Best Book-Based Films [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

naphelge

04-02-2009, 09:30 PM

I can't think of too many movies I have enjoyed after reading the books. I did however really enjoy the Lord Of The Rings movies, but it was a very long time after I had last read the books.

But then again, I think the Narnia movies so far are lacking big time and disappointing overall, and it might be an even longer time since I last read those books.

I just read Great Expectations for the first time recently and made the mistake of renting the recent Hollywood adaption of the book starring Gweneth Paltrow and Matt Dillon (not 100% sure and too lazy to google it :P~ ) and that was a pretty large departure from the book I thought. I found watching the movie difficult and I just could not get into the movie at all. Too much change from an already great story I thought.

cheers,
nap

JBI

04-02-2009, 09:56 PM

Il Gattopardo.
The Godfather
The former being a great novel too, the latter being a mediocre novel, but great movie.

MissScarlett

04-02-2009, 10:01 PM

I agree with JBI that The Godfather was a mediocre book, but a great movie.

Cold Mountain, for me, was a poorly-written book, but a better movie. Maybe not great, but better than the book.

The English Patient was a better movie than book. The visuals made it stunning and gave it a depth the book just didn't achieve.

Doctor Zhivago was a better movie than book to me because it was more focused on Zhivago and Lara. I don't need a love story, a romance, but I did like the focus of the film.

Gustavo L.

04-02-2009, 10:55 PM

My main concern is whether these movies are good as movies or not, regardless of its fidelity to the books. I try, as much as possible, to forget about the book and to judge the movie in purely cinematic terms - photography, soundtrack etc. These are my favorites:

Excalibur (from Malory's Le Morte Darthur)
Apocalypse Now (from Conrad's Heart of Darkness)
The Godfather trilogy (from Mario Puzzo's The Godfather)
Stalker (from Roadside Picnic, a short novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky)
Solaris [the Soviet version, tough the American one has its charms too] (from Stanislaw Lem's homonymous novel)
Coppola's Dracula
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (from a novel by Wang du Lu)

And, of course, my favorite movie, Blade Runner, which is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick (I haven't read it, and forgot its title).

SirRaustusBear

04-02-2009, 11:27 PM

The Phillip Dick book is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, possibly the greatest title of anything ever

kiki1982

04-03-2009, 03:52 AM

I saw a production of The Count of Monte Cristo a few years ago that significantly strayed from the plot, but I actually viewed the adaptations as improvements!

I found it didn't even do that! I can't agree with you. Too Disney-American approach. The necklace, and the duel in the end, it totally passes Dumas' intention.

The French version of The Count with Gérard Depardieu from 1996 is absolutely wonderful. It does stray from the plot a little (and does not reveal teh end of the book), but it does not stray from the original feelings of all characters, which is according to me of vast importance.

With that in mind I found Jane Eyre of 1996, the best, although others will disagree. It expressed the best the feelings of the two main characters, but sadly strayed from the plot so much that the quality of it was severely damaged. The last one the BBC made was rather feminist and missed the moral struggle in Jane entirely. It largely reduced it to a love-struggle.

Pride and Prejudice 1995 is the definitive adaptation. A far cry from the one with Keira Knightley... Wonderful images, shame of the script.

Brideshead Revisited 1983 (?) of ITV is also the best adaptation of it. Far away from the total crap of the last film which made Charles and Julia fall in love in Venice 'because it is the city of love'.

Up until now I haven't seen any good adaptation of the musketeer-trilogy yet. They all stray too much from the plot. Although the casting of The Man in the Iron Mask was very good (the best musketeers) the plot was not good the outcome wrong and too Disney-like (d'Artagnan the father of the twins :sick:).

I expect the rench adaptation of Les Misérables with Depardieu (again) is quite good. I haven't seen it, but the French have a tendency not to disgrace their work. The version with Liam Neeson I found dwelling on Fantine too much, too short and not French in feel enough.

That is all I can think of right now... I did see a version of Madame Bovary once, but I haven't read the book and I can't even recall whether it was in English or French...

The Hollywood-version of Ivanhoe would be great to see again, when I have finished, but I fear for its accuracy.

