movies that are based on books that ARE good
does anyone know any movies that are based on books that arent a let down compared to there book counter part?
My fav moive based on a book to movie is Stardust I think the movie was as exciting and entertaining as the book was and the changes made the movie fresh and new even when I read the book first.
My fav moive based on a book to movie is Stardust I think the movie was as exciting and entertaining as the book was and the changes made the movie fresh and new even when I read the book first.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I would also add Narnia and Lord of the Rings (which both seem obligatory.)
ooh, and John Grisham's The Client, and the Pelican Brief (and The Firm, from what I hear, though I haven't seen it.)
I liked the book too, but looks like the Movie was composed out of the best stuff of the book. Or at least for me.
The Twilight and Bourne movies may be just as "good" as (or even better than) the rubbish novels on which they are based, but that doesn't mean they're any good. On the other hand, I don't know if Minority Report, Trainspotting, Full Metal Jacket or The Godfather are better or worse than the novels on which they are based, but they are well worth watching in their own right.
that wasn't very neighbourly
I call shenanigans on that list, it rates 'Secret of NIMH' as a good adaptation. I don't remember there being a magical amulet McGuffin in the book.
If a film takes a slightly different story arc to the book that is not a problem.
Also, Tarzan, the Disney one, and Aladdin, the Disney one, I both found more enjoyable than their book counterparts. If you count animated movies of course.
(I did like the Harry Potter 3 movie. It's the only of the movies I wasn't disappointed in. I wouldn't say they removed "crap" though since the 3rd book is my favourite of the series, and it's definitely a reasonable length compared to what's going on in it, so I enjoy every word of it.)
Fear and Trembling is adapted extremely closely, and I think it works in this case. I'd still say I prefer the book for all the extra comments made, but I loved the movie.
If it adds unnecessary rubbish to the storyline, then it's a problem for me.
I think my favourite 'movie of a book' is probably the original Watership Down animated movie, it manages to abridge the book but still stays faithful to it. Plus it terrorises the life out of children whose parents have rented it for them thinking it'll be a nice movie about bunnies. (that's what happened to me)
I'm generally not a huge fan of book movies that take huge liberties with the source material, unless it's being done in a really over the top way, like Baz Luhrman's 'Romeo and Juliet'.
And I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films, but I never bothered to finish the books. So that isn't very fair judgement, it's just me being too lazy. (still, the fact that I lost interest in the books but liked the films must mean something)
Holes was a pretty good movie, however the reason it was good was because it stayed so faithful to the book. This was another one of those where I liked the book more than the movie, but the movie didn't disappoint me.
The Secret of NIMH is friggin incredible, and the amulet scene is part of why it is incredible. It perfectly expresses the magic in motherly love. Don Bluth is a master of animated magic.
And please never mention the sequel again. It's the worst animated thing ever created, its a bucket of diarrhea.
I agree with what was said above with the Harry Potter movies and Holes. I enjoyed them all as much as the books.
I meant the sequel to the book, not the sequel to the movie. The book sequel is a completely different story to the movie sequel, they have nothing in common except a few of the characters. And the characters are only similar in that they have the same names.
oh, and The Great Mouse Detective.
Awesome! I've got to read those!
Also A Series of Unfortunate Events and Lord of the Rings and the Stand and IT and Gulliver's Travels and The Egg and I and The Shadow(I liked it) and Call of Cthulhu and The Godfather and Jurassic Park and the Lost World and Schindler's List and Babe and The Princess Bride and the Hunchback of Notre Dame and you want to know some bad movie adaptions of great books?
Congo.
The Relic. (No Agent Pendergast! BOO! He's the only reason to read the books.)
The Matrix sequels.
I loves that movie Jim Carey rocks!
This movie is an odd duck. It's an amalgamated adaptation of both a book of the same name (by Peter Dickinson) and Gordon R. Dickson's The Dragon and the George. The first is a speculative history book about, well, dragons; the second is a novel. Other than both being about, um, dragons, the two source materials aren't related in any way. Rankin/Bass produced the movie in the early 80s. In hand-drawn animation, that is, not stop-mo. And did I mention Don McLean -- yes, that Don McLean -- performed the opening song?
The thing is ... the movie actually works. At least mostly.
A lot of what goes right starts (and just about ends) with the script. I'm not familiar with Dickinson's book, but I've been a big fan of The Dragon and the George for years. Flight seems to take most of its story cues from the novel, though you would never, and I do mean never, mistake it for a straight adaptation. But while it's clear the movie was made with children in mind -- and God knows it won't be mistaken as a masterpiece in all-ages storytelling -- it goes some ways toward not leaving adults out in the cold.
A surprisingly approachable yet non-patronizing smartness pervades the writing. Few worries about being talked down to here. The novel's "magic as science" element is still present and accounted for, albeit boiled down to its barest yet most filmable essence. And there's a certain warmth to the characters ... a mild quirkiness that's trademark 80s animation, but in a good way. Even if they're a bit too much on the two- or one-dimensional side for their own good, dangit, it's hard not to like these guys at least a tiny bit.
It's not perfect. This was a direct-to-video release from 1982, and it shows (animation, art direction, take your pick). The character designs are very much of the Rankin/Bass house style from that era, so a generous Your Mileage May Vary applies there. And while I think Flight has aged better than most of its contemporaries, it still has enough of a kitschy late 70s/early 80s vibe to be a potential put-off. The story's not free from its share of corn, either. Oh, and yeah -- folks looking for a straight adaptation of The Dragon and the George? Tough luck.
I'm one of those folks. But I'm not a hard-core purist, and this version is different enough to stand on its own. In that vein, Flight weaves a pretty decent yarn. I like it. Maybe some of you guys would like it too.
But you don't have to take my word for it.*
--
*
I hear Kick-ass is supposedly gonna be BETTER than the book...
...for example, Secret Fawful said that the Matrix sequels were bad movie adaptions of great books, but I would bet that if there were any Matrix-related books, the books would be based on the movies, not vice-versa. Whether the movies are good or not is not my point, rather that I think some people confuse which was made first.
Actually, more often then not it seems to me that movies based on books are always better than other movies. Which saddens me a little...