Four star novels

Mom'sWrite · Oct 17, 2006

Last night, I saw the movie "Misery" for the first time. My husband thought it might be fun to see the movie since I just recently finished reading the book by Stephen King (an Uncle Jim assignment).

It was physically painful for me to watch that film. William Goldman (who is a notoriously good screenwriter, usually) missed the essence of King's book by several light years. And who the hell is Buster? What was up with that?

Anyway, a discussion ensued about the movie industry's inability to capture a book on film, much less actually give us better than we got with the book.

Hubby says that no film has ever been better than the book it was based on.

I say "The English Patient" was a notable exception to the rule.

What say you all? Any films jazz you more than the book it came from?

Higgins · Oct 17, 2006

The Fay Weldon version of Pride and Prejudice

screenmom said:
Last night, I saw the movie "Misery" for the first time. My husband thought it might be fun to see the movie since I just recently finished reading the book by Stephen King (an Uncle Jim assignment).

It was physically painful for me to watch that film. William Goldman (who is a notoriously good screenwriter, usually) missed the essence of King's book by several light years. And who the hell is Buster? What was up with that?

Anyway, a discussion ensued about the movie industry's inability to capture a book on film, much less actually give us better than we got with the book.

Hubby says that no film has ever been better than the book it was based on.

I say "The English Patient" was a notable exception to the rule.

What say you all? Any films jazz you more than the book it came from?

This was a late 1970s extended version of Pride and Prejudice. Fay Weldon's script seemed to have better pacing and even more comedy and humanity than the Jane Austen book.

But you have to see the full version...ie the most recent re-issue in CD form. Edit: I mean DVD.

Mom'sWrite · Oct 17, 2006

Sokal said:
This was a late 1970s extended version of Pride and Prejudice. Fay Weldon's script seemed to have better pacing and even more comedy and humanity than the Jane Austen book.

But you have to see the full version...ie the most recent re-issue in CD form.

Who was in that version? Pride and Prejudice is an amazing read, no matter how you slice it. I'd be interested to see a better-than-the-book film of it.

loquax · Oct 17, 2006

I thought Jurassic Park was a great read, but when the movie came out it blew my mind.

JonnyBGood · Oct 17, 2006

Nope. I always find myself too critical of the movie after I've read the book. I think it might be better to see the movie first. It's too painful otherwise.

Higgins · Oct 17, 2006

Elizabeth Garvie (1979)

screenmom said:
Who was in that version? Pride and Prejudice is an amazing read, no matter how you slice it. I'd be interested to see a better-than-the-book film of it.

http://www.tlamovies.com/details/product_details.cfm?v=1&sn=1&id=183491

It came out in 1979. Visually its merely okay, but the script is phenomenal.

Shadow_Ferret · Oct 17, 2006

Short stories make better movies. There is too much condensing, constricting, and expergating going on when they try to adapt a novel to a 2 hour format.

RhinoMom · Oct 17, 2006

I generally agree with JonnyB, but I did enjoy the adaptation of "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe."

It was a pretty faithful re-telling of the book...but then again, I find that a little boring...b/c it's like re-reading the book.

Marlowe · Oct 17, 2006

Jaws is better than the novel it's based on. By a long shot. There are other exceptions to the rule, too, but in general, the book is better.

I agree completely about Misery; the novel is one of my all time favorites, and the movie junked most of the best bits. (Like, Misery's Return isn't a real book? The hell you say!) I even went so far as to say so in a review.

Mom'sWrite · Oct 17, 2006

I_Shrugged said:
I wish more film version didn't blow chunks, but they do, so I avoid watching them. However, I watched the movie of Girl with a Pearl Earring before I read the book (by Tracy Chevalier). I enjoyed the movie more, but I think that was because it was very visually appealing to me. I'm a big fan of Vermeer's artwork, and whoever did the setting in the movie worked very hard to capture the essence of Vermeer's art. Actually, now that I think about it, that's the only thing I can remember about the movie.

