Books to movies

[housemouse]

The Freedomland thread got me thinking about books that are made in to movies. Most of the time movies based on books are no where near as good as the book. Here are a couple of movies that I thought were as good as the book.

Ordinary People - the movie was very true to the book and very well made. Donald Sutherland deserved the Oscar for that movie.

Lonesome Dove - Because it was a miniseries it was able to follow the book almost to the letter. The movie actually has some dialog taken directly from the book. I never thought I would write this but, Tommy Lee Jones - hubba hubba!

The Dead Zone - the movie that made me fall for Christopher Walken. He plays John Smith exactly the way Stephen King wrote him.

Oh, here's one where the book was much better than the movie, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. They had to cut too much out to make the movie. Of course Sean Penn was fabulous as Jeff Spicoli, but there was a lot more to the book than just Spicoli. In the book Mike Damone had the pizza delivered, not Spicoli.

[anna]

A funny and sweet book, part of which was made into an equally funny and sweet movie: "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash" and "A Christmas Story."

[hoosier]

One of my favorites is Gone with the Wind. Even though a lot had to be cut, it is still faithful to the book.

Another favorite is Killer Angels from the novel of the same name by Michael Shaara. Its about the battle of Gettysburg, for those of you unaquainted with it, and stars Jeff Daniels, Tom Berenger and Martin Sheen. I have read the trilogy, the other two written by Shaara's son, and the movie Gods and Generals, though good wasn't up to the same level as Killer Angels. I have read that they are planning on doing the last one some time, hopefully sooner rather than later.

One I looked forward to and was terribly disappointed with was Raise the Titanic from the book by Clive Cussler. For one Richard Jordan, who I liked and admired as an actor, was not at all my idea of Dirk Pitt and second, I kept looking for the Russians who made a major appearence in the book and were no where to be seen in the movie, thus robbing it of its tension.

[inuvik]

My favourite book, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers, was just massacred in the movie. It is a long, deep, complex book, with 5 main, intertwined characters. The movie leaves out one of the main characters and others are just portrayed superficially!

A movie I liked better than the book was Terms of Endearment. What a tearjerker! And they really fleshed out the characters in the movie.

I think one sign of a good movie is when it inspires you to read the book. A movie that did that for me was The House of Mirth (starring my fave, Eric Stoltz!) If the "lowbrow" can lead to the "highbrow", then one shouldn't criticize movies.

[greenbeing]

I've always been a movie-tie-in junkie. If there's a book out there, and I enjoyed the movie, I'll dig up the book.

One of my new favorite books is The Picture of Dorian Gray. I thought the movie did an admirable job. The interesting thing about the movie (which I saw first) was how the ending was so ambiguous. The audience didn't know Dorian's motive, and what he expected to happen. I've read the book twice in the past six months, and even though I just finished it last night, I think I might start again. There's just so much in the book that even when I was reading it the first time, only a few chapters in, I was thinking: I can't wait to read this again.

One book I was rather disappointed in, but which holds as one of my favorite stories, is Phantom of the Opera. I've seen so many movie and stage versions, but the original book... I've read it twice, and both times I've been terribly disappointed by what the author left out. It makes you think, but leaves too many questions unanswered. It's such a fascinating tale, and I've never been completely satisfied with any retelling. The closest was a novel called Phatom, by Susan Kay. This one delved into the background of the Phantom, and the motives of the characters, and the ultimate tragedy. I am ashamed that I have yet to see the version of the film with Lon Chaney. I've even seen the horrible 80s horror movie rendition!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... The movie didn't capture that quirkiness that makes the book so endearing. But it can stand on its own as a separte entity.

The Harry Potter series--can't complain!

--GB

[shmeep]

Unlike Mouse, I actually did like the movie Forrest Gump. I even went out and bought the book. Horrible mistake. It was complete garbage from beginning to end and I actually hated it. The movie captured a naive and lovable quality in Forrest that was completely missing in the book--and it was what made the movie work, in my opinion.

Another movie I preferred to the book was Runaway Jury. I thought it was quite entertaining. A friend recommended the book and I read it, even though I don't generally read that kind of fiction. The movie was aimed at gun manufacturers while the book was aimed at the tobacco industry (which has been overdone in recent years). The movie also had a nice twist at the end that wasn't even in the book and I found the read disappointing.