Lokasenna

04-03-2009, 03:56 AM

Brideshead Revisited 1983 (?) of ITV is also the best adaptation of it. Far away from the total crap of the last film which made Charles and Julia fall in love in Venice 'because it is the city of love'.

Agreed. It might not be a film, but its a fantastic adaptation.

I have to say, while I find most film adaptations awful, there have been some notable exceptions. Atonement, for example, was infinitely superior to the novel. Oh, and of course The Lord of the Rings trilogy, while not as good as the books, were still very enjoyable.

sixsmith

04-03-2009, 06:59 AM

"Brokeback Mountain" is a fine film based on a great short story. I agree with the assessment of "Atonement". I think McEwan missed his calling - screenwriting. And the ITV "Brideshead" was fantastic.

K.K.

04-03-2009, 07:56 AM

I found it didn't even do that! I can't agree with you. Too Disney-American approach. The necklace, and the duel in the end, it totally passes Dumas' intention.

The French version of The Count with Gérard Depardieu from 1996 is absolutely wonderful. It does stray from the plot a little (and does not reveal teh end of the book), but it does not stray from the original feelings of all characters, which is according to me of vast importance.

With that in mind I found Jane Eyre of 1996, the best, although others will disagree. It expressed the best the feelings of the two main characters, but sadly strayed from the plot so much that the quality of it was severely damaged. The last one the BBC made was rather feminist and missed the moral struggle in Jane entirely. It largely reduced it to a love-struggle.

Pride and Prejudice 1995 is the definitive adaptation. A far cry from the one with Keira Knightley... Wonderful images, shame of the script.

Brideshead Revisited 1983 (?) of ITV is also the best adaptation of it. Far away from the total crap of the last film which made Charles and Julia fall in love in Venice 'because it is the city of love'.

Up until now I haven't seen any good adaptation of the musketeer-trilogy yet. They all stray too much from the plot. Although the casting of The Man in the Iron Mask was very good (the best musketeers) the plot was not good the outcome wrong and too Disney-like (d'Artagnan the father of the twins :sick:).

I expect the rench adaptation of Les Misérables with Depardieu (again) is quite good. I haven't seen it, but the French have a tendency not to disgrace their work. The version with Liam Neeson I found dwelling on Fantine too much, too short and not French in feel enough.

That is all I can think of right now... I did see a version of Madame Bovary once, but I haven't read the book and I can't even recall whether it was in English or French...

The Hollywood-version of Ivanhoe would be great to see again, when I have finished, but I fear for its accuracy.

I know a great amount of liberties were taken with the Count of Monte Cisto, but I loved the book for different reasons than I loved the movie.

I do agree with you about the BBC production of Jane Eyre; I felt like the story was being reduced a romance, and it missed all of the themes that made the book powerfull.

I've watched the 1995 Pride and Prejudice several times, and I always recommend it to those looking for a good film adaption of the novel. It adheres to both the plot and the spirit of Austen's novel.
(Kiera Knightly was absolutely terrible, she played Elizabeth so flatly-- I didn't even bother watching the entire movie.)

Let me know if you find any well-done Three Musketeers!

mollie

04-03-2009, 10:02 AM

Shawshank Redemption. The short story didn't really grab me when I read it, but I loved the film.

mortalterror

04-03-2009, 10:12 AM

Novel
The Lord of the Rings
Master and Commander
Battle Royale
L.A. Confidential
Schindler's List
The Silence of the Lambs
Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
The Deer Hunter
Jaws
The Godfather
A Clockwork Orange
2001 A Space Odyssey
Dr. Strangelove
Anatomy of a Murder
The Searchers
All the King's Men
The Bicycle Thief
The Big Sleep
Gone With the Wind
Mutiny on the Bounty
All Quiet on the Western Front
Requiem for a Dream
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Bladerunner
The Princess Bride
The Maltese Falcon
Paths of Glory
The Graduate
American Psycho
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
The Wizard of Oz
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Forest Gump
The Big Sleep
No Country For Old Men
The English Patient
Ordinary People
Dr. Zhivago
From Here to Eternity
How Green Was My Valley

