Badmovies.org Forum

which films based on novels are significantly better, in your opinion, and which are nowhere near as good?


JAWS: read the book years ago but the book seems to go on forever about chief Brodie's wife having an affair with Hooper, and at times the whole 'shark' thing takes a back seat. I thought the film was right to cut all that out and just be more of a high-octane thriller type of  movie

FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS: even though the film is good and even very good in places, the book is on a whole different level. I have never lauged so hard reading a book before, even though Hunter S Thompson's character seems a lot more serious in the book. I think Johnny Depp turned the character a bit too zany/wacky in the film.

AMERICAN PSYCHO: I specifically remember half-way through reading this book thinking "I hope they never even try and make this into a film"...the book is almost too good to be turned into a film, there's no way they could convay half of what is going on inside the guy's head in a film. I still don't even want to see the film! has anyone here read the book and seen the film of this, and was disappointed? (or anyone think the film was better?)

I preferred the film, the book seemed like it was just obscene for the sake of it, full of unnecessary details. I didn't take to the film though on first viewing, but the dark humour is excellent.

Although it isn't a novel, I thought Band of Brothers was far better on film than the Ambrose book that inspired it.

The Godfather was pulp fiction that became a classic flick.

As for which are worse? Take your pick. Most novels are turned into inferior movies.

I thought American Psycho was hilarious, in both print and film.

fair enough, but I thought the book was very intelligently written...which kind of elevated the level of the obscenity into something that was beyond just trashy exploitation, if you see what I mean. I may have to check out the film tho' at some point

@ER, didnt find the book hilarious, more like disturbing!

Film worse than the book: Too numerous to mention. Practically every film adaptation ever done.

Film better than the book: Short stories seem to do better expanded into film length than novels cut down into films. I think the back story and the Burt Lancaster character they added to The Killers (1946) made the film a lot more interesting than the original Hemingway short story.

Only other "better" example that comes to mind is Chocolat (2000). The film added some characters, merged others, changed others. I liked the film version better.

We can't forget Stephen King adaptations  :bluesad:. SK's books are far superior to their film versions (of the ones that have been made), he was always disappointed with them and decided to get involved in later ones, which would actually turn out far worse! Examples are "Salem's Lot", "IT", "The Dark Half". I'd say the exception was "The Shining", but the book was still better. I fear for "From A Buick 8", it has been in the works for a while, it's my favourite Stephen King novel and I could see a terrible job being done with it. There's still no actors attached to it and not really any proper details, I hope it's not another "Dreamcatcher" - that film was a joke!  :lookingup:

The Wizard of Oz. The book is nice, and that series will always have a spot in my heart, but the 1939 movie is a masterpiece, far better than a "kid's" movie has any right to be, both in visual production value and in storytelling structure. There are very few movies that have as effective of a literary structure to them as TWoO, and those that do tend more toward either the preachy or the overbearing. Oz is both highly entertaining and fully able to withstand literary-style analysis.

I thought the film version of "The Joy Luck Club" was done very well, and was just as good as the book. 

Most film adaptations of books, though, do tend to disappoint.  A lesser known example I could think of would be "Short Cuts", which took an interesting collection of stories on paper, and turned it into a sub-par Robert Altman film. 

Nightmare in Ecstacy was better than Ed Wood but they were both great

There are three that come to mind right now.

The first one is Battle Royale  The book is great and the movie was great as well but the book gets more kudos IMO since it went into a lot of detail describing a majority of the kids personalities and their relationships.  The ending was a bit more violent than the films.  The film did a great job but if it tried to fit all of the character development that the book has it would have been like a 5 or 6 hour film.

The second one is The Godfather.  I love the book and I love the movie, but I think the book does a better job with describing a lot of the vents and how things came to be with the families and of course gives a lot of back story to how the Corleone crime family came to power, which was then used in the Godfather Part II.   

The final one is Jurassic Park  The movie was okay but not a epic like people make it out to be.  The book I felt gave made the whole incident more epic and more detailed than the movie did.  The book had the level of violence the movie should have had, but didn't which disappointed me after I read the book and remembered that the film wasn't so gory as it could have been.
 

