Books made into Films???

[Mockingbird_z]

I dont know if there has been such a thread and if so, it will be moved then.
but I would like to know what (by your opinion) is the best film that was based on a book??? and why?

[downing]

gone with the wind
pride and prejudice - many versions
sense and sensibility
tess of the d'urbervilles
mrs dalloway
nicholas nickleby
jane eyre
wuthering heights

to be continued:D

[manolia]

There is no harm in repeating myself :D

Death in Venice by Luccino Visconti (vheissu i suspect there is something wrong with my spelling :D )..

[Mockingbird_z]

thanks,
luckily you didnt mention Lord of the rings (all three parts). or am i mistaken?

[manolia]

thanks,
luckily you didnt mention Lord of the rings (all three parts). or am i mistaken?

:sick: God no!! :sick:
I only liked the first part and not entirely. I hate what P J did to the book..but that's only my humble opinion ;) (but i liked the visual effects and costumes etc)

[vheissu]

There is no harm in repeating myself :D

Death in Venice by Luccino Visconti (vheissu i suspect there is something wrong with my spelling :D )..

:p You've missed an h, it's Luchino. So only 1 letter was wrong! Very good! jk/

I haven't seen Death in Venice, though I've read the book.

Films that originate from books always miss something, which is understandable sometimes (though sometimes it's just close to a crime!!)

Two fairly recent ones: The prestige and Perfume: the story of a murder.
In both cases I liked the book and the film, even though some subplots, which I found important, were omitted....

[aeroport]

:p You've missed an h, it's Luchino. So only 1 letter was wrong! Very good! jk/


Ah, but you've misplaced the slash in "j/k", no? :D :p
I didn't think the adaptation of "Washington Square" was half bad, actually.
And the recent adaptation of "The Merchant of Venice" (Pacino/Irons/Fiennes) was fairly respectable.

[SirRaustusBear]

My two favorites are Trainspotting and A Clockwork Orange. I loved No Country for Old Men this year too.

[Mark F.]

Almost all the american film noir genre from the 40's/50's, Double Indemnity, The Killers, The Third Man, The Big Sleep, Five Fingers...

Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations, Ran and Throne of Blood.

Pasolini's films.

Apocalypse Now.

[mortalterror]

I've been meaning to see Death in Venice. Although the novella failed to wow me, I was impressed by Visconti's adaptation of The Leopard.

Gone With the Wind is one of the greatest films ever made, my fifth favorite film personally. Then you have to cite the Godfather, which I liked as a book, but not as much as a film. The problem with The Godfather is that it makes the exact opposite moral point from the book, and I find that jarring. Schindler's List should get some props as well. Full Metal Jacket was a nice mixing of Gustav Hasford's Short Timers and Michael Herr's Dispatches. If we're including plays then it doesn't get better than The Lion in Winter or Julius Caesar. Other notables include: Rashomon, Raging Bull, Doctor Zhivago, The Maltese Falcon, The Silence of the Lambs, The Shawshank Redemption, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Jaws, The Thing, L.A. Confidential, Paths of Glory, A Clockwork Orange, The Princess Bride, American Psycho, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Shining, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Right Stuff, Trainspotting, Inherit the Wind, and those are just my personal favorites.

I do have a small bone to pick with a previous poster. I wouldn't call Kurosawa's Ran or Throne of Blood Shakespearean as none of Shakespeare's dialogue was included in the movies and Shakespeare didn't come up with the original plots of his plays. So essentially, when you view an adaptation of Shakespeare where it's been modernized to contemporary speech patterns, or something you aren't actually viewing Shakespeare. Chances are, you're viewing Boccaccio or someone else. That said, I do enjoy Kurosawa's films.

Also, Apocalypse Now is about as loose an adaptation of Conrad's Heart of Darkness as humanly possible.

[Mockingbird_z]

Well
Doctor Zhivago is better in Russian version than in American i must say.

[kiki1982]

The last film/mini series of Brideshead revisited (I think by the BBC) was very good according to my father, very true to the book apparently.