play
Casablanca
Julius Caesar
Hamlet
Amadeus
The Lion in Winter
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Long Day's Journey Into Night
A Streetcar Named Desire
Henry V
Richard III
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Driving Miss Daisy
The Miracle Worker
Inherit The Wind
Glengary Glen Ross
The Elephant Man
Harvey
A Few Good Men
12 Angry Men
A Man For All Seasons
Equus
Dinner With Friends
The Piano Lesson
All My Sons
Titus
Much Ado About Nothing
A Chorus Line
Chicago
The Philadelphia Story
Pygmalion
As Good As It Gets

short story
Rashomon
The Thing
High Noon
Double Indemnity
Shawshank Redemption
Closely Watched Trains

memoire
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
Taxi Driver
A Beautiful Mind
Ghandi
Goodfellas
Raging Bull

Carrolb2

04-03-2009, 10:16 AM

Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth) are interesting adaptations set in feudal Japan and directed by Akira Kurosawa

Sancho

04-03-2009, 12:55 PM

Wow! Good list mortalterror.

Cohen Bro’s O Brother Where Art Thou, adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey

K.K.

04-03-2009, 02:09 PM

Wow! Good list mortalterror.

Cohen Bro’s O Brother Where Art Thou, adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey

Now there's an adaption that took some liberties with the original text!! I agree, though. I've seen the movie several times. Though, like I said with The Count of Monte Cristo, the movie was good for different reasons than the Odyssey was.

LitNetIsGreat

04-03-2009, 03:38 PM

The Talented Mr Ripley, I'm somewhat obessed with that film, the novel by Patricia Highsmith was nothing special as I can remember.

Tryam

04-03-2009, 04:25 PM

Up until now I haven't seen any good adaptation of the musketeer-trilogy yet. They all stray too much from the plot. Although the casting of The Man in the Iron Mask was very good (the best musketeers) the plot was not good the outcome wrong and too Disney-like (d'Artagnan the father of the twins :sick:).

I can advice you to watch "D'Artagnan and the three musketeers" in russian adaptation although I'm not sure if there is a translated version on DVD. Anyway you may look for it, 'cos as far as I know the actors are really an embody of the main charaters from the book. As for the plot, I can't say it strays a lot from the plot for I haven't read the book to the end, however I may tell that the beginnig is as in the book) There's more to say about the film itsels. As for the actors to my mind their play is brilliant and as far as I can judge, they really are the embody of the main characters from the book) a mannered and intelligent Aramis, a hot-tempered D'Artangan, a big and kind Atos... if I dwell upon the other actors it'll take a long time, so you'd rather watch this yourself) The music, costumes and the other details are magnificient for those times when the film were made)

Moreover you may take into consideration the French adaptation, i've seen a small part of it and it wasn't that bad.

Mark F.

04-03-2009, 06:43 PM

The problem with a lot of adaptations is the fact that the people who make them simply don't realise that literature and cinema are two different things. To convey the same ideas and/or feelings you must proceed in different ways since you're not using the same tool. A good example would be The Shining (minor spoilers). At the end of the S. King novel, animal shaped hedges come to life and attack the characters. Kubrick realised that if he tried to do the same thing on film (he made the film in 1980) it would just look ridiculous so he figured out a way to create the same effect more efficiently. He replaced the hedges with a maze that fulfills the same purpose. That is what adaptation is about, adapting an original idea to another medium.

If you take the recent graphic novel adaptations like 300, Watchmen or Sin City you have cases where the directors never thought about what an adaptation should be. Instead they've just tried to recreate the same images on film, using their source material as a story board (lazy buggers). The problem is that they haven't taken into consideration the fact that a film and a comic book work differently. If you compare a shot to a picture you have to bear in mind the fact that a shot is a series of frames that can follow entire actions from beginning to end while a comic strip picture has to capture the essence of the action in a single frame. It naturally tends to be much more explicit and if you put as much information into one shot you end up with something rather grotesque.

