Film adaptations of great books

Dudess

I was inspired to start this thread after watching Nineteen Eighty-Four.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MgOQznfFOY
I first saw it when I was 14, and the only impression it left on me was one of intense terror. However I'm twice that age now and I watched it again recently - it absolutely took my breath away. The level of loving attention director Michael Radford paid when making that movie is stunning - right down to filming during the actual period in the year 1984 as imagined by Orwell.
The casting is inspired - John Hurt IS Winston Smith. I can't imagine any other actor in the role, apart from Jeremy Irons, who would have been too young at the time. Suzanna Hamilton is also perfection as Julia - shame nothing much else happened for her. She is really remarkable in this film.
But the most brilliant performance of all has got to be that of Richard Burton - portraying enigmatic senior party official, O'Brien. No doubt a very difficult role due to the character's ambiguity, but Burton's performance is just beautiful. He died just as filming ended - and only arrived on board six weeks into it.
The face of Big Brother is perfect too - an unprofessional actor called Bob Flag who answered a newspaper ad. http://www.apfn.org/APFN/1984-movie-bb2_a.jpg. The fact that an anonymous face was chosen rather than a famous actor displays an excellent understanding of the ambiguity of Oceania's omnipotent ruler (i.e. it's not clear whether he actually exists).
The gloominess of the book is impeccably captured. The faithfulness is astonishing (a few details are omitted, no doubt purely due to time constraints). A film version was also made in the 1950s not long after Orwell's death and it takes ridiculous liberties - right down to Winston Smith being executed at the end and shouting "down with Big Brother" just before he dies. Talk about missing the point! By the way, that's not a spoiler because the actual ending couldn't be any more different.

The only negative about the later version is the awful Eurythmics soundtrack - and this wasn't even Michael Radford's choice. The film was backed by Virgin cinema, who wanted to use it as a platform for its biggest act. The music is synth-heavy and "futuristic" sounding, which is completely inappropriate since it may be set in Orwell's future but it's not at all futuristic in the sci-fi/Blade Runner-ish sense. Radford was very unhappy about the soundtrack and later had a version released without any Eurythmics music, just that of composer Dominic Muldowney - Radford's original choice. Great music - his national anthem for Oceania is beautiful.
And the opening scene of the Two Minutes' Hate - absolutely astounding. For those of you who have not seen it, it's on YouTube in ten or eleven parts. A few people have posted it up (although one of them has sex scenes cut out - how 1984-ish is that?!)
Yet another version is to be released in 2009 - don't really see the point but I hope they don't screw it up.

On the other hand, another great nightmare future novel is Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. The film from 1990 is exceptionally poor.

So what other good/bad film adaptations of great novels have made an impression on you?

Valmont

Dudess wrote: »

So what other good/bad film adaptations of great novels have made an impression on you?

Ok that post was way too long but in response to the end:p

I really didn't like the last two Lord of the Rings movies.
When I try to remember the book, the memory has been replaced by the pansy, Elijah Wood. I didn't like him as Frodo at all.

Legolas came across a bit too feminine ( I know he's an elf, but still)

Gimli was a joke, literally. I felt he was a little darker in the book.

The slow motion action scenes that lasted for days.

Although I think that Gandalf and Saruman were brilliant in the movies. Gollum was great too. Oh and Sean Bean was good as boromir.

The main reason I hate the movies is when

bad guy: No man can kill me. I forget her name: I am no man

. I cried tears of cringe.

Running Bing

Post to long to read at this time of night.......Ill read it tomorrow:D


Saw the title and thought "A clockwork orange" though. Great Book....Great Film.

Faerie

I loved the Lord of the Rings and when the films came out I loved them too! I think they capture the books perfectly - okay Elijah Wood's accent is a little dodgy in places but I think his acting great.

I think the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is perfect (1994 one with Jennifer Ehle). I love the book and the adaptation is very loyal (I don't like it when films ignore iportant aspects of the book). To be honest most of the BBC adaptations are perfect! Like the recent Jane Eyre.

