Oxford Arts Center Gala
14-year-old tried for rape
'09-'10 Miami hockey season photos
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > May > 14 > Entry
When did the movies get the books right?
It seems like every time a movie version of a best-seller comes out (such as Angels & Demons, which I will review Friday), people complain about how Hollywood messed it up. And the landscape of book-to-film adaptations is littered with botches.
Once in a while, though, Hollywood does get it right. So today I’m asking you: Which movies got the books right - or at the very least, did them justice? And are there even examples where the movie is BETTER than the book?
Off the top of my head, here are some fine adaptations.
The Grapes of Wrath: No movie can hope to match John Steinbeck’s unique writing style and techniques in this book, but John Ford’s film comes about as close as any film possibly could. A magnetic lead performance from Henry Fonda surely helped.
Misery: When I read Stephen King’s novel, I couldn’t see how a movie could convey all those internal thoughts of the kidnapped writer, but Rob Reiner found a way to do it. Kathy Bates’ Oscar-winning performance surely helped.
The Wizard of Oz: Well, duh. Fun as Baum’s book is, it doesn’t have “Over the Rainbow.”
Spider-Man: Yes, comic books count too. The second movie is easily the best.
So what are your favorite book-to-film adaptations? And just to balance the scales, tell me the absolute WORST adaptations. I vote for a tie: The Bonfire of the Vanities and The Cat in the Hat.
Discuss while I try to purge my memory of those movies, click my heels three times and say “There’s no place like home …”
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Comments
By ME
May 20, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
I agree the two BEST King films were Green Mile and Shawshank. I also agree that Lord of the Rings was true to the books. For me as a kid I read those books and I don’t think anyone could have done a better job giving me what I pictured (and better) as I read. I vowed not to read the Potter books until all the movies were done. I’d rather be impressed by the movies now and then read the books and learn so much more. I have an aunt who read every book and went to every first showing. She was dedicated and she was disappointed a couple times as they were not what she had hoped. I would also agree that Mockingbird is too a fantastic version of the book.By Hillary
May 15, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this
That would have to be “The Notebook” by Nicholas Sparks. Of the movies made from his books, that one was very close to the book.By Kim
May 15, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this
This is a great topic with movies increasingly turning to books for material it seems - or TV! I agree with much of what has been posted. Wizard of Oz is one that I think is better than the book - I was quite shocked when I finally got around to reading it. Gone With the Wind had some glaring differences from the book - but I think still managed to capture the epic sweeping feel of it. The Potter franchise had been getting it right until Order of the Phoenix, which I still enjoyed just because I love the characters so much, but it was a huge disappointment and can’t compare to the book - way too short and rushed. Pride & Prejudice is one of my favorite novels of all time, and I thought that the version with Keira Knightly was a splendid adaptation. I can watch it over and over - just as I have repeatedly read the book. Emma Thompson also did a wonderful job with Sense & Sensibility. I could go on and on with this topic - lol!By Daniel
May 15, 2009 8:47 AM | Link to this
As for Stephen King, I’ve only read some of his horror novels, and Carrie and Misery are decent adaptations, but it’s nearly impossible to turn King’s books into truly great movies. He’s just too good of a writer. As for the Harry Potter movies/books, obviously the books are far better by miles, and this is even more evident when you read the book just before seeing the film. I made that mistake with the 3rd Harry Potter film, and I absolutely hated the movie because I sat there realizing everything that was left out. Needless to say, I’ve never done that again. As for The Golden Compass, the film was quite different but it ended so much better than the book. The book has a very convoluted ending that almost made me as a reader not care to read the future books. Eventually I did, and they did get better, but I truly felt like the movie’s ending was dealt with very nicely for the movie. It did create a mess if they ever had to create a second movie, but unfortunately that seems unlikely.By Gregory Peck
May 14, 2009 4:45 PM | Link to this
To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the finest film adaptations I have ever seen. It remains true to the novel and is impeccably acted as well.By Book Fan
May 14, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this
I have never been into watching movies, sometimes I do get intrigued to see the Directors version of a story. One in particular I didn’t like was, Silence of the Lambs. (Movie version). I think that is because the movie came out before I had a chance to finish the book and all of my charactors were messed up.By Roger
May 14, 2009 3:27 PM | Link to this
I thought “Beowulf 3D” was better than the book (rather poem) but I thought “13th warrior” was not as good as the book on which it was based, “Eaters of the dead”, Michael Crichton’s expounded supposition of the Beowulf poem.By Dave
May 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this
After watching “Von Ryan’s Express”, I read the book. The book is objectively much better, but if you share my view of Sinatra, the ending of the movie really rocks.By Jeremy
May 14, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this
I can’t say I have read too many of the books of which movies were based, but of the ones I have read, most have been disappointing. I really liked the Lord of the Rings adaptations, even though he had to take a lot of plot development out to even make it 4 hours. I have high hopes for The Alchemist when it gets made this year. It is short enough of a book to not get entirely decimated when being translated into the big screen.By Allie D.
May 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this
Kim — You make a good point about some movies being overly faithful to the source material. The two mediums are not 100% compatible. Usually when a movie tries too hard to be like the book, it ends up overly long and boring.By Murray the L
May 14, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this
I liked the movie version of Slaugtherhouse Five. I felt it was fairly close and did try to replicate Vonnegut’s humor. I thought Field of Dreams actually exceeded the book version, which would have been beyond ridiculous if it was too closely adapted.By Kim S.
May 14, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this
I agree on the “Starship Troopers” suggestion. The book was brilliant, the movie was crap. I think “Carrie” was a faithful adaptation as far as King goes, and I also agree on the Harry Potter comments. I think that “Watchmen” was extremely faithful - to its detriment. Worst adaptation - “Atonement” - but that’s probably only because I loved the book so much I couldn’t help but be disappointed. As far as “Bonfire” goes, I don’t even know what they went for with the film, but the book was great.By Allie D.
May 14, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this
Ooh! One of my favorite topics. I have to say, I’m a book reader, but over the years I have tried to develop more of a knowledge of the film making process so I can understand the adaptation process and why some filmmakers do what they do. I also try not to read the book first if I know a film is coming out, because I don’t want to nitpick. Sometimes, however, this is unavoidable. Movies that got it right: Lord of the Rings, the first four Harry Potter movies, Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood (to be fair, the latter was barely an adaptation, as the movie was so starkly different from the Upton Sinclair novel on which it’s based), The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile. The ones that botched the job completely? The Golden Compass (I haven’t even read the book, but I could tell by the half-baked feel of the movie that it got it all wrong and conversations with Phillip Pullman fans proved me right), the previous Harry Potter movie (how do we make the shortest movie out of the longest book? Ugh), Starship Troopers, most Stephen King books with the exception of the two I mentioned above, and finally The Da Vinci Code. But then again, the novel wasn’t great. It was purely pedestrian and plot-driven. I guess this should have made it ripe for the big screen, but ironically, I think the movie would have fared better in the hands of a less-skilled director. Ron Howard tried a little too hard to put a polish on that turd, and it backfired. lol