Best and Worst Movie Adaptation of Books You Love?

Tour2ma

Worst is easy... Joseph Heller's Catch 22.

One of my all-time fav books, but there was so much character compositing, scene dropping that the movie was a catch 22...

If you hadn't read the book, there was no way to follow the movie. If you had read the book, there was no way you could like the movie, let alone love it. You could actually see what was cut to shorten its runtime to a mere 2 hours. I swear it could have and should have been 3-1/2.


Best is tougher for me... Could be Puzo... or Vonnegut... or Tolkien... but gotta go with Truman Capote's In Cold Blood.

An absolute, couldn't-put-it-down, page-turner faithfully adapted for ?the silver screen.? It was nominated for four Academy Awards (Director ? Richard Brooks, Screenplay, Cinematography and Original Score ? Quincy Jones) and featured a breakout, never to be approached again performance by Robert Blake.

A very underappreciated movie.

AsSiMiLaTeD

While not accurate to the full story, I thought Jurassic Park did a very good job of capturing the overall essence of the book.

Tbone289

I would agree with your mention of Tolkien. The LOTR trilogy was outstanding.

Thanks for mentioning In Cold Blood, I will keep an eye out for that one.

Some of the worst for me were Steven King adaptations, such as The Shining (while a good movie, it can't touch the novel) and Cujo, which was a HORRIBLE movie.

nooshinjohn

Clive Cussler's "Raise the Titanic"... easily the worst movie I have ever seen, and one of the best books I have ever read. The adaptation was so bad that Cussler refused to go to the premier and has kept Hollywood away from his "Dirkn Pitt" character for decades. "Sahara" only served to reinforce his hatred of how hollywood butchers a story for for the big screen.

polkfarmboy

The" green mile" was a crap movie but the book was in depth with great characters also the "Dream catcher" sucked ... I mean they had morgan freeman play the part of what I thought was a kinda white supremacist general and WTF happend with the battle scene because in the book they it with the helicopter pilots have the rolling stones blasting and kicking ****

Toolfan66

"IT" was the worst by far.. Stephen Kings books turned into movies for the most part are the worst but "IT" just suck balls far worse then the others.

I hope they leave The Dark Tower series alone..

Erik Tracy

Lord of the Rings for both Best and Worst.

Best for the cinemaphotography and realization of Middle-earth.

Worst for some of the jarring changes from the book that were not in keeping with the intentions of the author:
* Faramir would never have taken the ring to his father
* Frodo would never have sent Sam away
* The Entmoot deciding not to fight Saruman
* Gandalf would never have clocked Denethor with his staff during the pyre scene - or berated Pippin for his sincere offer of service to Denethor.
* The Frodo and Gollum wrestling match as they both fall off the cliff into the Cracks of Doom (this robs Tolkien's carefully crafted moment of 'eucatastrophe' and 'grace' from Iluvatar).

brgman

TOOLFORLIFEFAN wrote: »

"IT" was the worst by far.. Stephen Kings books turned into movies for the most part are the worst but "IT" just suck balls far worse then the others.

I hope they leave The Dark Tower series alone..

+1
I thought they did a decent job on The Stand though.

polkfarmboy

Here is the thing about doing a stephen king movie ................... nearly half the budget most studios have to make the movie gets put in Stephen Kings pocket and lowers the overall production value

AsSiMiLaTeD

The problem with Stephen king movies is generally NOT the production value though

nooshinjohn

polkfarmboy wrote: »

Here is the thing about doing a stephen king movie ................... nearly half the budget most studios have to make the movie gets put in Stephen Kings pocket and lowers the overall production value

Once again you show that you have no clue about which you speak.:rolleyes:

The problems involved with translating such intricate writing into a 110 minute run-time is the reason that many books fail on the big screen. The extraordinary compromises needed in the plotline, and sub-plots tend to erode character development and that in itself blows what was a great novel right out of the water. If it takes six chapters to develope a like-able character or establish a villian, you get about 6 minutes to do it on-screen or risk loosing the audience. Books like King's or Cussler's take a long time to fully develop. This is a huge reason why they fail on film.

polkfarmboy

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

The problem with Stephen king movies is generally NOT the production value though

My comment comes from the producers who did "The dark Half " They talked about how they had such a low budget to make the movie then they went and bought the rights and Stephen King took half the budget and I think this is true about other SK movies

john your so negative like a lady on the rag with your silly responses. You clearly don't belong on a forum based on peoples opinions.

ranger

Treasure of the Sierra Madre...... and A River runs through it

The In Cold Blood choice was killer

fatchowmein

Thoroughly enjoyed "Master and Commander" (I have the entire series on my bookshelf but I'm only half way through). Wished they made more.

Hated "The Sum of All Fears" (2002) with Ben Affleck.

shack

Worst (actually most disappointing)

Book - "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton - Movie "The 13th Warrior".

This was a book that I could not put down from the minute I started it. Read it in one sitting. Movie was not total crap...but it was just so-so. They could have done so much better. This seems to be the pattern for most of Crichton's books. Some of the worst book to movie adaptations are his..."Sphere", "Congo" in addition to "The 13th Warrior". I liked "Jurassic Park" but even it could have been much better...much more ominous. The best Crichton adaptation may have been "The Andromeda Strain".

Best

Book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick - Movie "Blade Runner".

This may seem to be an easy "predictable" answer...but there is a reason the movie is held in high regard...as is the book. They are both excellent. While the movie is much different that the book, it is still one of the best adaptation ever IMO. It keeps the theme of the book and explores the questions raised by the book...

Tour2ma

^ Looks like a couple more for the reading list...

ranger wrote: »

The In Cold Blood choice was killer

Give the man a rim shot... :cheesygrin:

zane77

Have to agree with Master and Commander and i would love to see more of the Captain Aubrey books written by Patrick O'brien turned to film. I really loved this series of books, sorry when he passed away a couple of years ago

tonyb

Clint did a good job with Mystic River, and have to agree....Novels take so long to character build, that it's hard to relate that on screen in the given time.

obieone

Prolly the worst, would have to be 'Shooter'. Anyone who is a fan of Stephen Hunter, and who knows whom the character of Bob Lee Swagger was modeled after, would shutter at that flick.

For best, I'd say Grishams 'The Firm', and Clancys' 'Hunt For Red October'

avelanchefan

Nooshinjohn had it right with Raising the Titanic. Not a huge fan of Cusslers anymore but back in the day I could not put any of his books down. The movie was....wow....it was so so bad.

I will put out the Harry Potter series as good adaptations. While yes they had to leave out sections of each book, I thought overall they captured the essence of the story. I was honestly very skeptical after the first film, which was really awkward. But they gained footing after the second film and never looked back. It was a fun ride....and an excellent read! The only major ax I would grind is when Harry finds out what/who Snape truly is. In the book it was beautifully written, in the movie it felt rushed and, people who did not read the books actually thought Snape was Harry's father.