I think the Princess Bride film is a classic and even could compete with the book (very rare!) However I'm not sure this counts because I saw the film first.

Dudess

Yeah, my post was intended to be short and concise, but turned into a ramble waxing lyrical about 1984!

MrJoeSoap

My favourite book (Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer) is now one of my top five films. Was very sceptical before I saw it but was blown away. However, another one of my favourite books, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was made into a film and I have no desire to see it. I can't see how a two hour movie could do the book any justice.

The Denouncer

I thought they did a great job with Silence of the Lambs and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption...but of course I love Blade Runner and even though I would say its no more than inspired from the great Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, whilst reading that novel I can picture Ridleys visuals..the animoid row scene in particular resonates.

Valmont

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was made into a film and I have no desire to see it. I can't see how a two hour movie could do the book any justice.

hear hear, I'm definitely with you on that one. The sheer madness of that book in my opinion definitely wouldn't lend itself to a neat 2 hour movie. They are still the funniest books I've ever read though

Dudess

The Denouncer wrote: »

but of course I love Blade Runner and even though I would say its no more than inspired from the great Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick, whilst reading that novel I can picture Ridleys visuals..the animoid row scene in particular resonates.

Blade Runner is stunning but not that faithful to the book, no.

WadeTalon

Valmont wrote: »

hear hear, I'm definitely with you on that one. The sheer madness of that book in my opinion definitely wouldn't lend itself to a neat 2 hour movie. They are still the funniest books I've ever read though

the very low budget bbc series does the books way more justice, I'd recommend hunting em down, just try and look past the really dated special effects (on some level they add to the strangeness)

Eoin

Stephen King's Misery was pretty well done - Kathy Bates was just excellent. Unfortunately, The Stand and other adaptations didn't fare so well.

Not that the book or the film were huge, but Clint Eastwood's film version of Blood Work (written by Michael Connelly) was absolutely awful. The book wasn't one of his bests by any stretch, but the film was terrible. The ending was very different, which Connelly actually referenced in the sequel.

qwertplaywert

eoin_s wrote: »

Stephen King's Misery was pretty well done - Kathy Bates was just excellent. Unfortunately, The Stand and other adaptations didn't fare so well.
.

I've always though King adaptions work alot better as a mini series, and hollywood seems to have coped on to this. That said,there has been low points[remake of Salems Lot was dreadful,****ing Rob Lowe!] and as you mentioned, The Stand.

Jello

A Clockwork Orange - One of my all time favourite books from author Anthony Burgess, adapted to the screen by Kubrick himself who did a fantastic job IMO.

Fight Club - Fincher did an absolutely outstanding job of Palahniuk's masterpiece.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - excellent adaption from Gilliam of Thompson's hilarious novel.

arbeitsscheuer

WadeTalon wrote: »

the very low budget bbc series does the books way more justice, I'd recommend hunting em down, just try and look past the really dated special effects (on some level they add to the strangeness)

Definitely. I'd heartily recommend that everyone rent out the full BBC series, I saw it all in one go about 3 years ago (having finished the books) and I thought it was fantastic. Didn't go to see the 2-hour film, I just knew they'd c0ck it up - even the casting was wrong ffs.

But yeah, track down the BBC series of Hitchhiker's Guide, it's awesome

Crumbs

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

My favourite book (Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer) is now one of my top five films. Was very sceptical before I saw it but was blown away.

Indeed. Wasn't sure what to expect with the film but it was fantastic. Film of the year.

sproggy13

Gone Girl

Cows Go µ

I like the Lord of the Rings books and the movies but they feel so different. I like different things about both but I feel like the movies lack the gravitas of the books. I'm not sure if that's the right word but while both are epic, the movies have a tendency to be silly.

I love the Princess Bride adaptation and the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice is great.