As everyone here notes, the list of bad film adaptations of good books would be almost endless, as that is the way of the world --

The films that I think are better than the books would include "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Rebecca".  Vonnegut's book is almost an outline of a story, a sketch of an idea.  The film fleshes out & gives real sinew to some very flat and two-dimensional print characters.  Just a general improvement overall.

Daphne de Maurier's "Rebecca" is an almost unreadable romance novel.  How on Earth it remains in print and was a best-seller is puzzling to me, but then again we have Sidney Sheldon out there . . . Hitchcock took this weepy mulch, added character and atmosphere, and got some genuine creepiness out of the unseen dead woman who was little more than a bad memory in the novel.

peter johnson/denny crane

I've read that and wasn't really overwhelmed... didn't know there was a film.

I agree that JURRASSIC PARK should have had more violence but I suppose they were aiming for a more family market

I've read STEPFORD WIVES but not seen the original 70's film version. any good? I've heard it is...I'm not that interested in seeing the recent re-make they did though.

One of my favorite films, and I think it spans the generation gap between here and 1939 with no problem at all.  The moment when Dorothy opens the door in her gray house and reveals the wall of color that is Munchkin Land still seems like genius to me, and I've lost the number of times I have seen that movie.

Book better than movie: Alice in wonderland
(I like the movie but the book is slightly... better?)

About equal: To kill a mockingbird
(I think they are actually quite different, but I like both)

Movie better than book: The hound of the Baskervilles
(I only know the 1959 version of the film)

or: The Jungle Book (if I had a better "feeling" for Kipling, this could probably take the Alice in wonderland part above)

DCA:
George Roy Hill (Butch Cassidy, The Sting, etc.) directed Slaughterhouse Five in 1972, but it was really his Czech cinematographer who set the beautiful, luminous tone -- I forget his name.  One thing that makes this movie stand head and shoulders above other films that treat WW2 in some fashion, is that this is the only film of the period that I've ever seen that gets the uniforms exactly right, from the Americans to the British to the various different German permutations.  It's one thing to get the regular Wehrmacht and SS Sonderkommando uniforms right, but this film takes great pains to show the Stalag Komandant still wearing his WW1 officer's cap, just as many Volkstrum draftees really did.  Even the Hitlerjugend manning the Flakwagen are dressed appropriately, and they are only onscreen for 3 or 4 seconds.  Plus you get to look at Valerie Perrine's breasts for a very long time. 

The Jungle Book:
I hope we're speaking of the Zoltan Korda version (1942), and not the Disney version -- In any case, I grew up reading Kipling, as my father was a huge fan.  It's easier to see the racism and veiled homages to Imperial England today, but these elements still don't detract from the wonderful storytelling.  I would hope that today someone would approach not only Jungle Books 1 and 2 but things Kipling wrote like The White Seal or Rikki Tikki Tavi and bring CGI into play -- these are great stories.

peter johnson/denny crane

I agree, except to say that I think STANLEY KUBRICK's THE SHINING may be superior to the excellent book.  I really liked both the novel and film THE DEAD ZONE with the book edging out the movie.  I think the miniseries SALEM'S LOT is inferior to one of the best vampire books I've read, and the miniseries IT, though problematic (the second half kind of flops) I still liked better than the bloated book (however, I think chapter 1 of IT is one of STEPHEN KING's best pieces of writing).  THE STAND was a terrific read (I read that 3x) and the miniseries... adequate. 

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a fine film, but the book will knock yer sox off!  The religious subtext is apparent in the novel, but obscured (perhaps for obvious reasons) in the film. 

Oh, I do not agree with that statement.  SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE is VONNEGUT's masterpiece... pooteeweet? 

THE WIZARD OF OZ is a miracle, and endlessly watchable.  I enjoy it now more than I did as a child (especially the music).  It's one of the best films ever made.

Movies that are better....

FRANKENSTEIN (1931)

The book is a talky,antiquated,bore. The film is classic.

PLANET of the APES

Don't get me wrong....I enjoyed Pierre Boulles novel...but the film adaptation by Rod Serling was much  less heavy handed.

Books that are better than the movie....

