Films that are BETTER than the book?

Apocalypse Now.

Better than Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which is itself a brilliant book.

"Orlando".
I can remember only this at the moment.
The movie and the book (Virginia Woolf) are both great.
I must say that many times films from books are a matter of disappointment.
Btw a good novel in the right hands can sometimes become a good film.

Not "Starship Troopers" which is a fantastic, very serious book.

A lot of the older classics are such a grind to work through with all the 'forsooth's' and 'prithy thee's' coupled to long disertations of the characters states of mind that a well done 'film of the book' stands a good chance of being better ENTERTAINMENT.

A few examples that spring to mind are:

Henry Fielding - Tom Jones
Walter Scott - Quentin Durward
Alexander Dumas - The man in the Iron Mask

regards
Geoff

Gianluigi,

I'll get the DVD of Angelas Ashes - my wife has just finished reading the book.

M

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Underhill:
Gianluigi,

I'll get the DVD of Angelas Ashes - my wife has just finished reading the book.

M

Hi!
In my opinion well spent money.
Enjoy!

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Not "Starship Troopers" which is a fantastic, very serious book.

The case of Asimov's "I robot".

OT: if someone want to start a new hobby here's the place
http://www.robot.org.uk/

I found the book somehow boring (i already knew the story before reading it).


But the TV version, directed by Luigi Comencini, is now available on a dvd box set and it's very nice

Andromeda Strain ('71)
Based on Michael Chrichton's novel.

Robert Wise did an excellent job on it.

'Bullit' with Steve McQueen.

The book is simply not good. The author has even managed to get the setting wrong, he has placed it New York. How he expect the car jumping in the famous chase to happen in Manhattan one can't imagine!

JohanR

Which one?

Always a matter of taste.
Sometimes a movie can give a novel the images it needs to get complete.
Sometimes it's only marketing.
Sometimes a matter of luck when we put hands on books or films in a shops' shelves.

In this case Bachman's (King) novel is better than Schwarzy's grunt

Forrest Gump. The book is an absolute mess.

Hi FIdelity- the book is great but the film just works the way it was done. The Actors performances gives you a real taste of that type of setting. It book also feels a little dated whereas the film doesn't.

Ryan

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
Which one?

The book, although it is a bit on the pessimistic side. the concept of Newspeak cannot be conveyed by cinema.
'The Beach' was the only instance I can remember of the film being better than the book. Both were absolute crud but the film was (marginally) better.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Both were absolute crud but the film was (marginally) better.

Hi Malky!

Books leave all to our brain while films involve eyes and ears.
I like the film version more than the book as i think that in some parts it goes further than the writer wish without changing his line.

A film that has been inspired by the same novel is this:



Directed by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam that appeared in an English version and an American version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%28film%29

Lord Of The Rings.

The book was very good, but the movies were perhaps even better.


Oh and Mario Puzo's The Godfather. The movie is better, IMO.

Well done Christian!! Light blue touch paper and stand wellllll back.

LOTR - The films were excellent attempts to capture some limited aspects of books that are far deeper and more subtle; better? Not in my opinion.

The Godfather - again, I prefer the book.

M

A film that is really true to the book has to be the orignal "Day of the Jackal".

Truely a great film which might just shade the book.

Jono

What about this?

This?