But my all time favourite adaptation is the Sharpe series. Sean Bean is Richard Sharpe. When I read the books I completely visualise all of the actors from the TV series. I've reread all of the books recently so I really need to go back and watch the series again. (plus it's like the Sean Bean opposite land, he survives an entire war!)

R P McMurphy

The godfather and the exorcist. The latter was a great adaptation for its time. Have not seen it in years but imagine it might have held up well enough

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I thought Atonement was an excellent adaptation. It's a difficult one to get right with the time jumps and having to have three different people play one character. The casting was excellent there. Romola Garai did great work taking over from Saoirse Ronan who established Briony as one annoying little shnit. Visually too it's excellent, we all know the tracking shot, yes?

Seen some mention of Pride & Prejudice. Never been a huge fan of it myself, book or adaptation but BBC did a great version of Emma a few years ago.

I know there's mixed feelings about Brooklyn but just in terms of adapting book to screen it's pretty much perfect. Cut out the right bits, kept all the important bits, just a very well done adaptation.

In terms of one's I don't like... every single version of Great Expectations ever made. It's one of my favourite books and everyone just seems to get it so wrong every single time.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

A few mentions of the Princess Bride too, interesting to see that. Apparently the book is very different from the film.

Falthyron

A Scanner Darkly was adapted into a movie starring Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder and Robert Downey Jr. The film is almost a perfect adaptation except for one scene that was omitted. Very enjoyable!

The Watchmen (despite the flaws) is another great adaptation of a complicated and difficult graphic novel.

Falthyron

A Scanner Darkly was adapted into a movie starring Keanu Reeves, Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder and Robert Downey Jr. The film is almost a perfect adaptation except for one scene that was omitted. Very enjoyable!

The Watchmen (despite the flaws) is another great adaptation of a complicated and difficult graphic novel.

Whyohwhy?

For myself, I have to say hitchhikers (with Martin freeman, mos Def etc) isn't bad by a long shot.

I felt that it pretty much captured the absurdity of it pretty good (and never even attempted to condense the trilogy of five into 2 hours) it literally set up the sequel, the restaurant at the end of the universe, with the very last line spoken!!!


Considering how long it took for it to actually make it to a major production, I wasn't disappointed (listen to "so long and thanks for all the fish" from the film and tell me you aren't smiling...)

Turtyturd

All the main ones have been mentioned. Still stand by the opinion that the movie version of Watchmen was better than the book, especially the ending.

City of God is one that hasn't been mentioned so far. The movie is good in it's own right but would recommend the book over it.

Technocentral

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote:

In terms of one's I don't like... every single version of Great Expectations ever made. It's one of my favourite books and everyone just seems to get it so wrong every single time.

Really? Leans version is one of the best films ever, full stop!!!

Technocentral

Whyohwhy? wrote:

For myself, I have to say hitchhikers (with Martin freeman, mos Def etc) isn't bad by a long shot.

You're joking, its bloody awful, the TV show is brilliant on the other hand.

The Road was a decent enough attempt at a film of a book, there were a few differences and omissions some for obvious reasons but over all I thought it was quite bood.

Actually now I think of it a few of Cormac McCarthy's books have had decent on screen adaptations made, though I really doubt we'll ever see Blood Meridian on a big screen , think the days when that movie could have been made are 10-15 years gone. They did his Child Of God book in recent years but I haven't seen it, I believe it's very close to the book with minor changes but reviews are mixed , and reminds me it's on my to watch list.


The Omega Man (book was I am legend)was always one I enjoyed as a guilty pleasure, that does have some big differences to the book but far better than the will smith adaptation a few years back.

I know there are loads I'm forgetting

Edit: Just on the subject of 1984 in the OP I read that again recently enough and was astounded how well that book had aged. Was expecting it feel very out dated , but it didn't in any way.

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote:

Edit: Just on the subject of 1984 in the OP I read that again recently enough and was astounded how well that book had aged. Was expecting it feel very out dated , but it didn't in any way.

