nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay

Merkin

I'm always invariably disappointed by a film adaptation of a book as I find one's own imagination to be better. Not entirely sure why, I just think it's probably impossible to capture all the nuances and subtleties that you'll find in literature.

In my experience there are a few films which have done a really good job at portraying the book and what it stands for. Atonement by Ian McEwan is an amazing story and I think the film was pretty outstanding too, particularly the vile character played by a young Saoirse Ronan.

Ken Kesey' One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is another amazing book and film (who doesn't love Jack?) and Bernhard Schlink's The Reader was very sympathetically portrayed in the film with Kate Winslet (even though the sight of her face makes me want to smack her across the chops).

What films have you seen that have done a great book justice?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ibarelycare

TheComeUp wrote: »

Fight Club definitely stands out. One of my favourite books and my favourite movie.

The Hunger Games is a good read too and I liked the movie alot as well.

Just read the Hunger Games books, and much prefer the movie, but that's mainly down to the poor writing in the books.

AnonoBoy

Films?

I don't watch films. They're the work of the devil.

If I want moving pictures I'll turn to my shelf full of flip-books, thank you very much.

syklops

gramar wrote: »

Roddy Doyle's - The Van. I was very let down by the film.
The Godfather on the other hand is a great screen adaption of the book.

Part of the problem with the Barrytown trilogy's trip to the cinema is while the books were a trilogy involving the same family, they were all different families in the movies so there was less continuity.

hidinginthebush

ibarelycare wrote: »

Just read the Hunger Games books, and much prefer the movie, but that's mainly down to the poor writing in the books.

I'm the complete opposite. While I thought the books were poorly written, they were enjoyable, I though the film was terrible.

syklops

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Films?

I don't watch films. They're the work of the devil.

But you said you laughed at Law Abiding Citizen. Is Law Abiding Citizen the only movie you have ever seen?

AnonoBoy

syklops wrote: »

But you said you laughed at Law Abiding Citizen. Is Law Abiding Citizen the only movie you have ever seen?

Sssshhh.... you.

What I say in one forum is not to be referenced in another. Especially when I'm making a joke.

[Deleted User]

desertcircus wrote: »

As an adaptation (and as a film), Wanted is a near-perfect failure. The graphic novel is sardonic, vicious, savagely unpleasant, hilarious and completely black-hearted, and the film is an utterly pointless action romp.

I Am Legend deserves a special mention, for getting so much right and falling at the last hurdle.

The movie adaptation of I Am Legend didn't get anything right from the book. Yes, Will Smith was relatively good, but so many things about it were wrong.

Children of Men is an example of a movie that was far better than the source material. While the book had an interesting story, it was just badly written and largely boring for the most part. Remember reading once that the director heard the story behind the book but refused to read it as it would ruin his vision - and it worked.

Next Friday I'm going to go see World War Z. I'm a huge fan of the book - have my own copy signed by the author, have listened to the audiobook, and love anything to do with zombies. I'm not expecting the movie to be anything like the book - the author himself has come out and said it has only the name in common, but I'm not expecting it to be a bad movie. I like Brad Pitt and there's going to be millions of effin' zombies on screen at once!!

One of the only examples I can think of right now of a good book making a good movie was The Green Mile.

Merkin

ibarelycare wrote: »

The title of this thread is confusing! Pick one or the other OP!!!

Lol, no way!

I'm genuinely interested in hearing about films that have surpassed or matched a great book as well as films that have been a huge disappointment so I can make note to avoid them!

Funny you say that about The Shining as I thought the film was amazing, another one of my favourites!

D-FENS

ibarelycare wrote: »

(I'm waiting for someone to mention The Shining as a good movie...personally I hated Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the story).

Ah here, leave it out!

ibarelycare

Merkin wrote: »

Lol, no way! I'm genuinely interested in hearing about films that have surpassed or matched a great book as well as films that have been a huge disappointment so I can make note to avoid them!

Fair enough

Merkin wrote: »

Funny you say that about The Shining as I thought the film was amazing, another one of my favourites!

Yeah I know, I'm in the vast minority. I read the book before I ever saw the film. Stand-alone, it's a great movie, but I think it's a bad adaptation. I don't think it captures just how insane Jack is going. I'd other issues as well but it's been a few years since I've read or watched, so I can't really remember!

goose2005

Harry Potter is weird, the good books (1-4) made crap movies, but the crap books (5-7) made good movies. I think as the books went along Rowling lost enthusiasm (and editors were afraid to correct her), while as the films went along the actors learned to act and the writers didn't stick so slavishly to the books.