The Bourne Identity. The Bourne movies are far more entertaining than the books. The books are overly complicated and are wordy to the point of almost seeming to be parodies of themselves. I read the first one and tried to get through the second one (they were gifts), but I didn't get far because I liked the way the movies took the stories better.

I agree with Inuvik about The House of Mirth. Excellent book and movie. Same thing with The Age of Innocence--okay, I'm a big Edith Wharton fan--and A Room with a View. I always loved A Room with a View and was amazed to find that the book is exactly like the movie, almost word-for-word. Streaking Vicar and all.

I agree with Greenbeing's assessment of Phantom of the Opera. Loved the musical, but found the book wanting.

Les Miserables is an excellent book--if you give yourself permission to skim through the extensive chapters about sewers and nuns. I read it through once and thought it was a lot more than was needed to tell that story. Then I read the abridged version and was disappointed by all that had been cut out. The third time through, I just skimmed the parts I knew had nothing to do with the story but was able to pick things up again pretty easily whenever I wanted to get back into it. The most recent movie version of this book was horrible. Even Liam Neesom couldn't save it. I was buying the first half, right up to the point when Jean Valjean stole the good Bishop's silver--AND THEN PUNCHED HIM OUT. *sigh* Okay. But the second half went off on such a tangent I decided I hated the movie. Loved the musical, though. It remained true to the book, even though it had to cut a lot out and combine a lot.

The Lord of the Rings. The movies capture the spirit of the books beautifully. I read the books in high school and thought they were a bit tedious--but good once you got into them. Never had the urge to pick them up again. Saw the first movie. Loved it, but didn't feel the urge to re-read. Saw the second movie. Suddenly I realized I didn't remember what happened next and I was desperate to know who "she" was, so I read them through again because I couldn't wait another year to get answers. I think the reason the books are harder to follow than the movies is because each character's story is written seperately and it's hard to figure out the timeline and how all the stories interconnect. The movies show all the stories and when they happen in relation to one another and that adds to my interest. Brilliantly cast and written and acted. I LOVE those movies and am grateful they renewed my interest in the books.

[maggiethecat]

I'm sure I'll think of more, but my vote for the best translation of a children's book to the screen would be The Black Stallion. It is just glorious to look at, and perfectly captures the wonder and excitement you feel reading the book as a kid, for the first time. And don't miss the end credits of Alex and the Black playing on the island, with lovely music.

Also, I grew up on the REAL Pollyanna with Hayley Mills and loved it to pieces. It still stands up as as a wonderful movie with an amazing cast. But the book, which was writen in something like 1909, is simply dreadful -- sticky and maudlin and Victorian. Nowhere near as good as the movie.

Brideshead Revisited -- like Lonesome Dove, a miniseries so they had the luxury of time to put everything in. Perfectly cast, and now every time I reread the book I hear Jeremy Irons's voice in my head, which is not unpleasant.

A Handful of Dust, another Evelyn Waugh book brought to the big screen beautifully, with James Wilby, Kristin Scott Thomas, Alec Guinness, and the most frustrating ending in all of literature. Beautifully done.

And I'm very curious to see The Constant Gardener, since it's supposed to be just about the only book of John Le Carre's to make it to the screen with the flavor and plot intact. Love John LeCarre.

[inuvik]

maggiethecat said:

And I'm very curious to see The Constant Gardener, since it's supposed to be just about the only book of John Le Carre's to make it to the screen with the flavor and plot intact. Love John LeCarre.

I loved The Contstant Gardener movie. I haven't read the book, but the movie was fantastic, and not shallow in plot, so I'm sure you'd like it.

[maggiethecat]

Thanks, Inuvik!

Actually . . . I forgot to divide John LeCarre between small screen and large. His books haven't translated well to the big screen most of the time, but the small screen?

How could I have forgotten the BBC versions of Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People, with Alex Guinness playing LeCarre's morose, middle-aged, and quietly brilliant George Smiley? Both of these six-part series are out on DVD and tape, and if either your library or rental place stocks these, GRAB 'EM. Beautiful and thoughtful, and with a marvelous, spare Geoffrey Burgon score (he wrote the music for Brideshead Revisited).