Will be current and relevant somewhere in the world until the end of time, unfortunately.

Edward Hopper

I love Gorky Park, not a literary classic but a great read none the less. I've read it a few times (although Polar Star, its sequel, is my favourite in the series and, I have to confess, I'm a Arkady Renko fanboy). The film is excellent, if a bit dated, and a bit ponderous at times. Dennis Potter wrote the screenplay and there's some brilliant performances from William Hurt, Lee Marvin and Brian Dennehy to enjoy.

I'm sure I read somewhere Cruz Smith didn't approve of the film, but I'd still recommend it for a slightly different taken on the cold war period.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Technocentral wrote: »

Really? Leans version is one of the best films ever, full stop!!!

Lean's film isn't that bad, I'll admit, but it is, in the grand tradition of films of that time, a literal adaptation of the book. They didn't believe in condensing things back then

I still don't think it captures the book though. The guy playing Pip looks like he's about 50 too. Funnily enough most other adaptations I've seen lean (no pun intended) heavily on Lean's version, scene for scene at times.

MfMan

Edward Hopper wrote: »

I love Gorky Park, not a literary classic but a great read none the less. I've read it a few times (although Polar Star, its sequel, is my favourite in the series and, I have to confess, I'm a Arkady Renko fanboy). The film is excellent, if a bit dated, and a bit ponderous at times. Dennis Potter wrote the screenplay and there's some brilliant performances from William Hurt, Lee Marvin and Brian Dennehy to enjoy.

I'm sure I read somewhere Cruz Smith didn't approve of the film, but I'd still recommend it for a slightly different taken on the cold war period.

Like you, I love Gorky Park, and count it among the greatest of all English-language thrillers. However, despite very good casting, I felt that the film came nowhere near capturing the complexity, depth, characterisation, paronia, the sheer imagination or originality of the novel. I realise it would be a very hard book to film, but the final third of the movie is a complete departure from the thriller. It's sequel Polar Star would probably have been easier to film, given it's more confined setting.

Guffy

Technocentral wrote: »

You're joking, its bloody awful, the TV show is brilliant on the other hand.

Tv show was ok
Movie god awful... i mean it is prob up there with one of the worst movies I've seen.
Books, best I've read. Very few books I've had to put down because i was laughing so hard.

Edward Hopper

MfMan wrote: »

Like you, I love Gorky Park, and count it among the greatest of all English-language thrillers. However, despite very good casting, I felt that the film came nowhere near capturing the complexity, depth, characterisation, paronia, the sheer imagination or originality of the novel. I realise it would be a very hard book to film, but the final third of the movie is a complete departure from the thriller. It's sequel Polar Star would probably have been easier to film, given it's more confined setting.

Oh, I agree I'd take the book every time over the film, and have only watched the film two or three times, but an average version of that book is still better than an awful lot of films from, and about that era.

Good excuse to promote the book anyway!

I forgot Dune, an awful film adaptation of what many consider to be the greatest sci-fi saga ever written.

Actually I saw Jodorowsky's Dune documentary recently and obviously while not a film is well worth a watch, bit of insight into many other films of the time too.

I'm really surprised no one has had another crack at Dune given Hollywoods penchant for all things saga in terms of books to film these days, I would have thought the vultures would have been circling that one for sure. Though I think there was a mini series a few years ago

ricero

Suprised trainspotting hasnt been mentioned yet. Fantastic book and film

frostyjacks

American Psycho was a very good adaptation. Impossible to recreate some of the more explicit scenes in the book, but it captures the essence well. Christian Bale put's in the best performance of his career, plus there's Willem Dafoe in a few scenes, which is never a bad thing.

Leogirl

Not a movie but Roots was a fantastic series- book was amazing.

Also The Shining.

Whyohwhy?