I watched the movie Big Fish, and loved it. Then I went out an bought a copy of Watermelon King by the same author. I wasn't impressed with it, and I'm afraid that reading the book would spoil the movie for me.

I couldn't make it through the book, I admit it. :flag:

(Am I the only one around here who suffers real guilt from failing to finish a book? Quick, somebody absolve me of my sin.)

The movie was very close to the book in pace, but so gorgeous that the numbing pace didn't matter.

Mom'sWrite · Oct 17, 2006

Marlowe said:
Jaws is better than the novel it's based on. By a long shot. There are other exceptions to the rule, too, but in general, the book is better.

Wonderful review!

You are so right about Jaws. Benchley wrote a very thorough technical/scientific manual on sharks and sharkhunting then threw in a little story about a gigantic maneater terrorizing a East coast resort town as an aside.

That was a great movie. I still have trouble going in the water from that film, even freshwater lakes. brrrr

Elodie-Caroline · Oct 17, 2006

I've been a big fan of Stephen King's for well over 30 years now, ever since the film of 'Carrie' when I was still at school. I would say that the films made from his books/short stories of: 'Shawshank redemption' 'Christine' 'Stand by me' and 'The shining' were very good and as close to the books as could be, as you could never fit as much in to a film as in a book.

I also agree that the film of 'Jaws' was much better than the book, the book focused too much on Brody's wife ahving an affair with Richard Dreyfuss' part too much.

With Anne Rice's 'Interview with a Vampire' the book was brilliant and the film wasn't far off that either.

I guess that horror comes out best in films adapted from books than any other genre... But I'm just trying to remember other books that I've read that have been made in to films that haven't actually been horror?

Oops... Forgot Stephen King's 'Delores Clairborne' that is a brilliant film; I ahven't actually read the book to that one either.

Ellie

JonnyBGood · Oct 17, 2006

The only movie I didn't mind watching after reading the book was "Shogun". The mini-series from the 70's was pretty faithful to James Clavell's book and wasn't that hard to watch after reading the book. It still wasn't as good as the book, though.

Homer · Oct 17, 2006

The movie The Godfather was 1000x better than the book.

blackbird · Oct 17, 2006

Three that come immediately to my mind--Forrest Gump (such an improvement over the original book it's hard to tell they are even related!) Little Big Man (which many of you may not remember), and Dances With Wolves.

I suppose Bridges of Madison County (sort of) falls into this category as well. I didn't hate the book, but the movie was just absolutely in a class of its own.

There are some novels I loved but felt the films did just as well if not slightly eclipsing them--The Color Purple, Cold Mountain, and Gone With the Wind. Unlike the above list, this is more a case of equals; I loved one as much as the other, for different reasons.

I'm trying to think of some examples of novels I really loved but HATED the film. None come immediatelyto mind, but I'll post again later if I think of anything.

Homer · Oct 17, 2006

blackbird said:
Three that come immediately to my mind--Forrest Gump (such an improvement over the original book it's hard to tell they are even related!) Little Big Man (which many of you may not remember), and Dances With Wolves.

I suppose Bridges of Madison County (sort of) falls into this category as well. I didn't hate the book, but the movie was just absolutely in a class of its own.

There are some novels I loved but felt the films did just as well if not slightly eclipsing them--The Color Purple, Cold Mountain, and Gone With the Wind. Unlike the above list, this is more a case of equals; I loved one as much as the other, for different reasons.

I'm trying to think of some examples of novels I really loved but HATED the film. None come immediatelyto mind, but I'll post again later if I think of anything.

Sometimes you have to recognize a movie is just a different medium. Books and movies can do different things, and they are both good in their own way. Lord of the Rings is an example of this, I think.

Carlene · Oct 17, 2006

Consider yourself absolved, SoccerMom! I have a 50 page rule - if a book doesn't grab me in the first 50 pages, I don't read it. I used to be like you. Once I started a book I thought I was honor bound to finish. Then decided I was wasting time on books I didn't enjoy when I could have been reading something better. Unfortunately, most books I start now, get junked. I don't know what's happening, but very few books knock my socks off in the beginng.

