[Film] Film As Good As The Book

[raymondo]

As a lover of French Cinema I nominate the 2 films based on a 2 volume novel (which I read in its English translation). "Jean De Florette" and Manon De Sources" had a brilliant performance by Daniel Auteuil who even (just) outshone Yves Montand who appeared in both and easily Gérard Depardieu who was in the first. Both book and films excellent plots.

Brilliant films

 

[raymondo]

Some people say 'The Life of Brian' was better than the book.

 

[StonehamPark]

Mary Poppins. One of my favourite films. The books are shit.

Book Poppins is a Stone Cold Bitch. I had to stop reading it to my daughter as it was so bleak.

Have you both seen Saving Mr Banks?
If so, what did you think?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Have you both seen Saving Mr Banks?
If so, what did you think?

No I haven't. Do you recommend it?

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Jurassic Park. Read it almost by accident when I was dulled out taking care of my friends summer house for a week. The book was infinite levels of shit. The movie is ok.

Not a fan of all the hot hot maths chat in the book then?

I think you're being a bit unfair on both book and film, but obviously that's your opinion. I completely agree that the film is better. Amusingly most of the memorable sequences from the next two films in the original trilogy (like the bit with the guy getting eaten by all the tiny dinosaurs in the Lost World) were taken from the original book as well.

 

[GT49er]

In the Dune thread it was suggested that we have a thread on films that were as good (or better) than the book.

The consensus in that thread was that the David Lynch version of Dune was most definitely not even close to being as good as the book

We all know plenty of film adaptations that are far inferior to the original book, but generally its much harder to find the opposite

So, here it is, what films do you think are better than the book . I don't mean books of the film but the original source material on which a film was based

One that springs to mind for me is the Lord Of The Rings films, the original books are somewhat inconsistent in style, have some strange chapters that don't really fit in with any other part of the narrative (Tom Bombadil), and whilst the film alters several characters, removes some, and changes a few plot lines (and does away with them entirely (scourging of the shire)it is a more cohesive and rounded whole than the books, and despite the multiple false endings (also an issue with the books) does tell the tale pretty well.

Couldn't disagree more! - the book outshines the films in every possible way! All those computer-games battles, false as f***, and I don't think anybody who watches the films without reading the books first will get more than about a third of it. Lots of nice big Play-Station battles though, for those who like watching a spectacle on a shallower level. Very visually spectacular eye-candy and all that.
Agree about leaving out Tom Bombadil though. I have read the entire book, aloud, to two of my children - and I left out the Tom Bombadil bit then too!

 

[nickbrighton]

Totally disagree, ****ed around with the narrative, changed the way the characters spoke and behaved in the Book (it is one Book, just three volumes).

Killed off Saruman half way through when he was a key player at the end of the Book.

I didn't realise all Orcs were Cockneys, all Hobbits were from Dorset and all Dwarfs were Scottish.

What he did to the Hobbit, a Children's Book was even worse but we won't go there...

While I agree the films (including the hobbit trilogy) were absolutely fantastic, I have to say as a self confessed LoTR addict, the books are brilliant.
I first read the books in the 70s and always wished someone would make a film about them. I would have loved to see the scourging of the shire in the films.
If they had stuck to the book the films would have been too long admittedly.
I will also concede the Tom Bombadil character had no place in the film although was a magical part of the book.
Incidentally, I have just started reading the books for the umpteenth time.

The Hobbit films are truly awful- "like butter spread over to much bread"- would have been fine as a single film or possibly the two originally planned, but the decision half way through production to stretch to three films was just greed rather than needing the time to tell the story. The Hobbit whilst brilliant IS a childrens book, and trying to change it to the same style and make it into an Adult film IMO simply didnt work

LOTR is actually multiple books spread over three volumes, and with the scourging of the shire removed the need for Saruman to be there at the end was removed. As I said the book and film had multiple points where it could have ended, the scourging of the shire never sat comfortably with me, always seemingly an add on (although foreshadowed in Galadriels mirror in both book and film).

 

[Happy Exile]

On a similar theme(author) I'm going to tentatively suggest Stand By Me. Tentatively because I've not actually read it but it'll have to be an incredible book to be better than the film.