As Evil Clown says...most Steven King adaptions....King is a detailist...which gets lost in the translation to film. Though the SHINING,MISERY,and CARRIE are all great films...witness IT,TOMMYKNOCKERS, the made for TV SHINING, or most ANY of his novels...!

Any Dean R. Koontz book to film translation.

HP Lovecraft does not translate well to film. The DUNWHICH HORROR or The COLOUR of OUTER SPACE (aka-film DIE MONSTER DIE)....fun films...not Lovecraft. Lovecraft is much like Poe...its a MOOD...not cheap shocks.

Oh yeah...speaking of Poe...uh...Corman vs. Poe,anyone? Both good...both entierly differnt.

Steven King book based movies are a love/hate affair for yours truly.  I'd have to say King's Misery was better than the book.  Kathy Bates made that happen.   Another one where she made the movie better than the book was Delores Clayborn. Then theres The Running Man where I feel the movie butchered the idea of the short story YET made it more entertaining.  The Dark Half movie was simply ok compared to the book.  I could go on but most others have been mentioned. 

Lovecraft's Shadow Over Innsmouth's cinematic version of Dagon was really good.  I still feel the book was better.  Although I have to admit, the film captured the theme of the book nicely. 

The Film Is Better
I actually once sat down and made a point-by-point comparison between the film "The Reckoning," and the book upon which it is based upon "Morality Play" by Barry Unsworth, and while the book I thought was better in some parts, overall, I thought the film improved on the book.

The Book Is Better
I know there are many fans of the film version of "The Legend of Hell House" out there, but maybe because I read the book first, I have always prefered the book by Richard Matheson to the film version.

The Film Is Better
I've seen four different versions of "The 3 Musketeers," and I've enjoyed every one of them. I've seen four different versions of "Les Miserables," and I've enjoyed every one of them, but I've always found the books by Alexandre Dumas and Victor Hugo, respectively, unreadable.

The Book Is Better
While I've seen four different versions of this novel by Agatha Christie, most of which I've enjoyed, I've always prefered the book. Not so much because I read it, before I saw any of the film versions, but because I prefer the way the book ends to the way the films end. In the book, everybody on the island DIES! And apparently you can't end a film like that.

The Film Is Better
When Ken Russell sat down to write and then direct a film version of Bram Stoker's "Lair of the White Worm," I think he tore the cover off of the book and then threw away the book. Because the only similiarity between the book and the film is the title on the cover. And the film is much better for that.

The Book Is Better
While there have been a couple of film versions that approximated the enjoyability of the book, H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines," the book is far better than its 1985 film adaptation.

The Film Is Better
On the other hand, while I love Haggard as a writer, I've always found his novel "She" unreadable. Thus I prefer the 1965 film version to the book.

The Book Is Better
While they tried to do right by Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose," even at 150 minutes, the novel is too complex to adapt into a film. It might work as a longer TV miniseries, but not as a film under three hours.

The Film Is Better
The book is good. The writer, Robert Bloch, is good, but Hitchcock took something that was good in "Psycho," and made it into something extraordinary.

The Book Is Better
Long John Silver is an great character in Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island,"
but you can't turn him into the hero of the film, as they tried to do in 1999. It goes against everything that the book is about.

The Film Is Better
Again "Strangers on a Train" is a good book by a good writer, Patricia Highsmith. But again, Hitchcock took something that was good, and made it into something extraordinary.

The Book Is Better
Unlike "The Three Musketeers" and "Les Miserables," I have never found a film adaptation of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" by Baroness Emmuska Orczy, that I enjoyed as much as the book.

The Film Is Better
"The Manchurian Candidate' is a great political novel by a great political writer, Richard Condon, but there are two things about the film that makes me like the film better. One, the film's focus is now more on Frank Sinatra's character instead of Laurence Harvey's. And the film becomes a critique of Senator Joe McCarthy, even though he isn't called McCarthy in the book and film, and McCarthyism.

The Book Is Better
Someone has said that Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" has one of the greatest endings of all time, because the author leaves the ending open to the reader's imagination as to what happened. But by making the Headless Horseman a real character, in "Sleepy Hollow," the door is somewhat shut on the viewer's imagination.

