2006-12-15 04:12:47 · 17 answers · asked by Kielon A 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Very damn few...
The only good movie version of a book I like is "Misery". I also liked the movie versions of two Stephen King short stories "Stand by Me" (from King's "The Body") and "The Shawshank Redemption".
I also thought the TV movie made from the Stuart Woods book "Chiefs" was pretty good.
Peter Jackon's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was so-so. I know he had to leave out some things in order to get it made...but he changed some things that I think would have been better left alone. Have to give him some credit, though, for getting LOTR done in the first place.
Two especially AWFUL book to movie versions were "Dune" and "Watchers", from Dean Koontz's best book ever.
Curiously, Pat Conroy books have had two pretty good movie versions (Conrack, from "Water is Wide" and "Great Santini"...one so-so in "Prince of Tides"....and one all-time worst in "Lords of Discipline".
2006-12-15 04:32:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Great Gatsby with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow is remarkably like the book.
While they aren't exactly like the books, the films The Rules of Attraction and Fight Club both got 'thumbs up' from their respective authors as good film translations. Palahniuk has even been quoted as saying the ending in the film version of Fight Club was better that what he wrote in his book.
The mini-series Roots was almost as prolific as the book.
While usually true, I would however disagree with the absolute maxim that the "book is ALWAYS better than the movie". Kubrick's The Shining is WAY better than the book. To prove the point, watch the crappy remake that Steven King made with Steven Weber in the Jack Torrence role. Lame.
King badmouthed Kubrick's version for many years, upset that he changed the ending and left some of his plot points out. Kubrick's version is much more psychologically deep. You don't know if the ghosts are hallucinations or some mass psychosis... it's all up in the air for the viewer to decide - versus King's straight forward ghost story where everything is explained to the last detail and the Hotel is alive.
After King whined so much, Kubrick sold him the film rights back (right before he died), under the condition that he never publically refer to his film ever again.
2006-12-15 07:08:38 · answer #2 · answered by yo Naturale 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not too many. Usually a lot is cut out when a book is turned into a movie. We were just talking about this in one of my Yahoo Groups, actually. One woman said that the movie of Grisham's book A Time to Kill was pretty accurate.
2006-12-15 04:22:10 · answer #3 · answered by Christina 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book is ALWAYS better than the movie. It's because you can express so much more emotion in a book than you can in a movie. Plus a book can be as long as you want while a movie has to fit the 1 - 2 hr format.
2006-12-15 04:19:32 · answer #4 · answered by P Y 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not 100 percent precise but the movie that comes the closest to the book was The Great Gatsby with Robert Redford (1974). I thought it even captured the pacing and feel of the book and the main characters all looked and acted like how I envisioned. I thought it was remarkable.
2006-12-15 09:08:49 · answer #5 · answered by i8pikachu 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The DaVinci Code movie was spot-on to the book. Ron Howard did a great job of bringing Dan Brown's novel to the big screen.
The Green Mile by Stephen King was pretty much a good translation from book to movie, too.
2006-12-15 04:16:47 · answer #6 · answered by The Mystic One 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some- if it was a short story or novella, it changes to a movie pretty well. One of the old versions of Little Women was very accurate, but it was like a miniseries; I believe the movie was over 4 hours long.
2006-12-15 04:27:10 · answer #7 · answered by alicorn_28 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.. I think that movies and book differ because of this: when u read a book, you can imagine a lot of the more intresting points, when you watch a movie thing are already decided, which for me makes it not as enjoyable.
2006-12-15 06:29:18 · answer #8 · answered by J dog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original version of Lord of the Flies had excellent casting and followed the book quite well. It would be hard to top Gone With the Wind for casting and adherence to the spirit and content of the book.
2006-12-15 05:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by Whimsy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pride and Prejudice, the mini-series, really takes the cake for this one. It is just like the book. The only qualm I had with it was the appearance of Jane, but I got over it pretty quickly. But don't even bother with that silly Keira Knightley one. It's terrible.
2006-12-15 04:58:05 · answer #10 · answered by pokiechelle 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