best movie adaptation of a book?

Options
2

Replies

  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Options
    The Hours. :heart:

    Adaptation, from The Orchid Thief was a good one.

    I liked Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, even though the critics did not. I'm sure there are many others I can't think of right now....:smile:
  • surfrgrl1
    surfrgrl1 Posts: 1,464 Member
    Options
    The Green Mile, in my opinion is was very very close to what I imagined from reading the book.
  • ThePhoenixRose
    ThePhoenixRose Posts: 1,985 Member
    Options
    First thing that came to mind was how terrible The Horse Whisperer was butchered. The book ending was PERFECT, but apparently not good enough for the movie.

    And I love that book, was so excited to see the movie. Most of it was filmed on my best friend's family ranch in MT, when I used to live there.
  • sunkisses
    sunkisses Posts: 2,365 Member
    Options
    for colored girls was spot on with the book as well...like VERY well done. kudos to tyler perry for that one because i really don't care for him that much.
    Word. Same here.

    it's crazy, because when i say that to my friends/family i get a lot of backlash but i'm like..he makes the SAME movie, over and over again, and capitalizes off of stereotypes and minstrel characters. but then i'm just 'reading too much into it' apparently.
    Nope, you're not. I prefer to believe that people aren't 'reading enough into it'. Maybe we're just too "thinky". I guess it's hard for people to think closely about why they find something funny because they are worried that they might not find it funny anymore and they just want things to be light and humorous still (understandable) or that they might feel poorly about why they laughed in the first place.*shrug* I don't know...
  • SkateboardFi
    SkateboardFi Posts: 1,322 Member
    Options
    for colored girls was spot on with the book as well...like VERY well done. kudos to tyler perry for that one because i really don't care for him that much.
    Word. Same here.

    it's crazy, because when i say that to my friends/family i get a lot of backlash but i'm like..he makes the SAME movie, over and over again, and capitalizes off of stereotypes and minstrel characters. but then i'm just 'reading too much into it' apparently.
    Nope, you're not. I prefer to believe that people aren't 'reading enough into it'. Maybe we're just too "thinky". I guess it's hard for people to think closely about why they find something funny because they are worried that they might not find it funny anymore and they just want things to be light and humorous still (understandable) or that they might feel poorly about why they laughed in the first place.*shrug* I don't know...

    sounds logical
  • sinclare
    sinclare Posts: 369 Member
    Options
    Okay I admit I try not to see movies of books I read--they always disappoint me, lol, and if I see the movie and never get around to the book!
  • MrsSpratt
    MrsSpratt Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    It's not a movie, but in my opinion the True Blood series on HBO is actually much more exciting and richer in characterization than the original Sookie Stackhouse novels.
    I agree with this. The show is much better than the books.

    "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a really good adaptation. Also, there was a BBC production of "Jane Eyre" with Timothy Dalton that was very good.
  • SkateboardFi
    SkateboardFi Posts: 1,322 Member
    Options
    It's not a movie, but in my opinion the True Blood series on HBO is actually much more exciting and richer in characterization than the original Sookie Stackhouse novels.
    I agree with this. The show is much better than the books.

    "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a really good adaptation. Also, there was a BBC production of "Jane Eyre" with Timothy Dalton that was very good.

    yes! to kill a mockingbird WAS good!

    1984 wasn't bad either...
  • MrsSpratt
    MrsSpratt Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    HBO changed a few things, but the Game of Thrones is pretty accurate.
    I thought it was a snooze. It was like there was someone off-screen at all times whispering "Be stoic" at Sean Bean. That was his only emotion in the whole series.
  • SabrinaJL
    SabrinaJL Posts: 1,579 Member
    Options
    The Shawshank Redemption. I was excited for The Mist, since Frank Darabont did such a great job with Shawshank, but I can't believe how they changed the ending. My husband hated the ending so much that I actually made him read the last few pages of the book.
  • SkateboardFi
    SkateboardFi Posts: 1,322 Member
    Options
    The Shawshank Redemption.

    i read this book but never saw the movie..
  • LilMissFoodie
    LilMissFoodie Posts: 612 Member
    Options
    I really loved the book 'The Help' so I didn't think the movie was quite as good but as far as movies based on books go, I think they did a good job.