The Film Is Better
And I agree about Peter Benchley's "Jaws." Has anybody ever read any of the author's other stories? Has anybody seen any of the other films based on the author's other stories? The reason that "Jaws" is so superior can be described in two words . . . Steven Spielberg.

When I saw that The Shining had been made into a film by Stanley Kubrick, I was excited that a brilliant director had made a film of a very scary book ~ I was very disappointed in the result, which made me believe that a film version of a book is not always a good thing.

Ted Kotcheff's "First Blood" ~ great book, great film.
Jean-Christophe Grange's Blood Red Rivers ~ great book, great film.

David Westheimer's "Von Ryan's Express" ~ great book, horrible film.
Jack Higgins' "The Eagle Has Landed" ~ great book, horrible film.

One of the films and books that I saw are about on par with each other is Fight Club.  I really enjoyed the book and enjoyed the movie as well.  Why I saw they are about on par as I felt the book was better in general as it went into more detail about the main character and Tyler's deal with tampering with food before serving it.

I predict The Road will be a better film than it was a novel.

A Clockwork Orange.  To me they were equally good, it's just that they are in different formats.

I agree

Yes, I once read "White Shark" by Benchley, basically still trying to garner interest from Jaws with another shark novel. Apart from the fact that the shark turns out to be some robot-man....utter rubbish!  :thumbdown:

funny, that's just reminded me that ages and ages ago I read "The Deep" by Peter Benchley, and have also seen the film...more "shark" business

Anthony Burgess placed a bunch more dark humor in his novel than Kubrick ever allowed to creep into the film, so IMHO, the book was a little better than the movie, which I still remember fondly from my teenage years when my best male friend was addicted to it.

I've seen the film and read the book.  The book is slightly better, only however when the "real" last chapter is in there, which makes everything come full circle.

Something Wicked This Way Comes is a good book that made a great movie. 

better than the book:

Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining... King b***hes about it being different than the book, but I've read the book, I've seen the movie, and I've seen the made-for-TV one that King preferred... Kubrick's version is better than King's original or that awful TV one he loves so much... to tell you the truth, I thought the book was grossly overrated, while I think the movie is a near-perfect film



nowhere near as good as the book:

Vampire$, otherwise known as John Carpenter's Vampires... based on the book Vampire$ by John Steakly, Steakly book is, in a word, awesome... one of the few books that treats vampires like engines of death instead of sad goth kids... amen to that... John Carpenter's film version is often considered to be his worst movie (second only to Ghosts Of Mars) but I feel it is unjustly maligned and as actually a pretty decent, fun, watchable flick... but it is completely incapable of being compared to the book

any of three adaptations of I Am Legend... The Last Man On Earth is a good movie, but cannot compare to the book (I'm a huge Richard Matheson fan)... The Omega Man butchers the book, but does wind up being a "dumb fun" kind of movie (c'mon, it's Chuck Heston!)... I Am Legend starring Will Smith just flat-out sucked... there's also a shameless rip-off meant to cash in on the Will Smith flick, made by The Asylum, called I Am Omega (brilliant title... ::gag::) that stars the host of Iron Chef America (I can't remember his name right now, but he was also in Double Dragon and The Crow television series)... I have not seen this rip-off yet, but seeing as I Am Legend is one of my all-time favorite books, and seeing as how I'm endlessly amused by the hilariously crass filmmaking practicies of The Asylum, I plan to check it out (and review it) very, very soon




on a related note... Naked Lunch was great... not really an adaptation, more like a pastiche, but very, very good

You don't mention the Vincent Price version of the same Matheson story -- That one adheres to the story fairly well, though the ending is a bit rushed --
peter johnson/denny crane

The Last Man On Earth is the Vincent Price one.

Jurassic Park had a better ending than the book. In the book they count raptors...never really understood why. If it was me, once I'd got the power on, I'd sit behind the big fences and wait for the helicopter to arrive. Jeff Goldblum is Ian Malcolm !

Timeline...far, far worse in film form...

Strip Tease the book had a nice ending with Erin ending up as a dancer for Disney Land. They should have had that in the film !
Burt Reynolds was great as always. The film took away a lot of the satire of how the rich screw over poor Migrant workers, and the gruesome deaths... Erin's husband's death was partially sweet.