Carlene

gp101 · Oct 17, 2006

loquax said:
I thought Jurassic Park was a great read, but when the movie came out it blew my mind.

Ah, you beat me to it. I thought of Jurassic the second I read the initial post. I thought the book was excellent, but the SFX in the movie brought out more than my imagination could (for once!). Spielberg's direction helped too: the scene in the car when the glass of water ripples along with the footsteps... holy cow!

Someone else posted Jaws. I agree with that one too, though I read the novel years after the movie. Another case of SFX helping the cinematic version. Too bad so many SFX hinder movies these days.

As for the Godfather example mentioned, that one's a toss-up for me. The story was just as gripping in both formats, but maybe this is an example of where terrific acting brings out elements you couldn't pick up in the novel on your own.

As for other movies I've seen based on novels, none of the ones I saw came close to the novel. Though it's a small sampling in my experience.

RedMolly · Oct 17, 2006

Oh man oh man... "Short Cuts." Freakin' brilliant short stories, woven into a freakin' brilliant film. Lyle Lovett as the maniacal baker=one of the best castings ever.

Or does that not count, since the original work was an assemblage of stories and not a single novel?

Tienci · Oct 17, 2006

Gosh, I'm going to have to disagree about "The English Patient"- I liked the book, but the movie put me to sleep.

I think one example where I thought the movie was better than the book (or at least, I enjoyed it more): "Schindler's List."

JohnB1988 · Oct 17, 2006

Well, the movie Cold Mountain had at least found a few bones of a plot. And it was over in a tolerable two hours. The book however... Never could make it all the way to the end.

ChaosTitan · Oct 17, 2006

"L.A. Confidential" was a brilliant novel, but the film managed to capture its essence and trim what should have been a 10 hour miniseries into a 2.5 hour movie.

And I suppose it has to be said, but "The Shawshank Redemption" stands far above the novella. If nothing else, for Morgan Freeman's wistful narration.

Neeli · Oct 17, 2006

I thought that the "Series of Unfortunate Events" movie surpassed the books. The books tend to get tedious and farfetched, and sometimes bore me. But somehow with a movie, it works better. Plus you get the awesome visuals of those fabulous child actors and...Jim Carey. Need I say more?

Soccer Mom · Oct 17, 2006

Carlene said:
Consider yourself absolved, SoccerMom! I have a 50 page rule - if a book doesn't grab me in the first 50 pages, I don't read it. I used to be like you. Once I started a book I thought I was honor bound to finish. Then decided I was wasting time on books I didn't enjoy when I could have been reading something better. Unfortunately, most books I start now, get junked. I don't know what's happening, but very few books knock my socks off in the beginng.

Carlene

LOL- I do sometimes fail to finish a book and I always feel vaguely guilty. It happens more often now than it used to. I'm to busy to waste time wading through something I don't like.

*coughs* previous post was ScreenMom.

She's my online twin. We get mistaken for each other all the time.

blacbird · Oct 17, 2006

blackbird said:
Three that come immediately to my mind--Forrest Gump (such an improvement over the original book it's hard to tell they are even related!) Little Big Man (which many of you may not remember), and Dances With Wolves.

I agree with you completely on Gump, but have to disagree on Little Big Man. Not that the movie is anything but good, but it's a damfine novel, too, much underread in my view.

caw.

Four star novels

Mom'sWrite

Service with a smile

Higgins

Mom'sWrite

Service with a smile

loquax

I verb nouns adverbly

JonnyBGood

Higgins

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester

RhinoMom

Marlowe

Duck of Death

Mom'sWrite

Service with a smile

Mom'sWrite

Service with a smile

Elodie-Caroline

JonnyBGood

Homer

blackbird

Homer

Carlene

New kid, be gentle!

gp101

RedMolly

My beat is correct

Tienci

Lost in the Land of Giants

JohnB1988

ChaosTitan

Around

Neeli

The Khatun

Soccer Mom

Crypto-fascist

blacbird