    Oh, and 'Looking for Alibrandi' - Australian book/movie - I actually much prefer the movie (even though the book is good), it's just really well cast I think.
  • SarabellPlus3
    SarabellPlus3 Posts: 496 Member
    Options
    The Game of Thrones HBO series / Song of Ice and Fire series, I read those books years ago, then re-read them (I NEVER re-read) before the show came out, and I think the show is amazing. Not as amazing as the books, but great. Shawshank, yes; To Kill a Mockingbird, absolutely; a few others already mentioned.

    I also thought the Lord of the Rings movies were so true to the books. I know some total purists are upset with the seriously minor changes (when you think about the scope, so minor IMO), but I honestly thought those were even better than the books. The books were an amazing story, with, frankly, a little too much detail at times. Not to be down on Tolkien, but it's just how I feel. The movies were all but perfection.
    It's not a movie, but in my opinion the True Blood series on HBO is actually much more exciting and richer in characterization than the original Sookie Stackhouse novels.
    I agree. I watched the first season and debated whether I wanted to read the books, because I loved the series so much, I didn't want the books spoiling it for me! LOL Backwards, but true on that one. The books are not as good as the show. Still fun and worth reading, but different enough that it doesn't spoil you, and not as good as the show!
  • roebuck1908
    roebuck1908 Posts: 185
    Options
    Yellow pages very factual
  • ScotsLenny
    ScotsLenny Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    LOTR was pretty much nailed by the movie maker
  • GateCrasher1
    GateCrasher1 Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    I felt like Band of Brothers was pretty accurate, but the Pacific deviated pretty significantly from With the Old Guard.

    LOTR did a great job considering the scope of the story.
  • Navie42
    Navie42 Posts: 152
    Options
    I thought it was a snooze. It was like there was someone off-screen at all times whispering "Be stoic" at Sean Bean. That was his only emotion in the whole series.

    Yes, but that IS the character of Eddard Stark, he is nothing else in the book. I love Eddard, but there are definitely more 3 dimensional characters in the books / series.

    Game of Thrones is, in my opinion, a great adaptation of the books.

    I agree with the PP who said Sin City, it was very true to the source material, and I would raise you Watchmen. Watchmen was, again, panel for panel of the graphic novel and, in my opinion, a brilliant adaptation. If they handled the material right, Transmetropolitan would be a fantastic movie or mini series choice.
  • Johnnyswife
    Johnnyswife Posts: 1,447 Member
    Options
    I saw The Namesake first before reading it, and it was so good, I bought the book. The movie didn't really stray too far from the book which makes me happy.

    Also always enjoy Little Women and a Little Princess..the 1995 version was great. The A&E version of Pride and Prejudice is great as well. Close to the book. :flowerforyou:
  • trelm249
    trelm249 Posts: 777 Member
    Options
    The movie version of "The Bourne Identity" was definitely an improvement over the Robert Ludlum novel.
  • MrsSpratt
    MrsSpratt Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    I thought it was a snooze. It was like there was someone off-screen at all times whispering "Be stoic" at Sean Bean. That was his only emotion in the whole series.

    Yes, but that IS the character of Eddard Stark, he is nothing else in the book. I love Eddard, but there are definitely more 3 dimensional characters in the books / series.

    Game of Thrones is, in my opinion, a great adaptation of the books.

    I agree with the PP who said Sin City, it was very true to the source material, and I would raise you Watchmen. Watchmen was, again, panel for panel of the graphic novel and, in my opinion, a brilliant adaptation. If they handled the material right, Transmetropolitan would be a fantastic movie or mini series choice.
    I disagree about Eddard. He has much more of an emotional range in the book than in the series. My husband liked the series a lot, but I was disappointed. There was too much Lannister point of view for my taste. Jamie Lannister shows up very little in the first book, but he was all over the screen in the show. And I didn't like the way they portrayed the Dothraki.

Categories