Has Angela's Ashes been mentioned?
The Orient Express, a few detectives of Agatha Christie, for that matter, The Count of Monte Cristo :sick:, The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, books by Catherine Cookson,
The Thornbirds (mini-series), a little far from the book, I think. I've been wanting to read the book once to see what they made of it in the series... Possibly a very good book, but rather massacred...
Les Misérables, (with Liam Neeson) too short a film for such a big book... The series in french was much better.
The Da Vinci Code, The Remains of the Day

About the Lord of the Rings trilogy: apparently very bad, according to people that read the book. And by the way Tolkien probably revolves in his grave as he never wanted illustrations in his work, because he wanted people to use their imagination, so I don't see why they absolutely wanted to make a film out of it...

They're now going to make a film of Saramago's Blindness, I believe. I don't keep my hopes up as Saramago's books are rather about language and alegories on society rather than about the story itself.

I mostly prefer french films to english ones, as they tend to stay much closer to the book, and more importantly: they actually get the point. Some films you really wonder whether the screen writer actually read the book, because they seem to miss the point entirely, like the Count of Monte Cristo.

[Mockingbird_z]

I think its important to show (in Doctor Zhivago) the Russian Revolution and how it changed and affected the lives of people in Russia. Through the lives of the characters (Zhivago, Lara, Tonya and others) could it be shown, so the triangle is a secondary (not less important) theme in the book so i think it is wrong to highlight only love theme and ignore Revolution and what people had to live through.

[Mockingbird_z]

do you mean changes in russian society?
well perhaps yes, but the means it (changes) was achieved by were too violent i think. but its already a question of politics or something but not literature.
=)

[moose gurl]

No Country for Old Men is an excellent movie adaptation of a spectacular book. Both are wonderful and Cormac McCarthy is incredible. Normally authors don't like the movie adaptation of their books but he loved the movie so much he actually went to the Oscars to see it win...and I've heard he's pretty anti-social.
So that one takes my cake.

P.S. A Clockwork Orange was a terrible movie.

[SirRaustusBear]

Are you saying Clockwork was a poor adaptation of the novel, or did you not enjoy the themes of either. I though it was a pretty true interpretation. The violence was appalling enough to make the audience realize the evil being done away with by the procedure, but it still get's across the point that free will is the better choice, even if it leads to horrible crimes like those Alex commits. The exagerrated side characters added to the surreal feeling of the whole thing, plus the movie was hilarious. The acting was great by just about everyone involved, especially McDowell.

[Mockingbird_z]

And how did you like Green Mile (book by Steven King) and the film with Tom Hanks?
And Forest Gump film? I heard it is different from the original book.

[Mockingbird_z]

hi, sorry i got you wrong.
and thanks for your explanation.

[vheissu]

Ah, but you've misplaced the slash in "j/k", no? :D :p
I didn't think the adaptation of "Washington Square" was half bad, actually.
And the recent adaptation of "The Merchant of Venice" (Pacino/Irons/Fiennes) was fairly respectable.

:p oops!

I didn't actually like that version of the Merchant of Venice, I found it rather...tiresome. And I really didn't like the actress who portrayed Portia in it...can't remember her name, but it's just one of those things

[bazarov]

The Godfather - like you're still reading it!

[unleashed]

movies are usually very different. The Count of Monte Cristo for example did not seem to be based on the book but only to be inspired by it. the book was better by far.
i liked the adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde though.

[Mockingbird_z]

However sometimes a film can be better than a book (if we dont speak ab classical literature, because people should read classical literature first and only then watch it (if the version is really good))

[unleashed]

not necessarily. what difference does it make if the book is a classic or not? it doesn't matter if you read before watching the film or the other way around either.

[simon]

Possibly my favorite book made into a movie is the African Queen by CS Forrester. It was made into a movie with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburne, which creates quite a dynamic duo of strong personalities.

My least favorite recently is the dreaded Golden Compass movies. The book I thought held more aplomb than Harry Potter but the movie was disgraceful.

[Mockingbird_z]

2 unleashed
well maybe you are right
i just mean that if you read a book first you have some freedom when imagining the main characters,their appearance, the place it is set in, and many other details.
but if you watch a film based on a book - the film is already a final product (usually) so you have got very little freedom then. well perhaps the ending can be open but ...
besides films sometimes miss out on something important in the book and only when reading it can you ask yourself questions and search for the answers there.