I've not seen the film because it's one of my favourite books and I'm worried it'll spoil it
Never read anything else that comes so close to capturing being a teenage boy with mates and all the time in the world to do whatever. (Though Maggie Cassidy by Jack Kerouac also brings back those feelings pretty well.)

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Film WAY better than the book

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Empire Of The Sun.

 

[dazzer6666]

The Godfather and Wise Guys which became Goodfellas.

Wise Guys/Goodfellas for sure.

 

[Swansman]

Couldn't disagree more! - the book outshines the films in every possible way! All those computer-games battles, false as f***, and I don't think anybody who watches the films without reading the books first will get more than about a third of it. Lots of nice big Play-Station battles though, for those who like watching a spectacle on a shallower level. Very visually spectacular eye-candy and all that.
Agree about leaving out Tom Bombadil though. I have read the entire book, aloud, to two of my children - and I left out the Tom Bombadil bit then too!

The Hobbit films are truly awful- "like butter spread over to much bread"- would have been fine as a single film or possibly the two originally planned, but the decision half way through production to stretch to three films was just greed rather than needing the time to tell the story. The Hobbit whilst brilliant IS a childrens book, and trying to change it to the same style and make it into an Adult film IMO simply didnt work

LOTR is actually multiple books spread over three volumes, and with the scourging of the shire removed the need for Saruman to be there at the end was removed. As I said the book and film had multiple points where it could have ended, the scourging of the shire never sat comfortably with me, always seemingly an add on (although foreshadowed in Galadriels mirror in both book and film).

Indeed.

I dont like the LOTR / The Hobbit movies.

That said I have a conflicted relation to this story due to the weird Swedish translations of these books. Tolkien is quite direct and stripped-down language, while the Swedish translor was the exact opposite. Descriptions that in the original books would be one or two pages are often 15-20 in the translation, giving it a whole different feeling. With the addition of the movies I feel like I've experienced three completely different versions of the same story... with the movies probably being the worst, though it should be said I'm not sure they should have been filmatised at all.

 

[GT49er]

Totally disagree, ****ed around with the narrative, changed the way the characters spoke and behaved in the Book (it is one Book, just three volumes).

Killed off Saruman half way through when he was a key player at the end of the Book.

I didn't realise all Orcs were Cockneys, all Hobbits were from Dorset and all Dwarfs were Scottish.

What he did to the Hobbit, a Children's Book was even worse but we won't go there...

This, thrice cubed with knobs on!

 

[lawros left foot]

The Godfather and Wise Guys which became Goodfellas.

Goodfellas I agree, and although my favourite ever film, the Godfather book is better than the film, in my opinion, of course.

 

[lawros left foot]

The Warriors, weird book about a straight forward story

One flew over the cuckoos nest.

Catch 22.


Does anyone else prefer to read the book, before seeing the film?

 

[zefarelly]

Thomas the tank Engine.

As long as Ringo's narrating.

 

[jakarta]

The Warriors, weird book about a straight forward story

One flew over the cuckoos nest.

Catch 22.


Does anyone else prefer to read the book, before seeing the film?

Catch 22 caught the madness of the story and so is my vote. The Book was better though.

 

[um bongo molongo]

As a lover of French Cinema I nominate the 2 films based on a 2 volume novel (which I read in its English translation). "Jean De Florette" and Manon De Sources" had a brilliant performance by Daniel Auteuil who even (just) outshone Yves Montand who appeared in both and easily Gérard Depardieu who was in the first. Both book and films excellent plots.

Daniel Auteuil is a superb actor. Especially given I don’t speak (much) French, he manages to still be brilliant in pretty much everything.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

As the OP I would say New Hope doesn't count, as its an adaptation of the film script- not the original source that the film was based on

I was going to suggest horror-meister Shaun Hutson's adaptation of The Terminator being as good as the film (for a 14 year old - I read it before I saw it) but if you say them's the rules, them's the rules.

So how about The Exorcist? Quite the disturbing read. Love the film too.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Goodfellas I agree, and although my favourite ever film, the Godfather book is better than the film, in my opinion, of course.

Also one of those very rare things, a film being ridiculously faithful to the book. Watching it, I still always get lost with the names, who's who etc, so coming to the book later on was a tremendous 'cleaner-upper'.