Don't get the hate for the hitchhikers movie tbh, mos Def was good as ford:wacky and off the wall. Freeman was perfect as Arthur, gormless and bewildered. Lass who played trillian... Meh... Only complaint about zap hod was the way the two heads was done, just fcukin wrong.

Have seen a few episodes of the BBC series, it's enjoyable to be sure, but the effects etc, just ruin it for a me.

(I first read the books at eight, so around `93 or so. This may be colouring my opinion a bit) but I really don't think it's that bad imo,(certainly flawed. But not tripe) of course each to their own.

Technocentral

Whyohwhy? wrote: »

Don't get the hate for the hitchhikers movie tbh, mos Def was good as ford:wacky and off the wall. Freeman was perfect as Arthur, gormless and bewildered. Lass who played trillian... Meh... Only complaint about zap hod was the way the two heads was done, just fcukin wrong.

Have seen a few episodes of the BBC series, it's enjoyable to be sure, but the effects etc, just ruin it for a me.

(I first read the books at eight, so around `93 or so. This may be colouring my opinion a bit) but I really don't think it's that bad imo,(certainly flawed. But not tripe) of course each to their own.

Its not about effects its about characters and the spirit of the books which the TV show had in spades, I read the books just before I watched the TV show when it was first broadcast and loved it, good humour doesn't rely on fancy effects (I hate CG anyway).

Whyohwhy?

Technocentral wrote: »

Its not about effects its about characters and the spirit of the books which the TV show had in spades, I read the books just before I watched the TV show when it was first broadcast and loved it, good humour doesn't rely on fancy effects (I hate CG anyway).

That's probably it, I came into it decades after both the books and series was first out, I think this has an effect on both our perspectives (though obviously not the books, because... Just because)

Liam McPoyle

American Psycho is one of my favourite novels of all time but the film adaptation is very poor comparatively.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Gone Baby Gone is a very good adaptation of the book.

Managed to fit the whole story in and Casey Affleck was excellent as Patrick Kenzie.

I saw the film before I read the book but the film complements the book very well and if it had been badly done it might have ruined the book slightly.

I'd second Gone Girl which was mentioned it's an excellent adaptation of the book and the casting of the 2 lead characters was spot on.

Sad Professor

I'm not a big fan of Lean's Great Expectations either. And don't get me started about Newell's. I thought Cuaron's version best captured the spirit of the book, even if it departed significantly from it in other ways. It certainly captures the obsessive aspect better than any of the others.

I used to hate Harron's American Psycho but have grown to appreciate it as a feminist deconstruction of the book. My thoughts about the book have changed the more I've learned about Ellis, who it seems was writing quasi-autobiographically. Which of course is probably what gave the book its power, but the realisation that Patrick was (to a large extent) Ellis's self-insertation makes me think Harron had the right idea about the book all along.

The best adaptations are often the ones in which the director didn't care much for the source material except for the premise. Kubrick thought Stephen King was a hack, for example, and pretty much tore The Shining apart and put it back together.

micar

frostyjacks wrote: »

American Psycho was a very good adaptation. Impossible to recreate some of the more explicit scenes in the book, but it captures the essence well. Christian Bale put's in the best performance of his career, plus there's Willem Dafoe in a few scenes, which is never a bad thing.

will never get over reading the rat part

Dial Hard

Eoin wrote:

Stephen King's Misery was pretty well done - Kathy Bates was just excellent. Unfortunately, The Stand and other adaptations didn't fare so well.

The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and The Green Mile were all excellent, The Mist would have been if not for the massive change to the end.

King's books do best in the hands of directors (like Frank Darabont) who understand that he's a master of characterisation and not just horror hack.

I guess it all depends on everyone's opinion of what constitutes a great book. Like, "Jaws" is probably the master example of a fantastic film adaptation but I don't think anyone could ever accuse the source material of being a great (or even good) book.

Ipso

LA Confidential, a complete beast of a book where they removed a few sizeable sub plots but still left a complex film.
I heard the Black Dahlia was terrible.