Alec Guinness was so perfect as Smiley that John LeCarre ended the Smiley series of books -- the character, he said, now belonged to Alec Guinness. Amazing.

[hoosier]

Oops! The title of the book was Killer Angels, the title of the movie Gettysburg. My bad!

[Eyphur]

admin said:

Unlike Mouse, I actually did like the movie Forrest Gump. I even went out and bought the book. Horrible mistake. It was complete garbage from beginning to end and I actually hated it. The movie captured a naive and lovable quality in Forrest that was completely missing in the book--and it was what made the movie work, in my opinion.

I agree with your assessment of Forrest Gump. I saw the movie for the first time when I was in 7th grade and the following summer my Mom bought me the sequel to to the book Forrest Gump which is called Gump & Co. I didn't really enjoy the book mainly because it was so different from the movie I had no idea what was going on with some of the characters and also because much of the story was set in the 80s and dealt with events of the time that I was too young to remember. The end of the book was kinda cute though, it has Forrest going to the Academy Awards to see Tom Hanks win. I later did read Forrest Gump and it wasn't nearly as good as the movie.

One book to movie that I did like was The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. That has been one of my favorite books since I first read it. I loved the movie too. I cried while watching it.

[hoosier]

Centennial--the miniseries taken from the book by James Michener--lifted from the book, this is a great movie

Sense and Sensibility--the one with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson

Dune--the movie with Kyle McLachlan (on Injustice) and the 2 that were miniseries on cable.--the movie was good but took a lot of liberties, if you had actually read the novel you would have barely recognized it--the miniseries did a better job but the second one blended books 2 and 3 , Children of Dune and Dune Messiah

[greenbeing]

Read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last night, primarily because the new movie was endorsed by the author as being closer to his vision--and I found the movie rather disturbing (which is a good thing). I was especially looking for the lines about cannibalism and the reason he wears a hat. Neither of those were there (nor the bit about his father, and his father uprooting the whole house), but most everything else was.

Good book, great narrative voice, I think Mr. Dahl might be a little off his rocker... But I'm glad he doesn't go in for the sugar-coated children's books most author's do. He's more for, not necessarily realism ;D but for teaching consequences. The book was quite his way of getting off his chest a few things that were wrong with the world, such as spoiling your children and watching too much television. (Am I allowed to say on this board that there's such a thing as too much television?)

I think the moral of the story is that, if you are bad, this creepy little man is going to send his oompa-loompas after you and plan your demise, because with all of the foreshadowing, I'm quite sure he'd planned each and every "accident". But as it's a children's book, the rotten people were allowed to live.

I will not be reading this book to my three-year-old niece, as I'm sure she'd take a great liking to the term "you silly ass." Maybe when she's five...

--GB

[Dreamfire]

My first experience with book to film was when I was 13 and I rea dan amazing book by Walter Tevis called "the man who fell to earth" I loved the book so much I sat and had wrote a 120 minute film script ( in my 13 year old hand writing!) and sent it to him.

I di dnot know how things worked then! He write back and said he loved my screenplay and wished I had sent it earlier as he had sold the rights and the fim had been made in 1976. He said that secretely he liked my screenplay better and I obviously glowed like a light bulb! Anyhow I checkedout the film and it was pretty good although my own ending had not been nearly as dark.

Since then I have also been facinated with book to film. Do robots dream of electric sheep - into Blad runner . BR was much better in my opinion, really developed the human characters and gave greater depth to the fim. Loadsof PK Dick stuff works great on film.

I suspect most novels would have to be a TV series because they reallyhave so many stories within them.

As a young teenager I wanted to to scripts for Dorothy Dunnet's Lysander series but never got past the first few scenes as th ejob was mamoth!

I also think the Anne Rice vampire books would go well. They did OK with the first one. I'd love to see the one with the fireman and the witches- what's it called? Anyone read them?

[hoosier]

Ashatan--I forgot to add my greetings to you, sorry
I can not think of which Anne Rice you are refering to but it must be one from her Mayfair witches series like Lasher or Taltos. I have only read the first three of the Vampire Chronicles. They did make Queen of the Damned into a movie but I haven't seen it yet!