Tryam

04-04-2009, 10:56 AM

Mark F.
You contradict yourself, really, at the beginning you say that those. who make adaptations, don't understand what they are doing, then, later, you give an example of the director who did understand what he was doing, so....?)
I believe that every man, who ever make an adaptation, in the end reaslizes the differences between a book and a film, one just must have some talent and bravery to do it properly to avoid misunderstanding among the readers.

If you take the movies based on the stories then I may highlight the Next with Nikolas Cage in the main part, the film is quite desnt and pleasant to watch. Don't be so categorical and try not to lose your time on watching bad movies, really) For example, I haven't seen 300, Watchmen or Sin City, for when I saw the trailers to them I understood that they're not worth it)

sorry for my English, if you have some misunderstanding, tell me - i'll try to correct myself.

Mark F.

04-04-2009, 12:29 PM

"The problem with a lot of adaptations is the fact that the people who make them simply don't realise that literature and cinema are two different things."

Never said all adaptations, just most.

Tryam

04-04-2009, 01:56 PM

Mark F.
not most but popular ;)
I understand now)

Tsuyoiko

04-06-2009, 09:13 AM

The Disney film Holes from the book by Louis Sachar was great, really close to the book. The Golden Compass was pretty good; they changed quite a bit out of necessity, but it was a good adaptation I think. The girl playing Lyra was perfect for the part. I enjoyed the film of Dr Zhivago, although it simplified the plot an awful lot. If we can mention TV too, I think the TV series based on the Dexter books by Jeff Lindsay is much better than the books themselves.

IJustMadeThatUp

04-06-2009, 09:26 AM

I loved The Virgin Suicides as a movie, I thought that Coppola really captured the feel and essence of the book.
Usually I can't stand watching a movie after I have read the book. I sit there and pick it to bits. My brain just won't comprehend that it can be different.
Worst adaptation: Last of the Mohicans. Watched it recently because I had just finished (and loved) the book, was so very disappointed.
P.S. I am on a mission to show how disgruntled I am about the debacle.

Lokasenna

04-06-2009, 12:02 PM

The Golden Compass was pretty good; they changed quite a bit out of necessity, but it was a good adaptation I think. The girl playing Lyra was perfect for the part.

I didn't go to see it, though I did love Pullman when I was a young teenager. I've heard though that they basically removed the whole "Catholic-Church-is-evil" thing from it - does that not entirely remove the point of the novel?

Uberzensch

04-06-2009, 01:46 PM

I think the recent Revolutionary Road did a fanatastic job of capturing the darkness and misery of Yates' novel.

Most of the time, though, I have to agree that movies do not live up to the novel.

Oh, Fight Club was pretty good - but the book is written like a movie anyways.

Tryam

04-06-2009, 04:08 PM

I don't want to barge in the conversation with Russian movies again, especially if I don't know if they are translated into English, but I can't stand it any more)
there's an adaptation of a Stendal's novel "Red and black" - "Krasnoe i chyornoe" which was made in 1976. It may seem to be boring due to long sinning of the students in the academy but the actors are playing brilliantly. To tell the truth I imagined the main hero differently but to my mind Nikolai Yeremenko was so convincing while playing the role that I was pleased with him) actually to my mind Julien got to be thinner xD
the decorations are pleasant to look at, the actresses are famous, beautiful and really talented - I believed Matilda when she was holding his head at the end. As for M-lle de Renal I felt that she was really falling apart: her beloved from one hand, her sin from the other. Yeremenko displayed such excrutiations while being the prisoner that I was stunned. Of course, I can't tell if you like it or not only if you find it somewhere you won't regret) I don't))

The other adaptation of a novel is "The first teacher" by Chinghiz Aitmatov, a soviet and a Russian writer. It was made by Andrei Konchalovskiy as his graduation work.
It's worth mentioning because it's really close to the plot due to which it again may seem to be boring, because it's black and white, there's no any musick, nevertheless you dip into the plot and stay in that time, in that epoch since that was another epoch.
The only complain is that to my mind he showed the relationships between the two characters too evidently, as it wasn't like that in the short novel as far as I remember.

kiki1982

04-06-2009, 04:12 PM

I have seen some clips of the Russian adaptation of The Three Musketeers on YouTube. I'll watch it again. Unfortunately it's not the whole thing...