[toni]

Two of my favorites include Hamlet (the one with Kenneth Branagh in it) and Vanity Fair ;)

[unleashed]

2 unleashed
well maybe you are right
i just mean that if you read a book first you have some freedom when imagining the main characters,their appearance, the place it is set in, and many other details.
but if you watch a film based on a book - the film is already a final product (usually) so you have got very little freedom then. well perhaps the ending can be open but ...
besides films sometimes miss out on something important in the book and only when reading it can you ask yourself questions and search for the answers there.

true indeed, but you can still see a movie and then read the book without the one hurting the other, when you read you can still imagine everything- if you were not pleased with the movie, it's just remaking it in your head.
it is a literature forum, so i can assure you that i too prefer reading than watcing the film:D
films usually try to be more.."common"..or mainstream if you'd like so they miss out on a lot.

[Luce]

How about "The conformist", from Moravia's book?
And "Dangerous liasons"? And "Portrait of a lady"?
I consider these great films from great books.

[kandaurov]

films usually try to be more.."common"..or mainstream if you'd like so they miss out on a lot.

Well yes, absolutely, when it comes to Hollywood films, but there's also Hollywood literature, e.g. Dan Brown (dear forum members, I won't be drawn into yet another debate about Dan Brown ;) I'm not saying it's bad, just saying it's commercial). And even within the realm of Hollywood you can encounter wonderfully crafted films. I happen to believe that a film can be just as 'artistic' as a book, and it's as easy to find a mainstream film as it is to find a mainstream book.

Oh, as for the film: I'd choose Apocalypse Now

[cral]

i just mean that if you read a book first you have some freedom when imagining the main characters,their appearance, the place it is set in, and many other details.
but if you watch a film based on a book - the film is already a final product (usually) so you have got very little freedom then. .

I don't really enjoy book-to-movie adaptions for this reason. After reading a book, I almost always have a sort of set vision for each character, and films always seem to crush their imaginary visages. I still remember reading Lord of the Flies, and then, while reading its wikipedia article, coming across the film poster. They looked absolutely nothing like I'd imagined, yet now their appearances are ingrained in my memory of the book.

I'm not sure it's really possible to set a real face to a fictional character, especially since casting is often filtered by popularity. Then again, I'm not really sure why I'm posting this either since I hardly watch films anymore. :confused:

Gregory Peck was a good Atticus though, and Watership Down (if it counts) an excellent animated film.

[browneyedbailey]

Ah, if only Pirates of the Carribean were a book first...
What about legends? Would the count?

[Julian Koller]

Woman In the Dunes.

[betzen]

I think Pride and Prejudice is the best adaptation ever--the long one (BBC) that was originally a mini series--with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. The Kiera Knightly one was good, but can't hold a candle to the other. I think the reason why I love it so much is that the movie is like 6 hours long, so it really is able to follow the book very closely!

Every other adaptation of books to movies changes and omits things, which doesn't make them bad movies. They just usually don't compare with the book.

[Mockingbird_z]

2 cral
Gregory Peck as Atticus !!!!! it must be a really good film (the book is great)
2 Julian Koller
Woman in the Dunes - absolutely agree!=)

[browneyedbailey]

Horton Hears a Who! (the newer one) I <3 Jojo!

[Equilibrium]

Well, the only film adaptation of a book that I strongly believe is actually much better than the book itself is Bramstokers Dracula. Bramstoker had a good story with Dracula, a good plot, but the man can't write for toffee. The film was infinately more enjoyable.
Other that one exception I would say film adaptations are almost universally much to the detriment of the book, with pride and prejudice (Kiera Knightly) for example the context of the plot is butcherd and replaced with much more modern values and social norms - I suspect the director thought that the audience might just not "get it" other wise but I think its entirely missing the point. Jane Austen is all about the social and moral context of the time, to take that away is to rob her work of half its value.

[Virgil]

A must see is Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, the BBC production, and then read the great novel. I don't know which is better, the film or the novel. Both outstanding.

[Virgil]

Virgil, would you believe I own that Masterpiece Theatre miniseries (with Jeremy Irons) and have never watched it? Shame on me! And I loved the book so very much. Well, not the part on the ship so much, but still, loved the book.

I will have to make it a point to watch it soon.

I own it too. Like I said, great book, great movie. What was wrong with the part on the ship?