Golden Compass  - THE WHOLE ENDING IS MISSING!!!!!!!!!!

never read that book, saw the film first and the prospect of then reading the book didnt really grab me. I heard its supposed to be quite good though

Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Robert Bloch's "Psycho" blows the novel away.  Bloch's novel is extremely lackluster. 

The Rules Of Attraction was both a good book and film - obviously there were elements of the book that were lost but I enjoyed both (despite Dawson being in the film) and could not say which is better.

I think is generally better to watch a film and then read the book from which it was adapted, if possible.

Also, having been recently encouraged to read From A Buick 8, I am not excited about the prospect of a film either.

Have to disagree with you, I waited for that movie to come out after I read the book and I have to agree with King. Kubrick built a big flashy car with no engine.  He totally missed the point of what the book was about.

It's sad, but people need to have it spelled out for them when a movie is made *from a book and when a movie is made *for a book. It should be mentioned in tandem with the rating.

A Clockwork Orange is very good book...for its time. The "real" ending seems like either a cop out or one too many self-indulgences in a book that is already very proud of itself.

A Clockwork Orange will be a good movie forever.


Btw, if you want a 'who would be crazy enough to make this into a movie' moment, try DUNE. They end up improving the experience of each other if you keep in mind that:


Movies. Are. Not. Books.

The Shining might have worked as a film because Kubrick made his own movie based on King's book, and didn't worry about adapting it faithfully. King stories are hard to adapt because they're often long and they tend to build gradually. They take patience to read. Movies, especially horror movies, can't do that. King movies tend to fail because somebody is trying like hell to follow the book while at the same time cutting a majority of the material to fit the story into a movie. The Shining worked because King wrote a book the best way he knew how and Kubick made a film the best way he knew how. Each is good for what it is.

I think that is the case for a lot of adaptations. I don't know that there are any movies I would consider better than their literary source, but there are plenty that are as much a good movie as the book is a good book. That's really the best you can hope for. I would count Jurassic Park as one such book and movie. In some ways, I preferred the way Peter Jackson did Lord of the Rings over Tolkien's original story, since he chose to follow all the characters simultaneously, rather than telling each part of the story separately, then jumping back in time and telling us another part. On the other hand, the book adds layers to the story that the movie simply can't fit in. In the end, I like both.

For me, a lot depends on which I see first. If I read a good book, the movie has an uphill battle to measure up. I liked Jurassic Park as a movie, and the book expanded on the story. On the other hand, I read Crichton's Sphere, loved the book, but found the movie disappointing. Same with Stephen King's Apt Pupil.

From a Buick 8 is going to be tricky to adapt, based on what I've read so far (I'm halfway through). The story is such a lengthy collection of flashbacks, changing viewpoints and reflections, covering such a span of time, I can't see it working as a movie. This is especially true because King is at his most Lovecraftian, describing things that simply cannot be accurately described in our terms, and conveying the horror more in the characters' reactions. Lovecraft is also notoriously difficult to adapt for this very reason. On the other hand, if somebody manages to make it work, From a Buick 8 could be a kick-ass movie. That's a big 'if' though.

I heard "The Loch" and "Meg" by Steve Alten are supposed to be made into movies.  Actually, Meg has been in development limbo for a while now. 

The two books are essentually monster movies in literary form. I really like "The Loch" and its re-examination of what the Loch Ness monster could be.  (Hint:It's not a plesiasurus). 

Though I like Bloch's work...and respect him as a writer...I think his stories and novel's lack charecter devolpment...strange...as he writes "psychological" horror...but in sterotypes. I read PSYCHO as well for the first time recently...and found it very lacking. Hitchcock...of course...is the "Master of Suspense" and more. He had a feel for film set-up. Every scene is framed like I would frame a panel in a comic story....I like to consider it "cinematic" cartooning....to balance and center the work-to make the viewer focus on the action. Make it grab ya! To do less is lazy. It's the difference between drawing a picture or filming a scene...and making it "art". He could have just shot Janet getting stabbed in one or two camera angles...but he did it with many, many quick cut shots...all thought out before hand. Just beautiful.