TPD

I'd agree with the 'good adaptation' consensus for the green mile, shawshank redemption, trainspotting, cuckoos nest.

A bad adaptation that I've seen recently is 'On The Road'. Really didn't capture anything of the book IMO.

I think films will always have a hard time getting books right, as they can't really do a first person perspective very well.

ibarelycare

goose2005 wrote: »

Harry Potter is weird, the good books (1-4) made crap movies, but the crap books (5-7) made good movies. I think as the books went along Rowling lost enthusiasm (and editors were afraid to correct her), while as the films went along the actors learned to act and the writers didn't stick so slavishly to the books.

I don't agree that books 5-7 were bad, but the last 4 movies (books 5, 6, 7 pt I & II) were brilliant. But those books were a lot more grown up than the first 3 and way darker so that's why they could do so much more with the movies.

Green&Red

I think one flew over the cuckoos nest is probably the worst film ever made, or maybe just the biggest disappointment, in particular the amazing character of chief in the book is a non entity in the film

Pfff I say

long range shooter

Deep troath

steddyeddy

In the name off the rose is a brilliant book and although the movie isn't a patch one the book its still a bloody good film!

karma_

Jaws, film is slightly better than the book.

rule of thumb in my experience though is that the books are almost always superior.

gramar

I remember reading The Chamber by John Grisham and thinking that Gene Hackman would be perfect for the Sam Cayhall role. Lo and behold he was cast for the part but the film was as dull as dishwater.

Pretzill

Cormac McCarty's the Road was a better book than the film - one where your own imagination sees better pictures. I read The Exorcist as a teen and it scared the bejaypers out of me didn't see the film until much later and thought it wasn't a bit scary. I'd say Godfather a better film than book great cast. Philip Pullman's first in the trilogy of His Dark Materials was an awful adaptation -

af_thefragile

American Psycho.
Love the film. Don't think I'ld be too keen on reading a book full of snuff porn...

The Watchmen.
It was good to see how well the film followed the comic right up until the end when they dumbed the film down. Also was amazing how closely the film actors matched the comicbook characters.

The Great Gatsby.
The film followed the main story very well although missed out a bit on the depth the book gave to the characters and the overall themes of the book.
And also f*cking Jay-Z!!! Ruined the whole film...

Lord of the Rings.
Didn't read the books but loved the visuals of the film. Peter Jackson did an amazing job directing it!

chopperbyrne

Deleted User wrote: »

DUNE

I assume you mean the film doesn't live up to the book.

--Kaiser--

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I assume you mean the film doesn't live up to the book.

The thread title is up there somewhere

Celly Smunt

The godfather did the book a compliment.Awful book,great movie.

Frank Black

af_thefragile wrote: »

American Psycho.

Love the film. Don't think I'ld be too keen on reading a book full of snuff porn...

The book's way better than the film (imo).

chopperbyrne

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

The thread title is up there somewhere

It is.

"Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay"

af_thefragile

Frank Black wrote: »

The book's way better than the film (imo).

I'll agree but I do believe the film did an amazing job portraying Patrick Bateman's character and psyche and also the whole yippe culture the book was satirizing. Christian Bale's acting was brilliant and the film is full of really memorable scenes, especially the business card scene!

OneArt

Deleted User wrote: »

DUNE

HATED the David Lynch movie. The only thing I enjoyed was that the dialogue was almost identical to the book's. The visuals, character portrayals etc. all awful. Bald Bene Gesserit, wtf?

The mini-series was okay. Ian McNeice was a brilliant Baron. Sinister in the eloquent way he was supposed to be, not that sh!tty lunatic David Lynch created.

--Kaiser--

chopperbyrne wrote: »

It is.

"Films that do/don't live up to the Book or Screenplay"

Ah so it is! My bad.
Well the film is an awful mess and the book is damn good so I would say your guess would be correct

DaveDaRave

surely the thread should have been about the exception to the rule

gufnork

The Flash Gordon novelisation of the 80's movie is amazingly good. So much better than the movie. It manages to maintain that real pulp feel without being cringeworthy. The Prologue is just fantastic. It's starts with Ming saying,

"UNDERLING, I am weary."

...and it just gets better and better from there. Dale is a bit of a revelation too. Bad girl!