world-weary sheriff. Javier Bardem plays one of the scariest men in the movies. Nominated for and won awards.

6) No one will improve on Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy. Tobey Maguire (again) and Kirsten Dunst. I didn't like that they called Dunst "MJ" rather than "Mary Jane." There's nothing wrong with the name Mary Jane. I like its sweet, old-fashioned quality. If you grew up on Spiderman like I did, you'll have a lot of fun. Nominated for and won awards.

The Road was a pretty good adaptation, as well.

As for war movies and others, I thought The Great Escape , Mr. Roberts and even Little Big Man were loyal to those wonderful books.

I know the absolute worst perversion of a book title: The Orchid Thief. The book was a very good piece of nonfiction. The movie had absolutely nothing to do with it; the movie was trash.

Jaws and Carrie were both better in movie form than in the novel format.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is the only example that I can think of where both the book and the film are pure perfection.

I agree with Holes being a good adaptation; I also enjoyed Because of Winn Dixie. A movie a prefer over the book is Practical Magic...lots of significant changes in the adaptation, but I still like it better than the book.

I feel that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better film than book.

Fight Club

Good book, better movie. And it shouldn't even be possible to film that story.

The Prince of Tides. Loved book and film.

Hello, I'm new in the forum.

I had to say that in the last month i read The Godfather of Mario Puzo, and it would like to say that the films (Godfather I y II) of Coppola are great, but better the book.

I have read The bonfire of the vanities of Tom Wolfe, and i'd like if the film it's good or bad, because in the www it's said that the film it's really wrong. I have doubts about that...

what do you think? have anyone seen the film?

best regards everyone!

119 -- I never saw it, but I heard and read only negative things about it. Very negative.

"A Boy and His Dog" was justice to the novel. "The Bridge on the River Kwai" was an improvement when brought to the screen. "Warlock" the Movie was worse than the Novel by Oakley Hall. (even though the film gave work to DeForrest Kelley "Dammit Jim, I'm a gunfighter, not a Doctor.."), who played a large number of twisted gunfighters in his earlier career.
I disagree and say that "Gettysburg" the Film, was a better movie than "The Killer Angels" is as a novel.
The current series of the Hobbit does a disservice to the nice little children's novel. It's suffering from the Elephantiasis necessary to serving as a gigantic preview of "Lord of the Rings" movies. Perhaps it should be called "the Hobbit and many doom-laden appendices".
There was a film of "Northwest Passage" by Kenneth Roberts, that dealt only with the first half of the book, and did that brilliantly. (it also has one of the best battle sequences dealing with a gun fighting technology.)

Possibly the Best book to movie transition was that version of the novel "Three Musketeers" that was directed as the "Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" by Richard Lester. The Oliver Reed Michael York, Faye Dunaway version. Exactly what Alexander Dumas (who wrote plays as well as novels,) would've written for the movies. The writer of the Scenarios was George MacDonald Fraser of the Flashman series.

"Catch 22" was badly served by the movie.
"Little Big Man" got justice.

I think that Novellas and short stories have a much better chance to get justice or be improved by their movies than large sprawling novels with large settings or casts.

"Game of Thrones" is justice, but the books are better for the lover of Fantasy, rather than the lover of spectacular violence.

#121 I never read A Boy and his Dog but I loved the film which is pretty much unheard of here in the UK.

If we can include TV adaptations I remember a version of The Secret Garden that was at least as good as the book.

I didn't know that Warlock was a book. I'll check it out. Thanks.

...wait a minute. That's not the Richard E Grant movie. You tricked me.

Personally, I've always loved the film version of The Princess Bride, but I didn't like the book at all. I've also always been fond of the animated version of The Last Unicorn, though in that case I still think the book is better.

I second Holes and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest!

118

Prince of Tides? They left out the pet tiger!!!!

@ 125- Mr. Andrew...who was Richard E. Grant and what was his movie about? Okay, I did look him up, and the films might be fun.
Do read the Oakley Hall novel "Warlock" though...very fine book!
Besides, dealing with a Warlock isn't a safe activity...any witch hunter should expect trickery :-)

I thought the movie Gettyburg was dull and disappointing. But it couldn't possibly compare to the extrordinary novel, The Killer Angels.

My Dog Skip is a faithful adaptation of a beautiful book by Willie Morris. It might appear to another take on what has now become the "my beloved dog" genre, but Morris, a well-respected, southern writer, accomplishes more than those hacks in a shorter space. Both book and movie are quite poignant and sad but not depressing. A surprising turn by Luke Wilson. Excellent narration by Kevin Bacon.

A long time ago, whenever it was, I rented the DVD of the first Hobbit movie. I sat through an excruciating half-hour, then turned it off, disgusted. I loved Lord of the Rings, books and movies, except for too many long battle scenes. I even watched the extended editions. The Hobbit appears to be even more unnecessarily bloated. I think my Tolkien days are over. Just as well really. One ages and reads different kinds of books.

Donnie Brasco captures the book faithfully and dramatically, based on real life FBI agent Joe Pistone's infiltration of the mafia. It is my favorite mafia movie, and as an Italian I've seen plenty. Incredible acting by Al Pacino and Johnny Depp, as always, and another fine, small role by Paul Giamatti. This is not a shoot-em-up like Goodfellas or Casino, both fine movies. It's a fascinating, true story. If you want to know about the mafia and the FBI's battles with it, watch this movie. Just the best. I've watched in many times. I like it better than the Godfather movies, which I sometimes feel descend into schmaltz. That does not keep my uncle from watching The Godfather every Christmas.

Now THERE'S a movie about the real spirit of Christmas.

Heh. Tells you something about him, doesn't it?

If you're going to bring up bring up Donnie Brasco I'll raise with Goodfellas another good real-life Mafia movie based on a book.

Hi, new to the Forum..I thought The Help was very close to the book.

To Barney67:
A man named McKinley Kantor wrote "Long Remember", the perfect Gettysburg novel. Please give it a look.
"From Here to Eternity" actually got justice.
"Some Came Running", as well, there is something about James Jones that translates well to the screen. So I'll also include "The Thin Red Line".

"Troy" had a great performance by Sean Bean as "The Wiley Odysseus", and Brad Pitt put in a good performance. But the movie went on to the fall of the city, which the "Iliad" does not. To do so, they altered even what Quintius Smyrnaeus, the ancient continuator, had written. So, on balance, Troy was not well served.
Oh, the three recent Narnia Novels have been up to the level of the Books.

Funny how the name MacKinlay Cantor keeps flying into my radar. The novel I usually hear mentioned is Andersonville, which won the Pulitzer in 1956.

Another good book/movie is Deliverance. I've seen it many times. I find it hypnotic. The acting is just great. Jon Voight gives such a powerful, memorable performance.

I see that "The Thin Red Line" was directed by Terence Malick, which means I will probably watch it down the road.

Surprised no one's mentioned Hotel New Hampshire - a rare example (IMHO) of the movie being equally good ...

>130 MrAndrew:
Bah Humbug. Bad Santa is the must see, every holiday.

Kramer vs. Kramer won Acad Award for Best Picture in 1980.

How about Twilight saga and Hunger Games?

And there have been great movie versions of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights and various Jane Austen novels.

Pride and Prejudice has a good movie version. My favorite book of all time is Wuthering Heights. There are 3 movie versions and I only think that the 2nd one, starring Ralph Fienes, captures the suffering of Heathcliff.