[John Gambitz]

One of many is Harry Potter. Because it makes the magical world of Harry Potter looks real in the reality and has made dreams come true for a lot of people to see the realistic yet not the real magic in front of their eyes.

[browneyedbailey]

true...

[Bakiryu]

The Best Movie EVER made from a book:


FIGHT CLUB.

You'd have to watch it to understand why. :p

[LadyWentworth]

A must see is Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, the BBC production, and then read the great novel. I don't know which is better, the film or the novel. Both outstanding.

Did you know about the new film version that is due to be released later this year? The only one that I can remember that is in it is Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain.

I will probably see it, but I don't know if I can handle anyone else as Charles Ryder! I would die for Jeremy Irons in that version! :p

[kelby_lake]

new film's out in september. hmmm...

[*Classic*Charm*]

I think Pride and Prejudice is the best adaptation ever--the long one (BBC) that was originally a mini series--with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. The Kiera Knightly one was good, but can't hold a candle to the other. I think the reason why I love it so much is that the movie is like 6 hours long, so it really is able to follow the book very closely!

Every other adaptation of books to movies changes and omits things, which doesn't make them bad movies. They just usually don't compare with the book.

Ooh I have to disagree. Having watched both more than I can count, I have to say I like the Keira Knightley version much better. I find there's no real depth to the long one in terms of acting or the adaptation. If you're looking to just have actors say all the lines from the book with little or no expression or personality, then the BBC version is better. I'm not saying it's bad, and it is of course more faithful, but I find it very uncreative. Also, I never liked how that version was always very much "Colin Firth's Pride and Prejudice", when really, it's supposed to be about Lizzie. The new version is "Keira Knightley's Pride and Prejudice", and rightfully so. She added a lot to the character, and the film was beautifully adapted and filmed. I love it!:D

[LadyWentworth]

new film's out in september. hmmm...
Actually, I thought that it was supposed to be about that time, but I saw today that it is supposedly going to be a limited release in America in July. I didn't think it was that soon already.

[Lioness_Heart]

I know that they leave quite a lot out, but I think that the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird is wonderful. It's so beautiful and simple; it's the only black-and-white film that I've really loved.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I know that they leave quite a lot out, but I think that the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird is wonderful. It's so beautiful and simple; it's the only black-and-white film that I've really loved.

Yes, that film was really well done. Gregory Peck was outstanding. The kid who played Dill always bothered me a bit...

[betzen]

Also, I never liked how that version was always very much "Colin Firth's Pride and Prejudice", when really, it's supposed to be about Lizzie. The new version is "Keira Knightley's Pride and Prejudice", and rightfully so. She added a lot to the character, and the film was beautifully adapted and filmed. I love it!:D

I guess that's why I didn't like the new one as much--I was always reminded that it was Keira Knightly, not Lizzie. I noticed the actress more, as compared to the character. I thought the acting was good on the first one. On the first one, though, I didn't know who Colin Firth was till that movie, so maybe that's why it didn't seem like "Colin Firth's Pride and Prejudice" so much to me. I believe in England, quite a big deal was made about him, more so than I saw in middle America.

Either way, they're both good movies. It's nice to have two good versions of such a wonderful book! :thumbs_up

[byquist]

"The Power of One" with Morgan Freeman and others was a powerful rendition.

[djy78usa]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Godfather are two of my favorites.

[Lioness_Heart]

Yes, that film was really well done. Gregory Peck was outstanding. The kid who played Dill always bothered me a bit...

Yeah... he was a bit odd. Although he got a youthfull exuberance into it that wouldn't have quite suited Scout and Jem but brouht something... not quite sure what though... to the film.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I agree. It's nice to have two versions of Pride and Prejudice. I'm not a Keira Knightley fan, so I prefer the Colin Firth version. To me, Keira Knightley seems to make everything "about" Keira Knightley, not the character. However, that's just my personal opinion. As you said, it's great to have two wonderful versions.

Has anyone seen the original film version? It was adapted by Aldous Huxley and starred Laurence Olivier as Darcy. I can't find it anywhere, no have I met a person who has seen it...I'm curious about it. Huxley's Jane Eyre adaptation is fantastic.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I did like Keira Knightley in "Atonement," but that's about it. I thought she was a perfect fit for the role of Cecilia Tallis.

Haha just mentioned this in the "last film you saw" thread;)