I believe I'll have to look for a French one, but they haven't made any since the 70s I think.

Tryam

04-06-2009, 04:17 PM

kiki
I've found recently a whole playlist on youtube though you have to download th subs separately(((
if you want, write to me and I'll give you an url)

Eugenie

04-06-2009, 04:21 PM

I very much liked the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice. The actors played the characters so well, so richly and sumptuously.
And a really old version of Anna Karenina I found a little while ago in the supermarket of all places. It had Vivienne Leigh as Anna and I can't remember the other's names, but the person that played her husband was fabulous. The best.

Wilde woman

04-06-2009, 04:25 PM

The 1990 French version of Cyrano de Bergerac with Gerard Depardieu. Even though I don't speak French, the subtitles were done so well that it seemed like they were taken straight from a legit translation of the book. It was so true to the story and it made me laugh and cry in all the right places. Also, the cinematography was absolutely beautiful, especially in the battle scenes.

The 1968 Zeffirelli version of Romeo and Juliet. Admittedly, I don't watch many Shakespeare films, but this had me completely engrossed. The young unknown stars were simply luminous and they spoke the immortal lines with such passion, I completely believed it. I remember watching it in my high school English class and being completely in awe. I think there's something to be said for a Shakespeare movie that can capture the mind of a 16-year-old.

Mark F.

04-06-2009, 05:00 PM

For good Shakespeare films, try Welles' versions of "Macbeth" and "Othello" and Kurosawa's "Ran" ("King Lear") and "Throne of Blood" ("Macbeth").

Mariamosis

04-07-2009, 11:31 AM

'The Adventures of Mark Twain'

This is more of a kids movie, but if you love "claymation" you will enjoy this! The movie is based on a combination of books by Twain and is excellent at character depiction!

dfloyd

04-10-2009, 12:07 AM

Apocrypha75

04-10-2009, 03:51 AM

Of recent memory: No Country For Old Men. (Coen Brothers)

They did a great job of transferring the book (which I really enjoyed) to the screen. Not many changes were needed as the book is quite cinematic anyway, but I admired some of the choices they made about leaving out certain sequences and also their inclusion of the more abstract scenes that occur later in the movie. Overall I'd say the movie pips the book! :)

kiki1982

04-10-2009, 06:11 AM

Depardieu was a miscast. Depardieu is too craggy and paunchy to depict Edmond Dantes. Developing a love interest which brought nothing to the movie was a mistake. The ending, where Edmond and Mercedes appear to get back together again made the movie more like a soap opera. Depardieu has made some good French historical movies, such as Vatel and Danton, but the Dumas adaptation was off the mark. It's too bad Masterpiece Theater didn't do the Count. Their adaptations are usually right on.

I'll grant you the thing about the end. However: they did have already 5 hours of film. Making the end like the book had been another hour at least.

I didn't think that Depardieu was badly cast though. The only thing that does not fit him is that Edmond was dark-haired and Depardieu is fair, but that did not really disturb. He played his role very well I found.

The love-interest that was developed for Mercédès was there, I think, in the book too, but she changed her mind after the impending duel between her son and Monte Cristo (that is also one of the moments he is compelled to think about the 'man' he is becoming). She said in the book that she did not recognise her Edmond. I think he expected to be received in the arms of Mercédès again when he returned to the Allées de Meilhan, but unexpectedly she does not agree and sends him packing.

In the adaptation he turns back into Edmond, having given his money and houses away. In the book he does not turn back into Edmond, but is learning to get back to innocence. After having posed as a ruthless man, he is shocked into humbleness, returns to his former abode (the Château d'Îf) but cannot find his old human and compassionate self. He decides to 'start learning' by forgiving Danglars (which he also does in the adaptation) and to put his money into something more useful for himself than revenge (he gives it to Maximilien, which became the widows and orphans in the adaptation). In the book he starts to love again by Haydée who takes it upon herself to be more than his show-case wife/daughter. And he sails off more of a human than a fiend like he showed himself in the past 30 (?) years). There is still hope for him.

