Just to go along with the "what book did they butcher? thread. I'd have to think on it a bit, I suppose, but one that comes to mind immediately is FIGHT CLUB. Sure, not 100% consistent with the book. Are movies ever? But I think they did nice work and nailed what the FIGHT CLUB movie needed to be.
The Witches of Eastwick movie was greatly superior to Updike's book. The recent adaptation of Casino Royale with Daniel Craig retained the essence of Ian Flaming's novel while updating it to a modern world. It breathed life back into what was becoming cardboard, at times comic, character.
The Godfather stands out to me as the most obvious example of a film adaptation surpassing the original novel. The novel is good but nothing special. The movie is the best I've ever seen.
I agree with Shawshank, it was a great novella and an even better movie. One of my favourite movies, actually. I liked the Green Mile, too, but I felt the ending wasn't as good as in the novel.
It might disappoint you to know that MGM are bankrupt. So no more Bond, at least for a while anyway. It's a shame. Casino Royale was a well needed reboot, it was becoming a joke.
The finest book-to-film films I've ever seen are: Johnny got his Gun - based on the fantastic anti-war novel by Dulton Thumbro. The Road - based on the fantastic novel by Carmac McCarthy. Clear and Present Danger - the film and the book are very different things, but this in no way makes either bad. Clear and Present Danger was the film of my childhood almost, so this might have something to do with why I like this film so much: the Nostalgia Value.
No Country for Old Men (Another Carmac McCarthy novel). Misery (The novel is better, but the movie is just as fun and scary in my opinion). Interview With The Vampire. (Got into Anne Rice much later - and i really don't like how IWTV flows compared to the movie which i love).
^ I find the sledgehammmer bit much more effective myself; and it's done so well I still can't really watch it without getting sympathy pains. And I find the ending of the film more effective too. But - yes - that's just me too.
Yes and no. Peter Jackson did an outstanding job, but even the additional hours in the extended DVD set were insufficient to do justice to Tolkien's masterwork. I could tolerate the omission of the adventure in the Old Forest with Tom Bombadil, but writing out the cleansing of the Shire was to me a grave error. I felt the battle of Helm's Deep was given far more emphasis than it needed, and Faramir dragging the captive Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath was completely out of character. I also felt Saruman was too mundanely evil; gone was the prideful conviction that his actions were the only way to defeat Sauron, he was merely Sauron's duplicitous lieutenant.
I was so disappointed when they cut Tom out. He was one of my favorite characters! I was also disappointed with the way they rearranged many of the scenes, such as how events from one book were put into another. I understand that this was to help build cinematic tension, but it still bothered me. Maybe it's just because I was always so devoted to the books. I do agree with Cog, though. Jackson did do a great job overall, especially when the size and scale of the project are taken into consideration.
Shawshank The Green Mile (both by Stephen King) Lord of the rings, with the exception of the third. No country for old men Trainspotting
The Mr. and Mrs. Smith movie seemed identical to the book. There was nothing major that was changed. The book was pretty average, but as far as adapting to a movie it was identical. The even left in the book's no ending.
Yeah not to mention in the movie he died in the tower, and in the book he died on the roadside... Peter Jackson showed that it was an amazing story that could not be ruined. But he did not stay true to the books at all. The final fight scenes of Rotk where just terrible. Hearts in Atlantis is another good one imo. After 'The Shining' Stephen King has become extremely insistent in how his books are portrayed visually, this has resulted in much better movies imo
I think staying too true to the books can be damaging in a whole other way. For an example of this you should see "Of Mice and Men". That's what made "the shining" good it stayed slightly true but took it in a new direction. Stephen Kings problem was that people would associate Jack Nicholson's character in to kill a mocking bird, with good old Jack Torrance.
some books just don't make good movies. Take another Stephen King novel 'Dreamcatcher', to me it was a great novel. The movie had it's moments but just didn't catch me the same. One of the things I didn't like about the movie was the lack of time to build suspense. That is an advantage a novel will always have over a book. The book draws out the chase, the movie treats it like a quickie. I enjoyed the drive across maine in the book because it built the suspense level for the impending confrontation.
I always associate Jack Nicholson with One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest myself, I've never seen To Kill a Mocking Bird. I disagree somewhat: the films One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest and Downfall stack on the tension up until it's almost unbearable better than most novels. Weirdly both these films are based on books, and the books themselves are very very tense in themselves. Add on to my list: One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest Downfall - it was based on a handful of non-fiction books, yes, but it is still an amazing film.
Oh sorry I always get those two confused, it's One flew over the Cuckoos Nest not To kill a Mocking Bird. I agree that some are not suited. I don't think The Lovely Bones should ever have been made into a movie.
One flew over the cuckoo's nest.. That's one in a completely different category, IMO.. since the book and the movie aren't much alike. The same happens, but the point of view is different. In the movie McMurphy is the main character, while the book is written from the eyes of Chief. Both work remarkably well.. which make it one of my favourite movies and one of my favourite books.
How about Gone with the Wind. I do love that movie (IMO you can use CGI all you want, but the way they made movies look back then, still craps on most of the stuff today). I struggle with the book a little though.
East of Eden is one of my favorite movies; they did an especially good job with that one considering when it was made. To Kill a Mockingbird is a favorite of mine. They stuck close to the original work with The Outsiders movie. Hm... Oh and Shawshank Redemption of course.