The end, essentially, is symbolically the same in the adaptation and the book, only the adaptation sped it up, not wanting to make anymore film after the conclusion. He turns back into Edmond (something that we won't see in the book) and comes together with his big love again (which implies an ability to empathy and humanity, which he did not show before as Monte Cristo).

I don't see why Depardieu would be too 'strong' for the part. As far as I can recall, I did not get disturbed by that, not even when reading the book.

He was very good though as Porthos in The Man in the Iron Mask. It is very sad that he had a sh*t script.

Wilde Woman, I haven't seen that adaptation of Cyranco de Bergérac yet. He won several prizes for it, so it must be good.

kiki1982

04-10-2009, 06:13 AM

About Shakespeare:

Much Ado About Nothing and Richard III of Brannagh are so good! That man, he's amazing.

MarkBastable

04-10-2009, 06:18 AM

I'd suggest the Lord of the Rings movies - not because they're great cinema, but because they give you a way in to Tolkien's story that doesn't involve ploughing through his turgid, constipated prose and his obsessive over-engineering of context.

dragonpen61

04-10-2009, 08:46 AM

The book To Kill a Mocking Bird was wonderful.

The movie based on it more than did it justice. Gregory Peck said it was his finest movie and many agree with his judgement.

Both book and movie reflect each other with the very believable life of a widower lawyer and his two children, as seen from the point of view of the daughter, along with the attempt to bring justice to an innocent black American charged with the rape of a young white woman. Both have moments of great poignancy and meaning such as with the shooting of the mad dog, the scene at the jail with the lynch mob and many others.

I suggest folks read the book and see the movie.

:thumbs_up:)

kelby_lake

04-10-2009, 08:51 AM

About Shakespeare:

Much Ado About Nothing and Richard III of Brannagh are so good! That man, he's amazing.

He's good in Othello too.

Apparantly the film of Mockingbird was quite dull, and missed out important bits of the book.

The Golden Compass was dreadful- they couldn't even call the book by its English name. The girl playing Lyra, clearly a drama-school girl, was clearly posh, attempted a bad London accent in the first ten minutes then reverted back to her posh accent.

Okay, it's a TV version...but definitely Brideshead Revisited :)

MissScarlett

04-10-2009, 10:17 AM

About Shakespeare:

Much Ado About Nothing and Richard III of Brannagh are so good! That man, he's amazing.

I agree 100%. Branagh is wonderful! And speaking of Branagh reminds me of his ex-wife, Emma Thompson. I think she did a wonderful job adapting Jane Austen's SENSE AND SENSIBILITY. I think it's the Austen adaptation I enjoy most, though EMMA is my favorite Austen book.

BienvenuJDC

04-10-2009, 10:34 AM

Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity
I read the book first, then saw the movie. I think that I would have enjoyed the movie more if I hadn't read the book first. The supporting role (sorry can't remember the details) the girl who helped him was much better developed in the book.

The Pelican Brief
I saw the movie first, then read the book. The worst part about seeing the movie first, was that the description of Julia Roberts character was ruined. Instead of developing a picture of her from the description...all I could do was picture Julia Roberts (which I wasn't completely disappointed with)...

The Count of Monte Cristo
I loved the book for the well developed scheme that Dumas created for Edmund. The well rounded characters could not possibly be portrayed in a movie...maybe a miniseries, but no one would watch it...except people like us ...MAYBE...

Gremlins
I read this when I was in Jr high...oh, so many year ago. The one thing that the movie could not achieve which I really appreciated in the book was to see inside the thoughts of Spike as he emerged from his cocoon.

faithalina

04-10-2009, 11:54 AM

It's not often you come across a movie that's better than the book. However, the two I can think of, though hardly 'literature' definitely found more entertaining than the books themselves:

Nicholas Sparks - The Notebook...both structure and content were greatly improved in the film
Jane Austen Book Club - just found the book bland. Movie was better, but didn't love it.

Definitely loved BBC's Pride and Prejudice and feel that the book and the movie both stand alone.
Also enjoyed LOTR movies...watched them before reading the books (scandalous, i know)...felt the middle book and middle film were a little tedious but again, both are good.

oh, and also really enjoyed Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet...despite not really liking Leonardo Di....