Close to the book?....

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by sanityassassin

A lot of Stephen Kings books and stories have been adapted some have been done well others are so far away from the story you wouldn't actually know it was the same story (the Running Man is a prime example)

The Omega Man had big differences from I am Legend. Apart from the Stephen King movies mentioned above along with the Green Mile I can't really think of any other good adaptations

Yeah, that's very true. I wasn't tryin to give the impression that alot of his work is true, that's why I only mentioned the ones I considered to be pretty accurate. It's just that I've read more of his books than anyone else so that's why I mentioned his books. The Dark Half was also very accurate too by the way.

[The_Warrior]

I hope no body dares to talk about a film that startes with an E.

[Overread]

Originally Posted by The_Warrior

I hope no body dares to talk about a film that startes with an E.

come on the only thing worth mentioning about that E film was the digital dragon - the rest - my sister could write better! A rushed formula for christmas curtesy of america - thus only the blurb - character list and title were needed.

[Foxbat]

Although in many ways different from the book, I felt that James Whale's version of Frankenstein captured the spirit of Shelley's masterpiece. It successfully brought to light the fact that this is not a horror story but a tale of somebody feared and hated because they are different.

On the other hand Branagh's adaptation of Frankenstein was much closer to the novel but failed miserably - a good example why we cannot assume that a fine piece of literature can necessarily be transferred into a cinematic environment and automatically be successful.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

On the other hand Branagh's adaptation of Frankenstein was much closer to the novel but failed miserably - a good example why we cannot assume that a fine piece of literature can necessarily be transferred into a cinematic environment and automatically be successful.

Yes, that was the damnedest thing. Though the last half-hour departed from the novel seriously (actually, it went off into La-La Land for a good while at that point) that was one of the most peculiar cinematic experiences... beautifully shot, superb performances, excellent cast, wonderful production values, directed with a sure hand... and the corpse never got up off the table... to so speak....

I still contend that you could do something very close to the novel as a film (or perhaps a mini-series), and it work. For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there? Then it plays on both levels, as he is both an object of pity, and a frightening figure, and the tale keeps its ambivalence between the two....

[roddglenn]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Can't remember the author now, but a horror novel called, 'The Keep.'

It ran on the premise that the vampire legends of Eastern Europe had a basis in fact, an immortal monster who could take human form, cast no reflections and turned his victims (in this case a squad of Nazi soldiers) into zombies.

Although largely well-made, the film missed many of the more subtle moments (Like the jewish professor showing a crucifix to the monster who pretends to be terrified and provoking a crisis of faith.)

The big disappointment, though, was the ending, with the monster's nemesis, 'The red-haired Man,' finding love and redemption, a message giving as much hope for the future as the monster's destruction and the surviving nazis departing for Barbarossa.

The ending was changed (perhaps to leave room for a sequel ) in a way that left me profoundly unsatisfied.

I thought the film of The Keep utterly sucked in comparison to the book. In addition to what you've already mentioned, the film totally washed over the struggle between the German Army Commander and the SS Commander sent to crush the localised rebellion which they blame for all the mysterious deaths. The film also lost all of the suspense felt by the reader in the first half of the book where German soldiers are getting picked off one by one. I was thoroughly disappointed with it and had been so looking forward to it with being such a fan of the book.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by roddglenn

I thought the film of The Keep utterly sucked in comparison to the book. In addition to what you've already mentioned, the film totally washed over the struggle between the German Army Commander and the SS Commander sent to crush the localised rebellion which they blame for all the mysterious deaths. The film also lost all of the suspense felt by the reader in the first half of the book where German soldiers are getting picked off one by one. I was thoroughly disappointed with it and had been so looking forward to it with being such a fan of the book.

I have to agree with you, Roddglenn... The film had some very good moments, but overall it was very much a case of style over substance... and rather belabored style, at that....

Not a theatrical film, but nonetheless a very worthy adaptation of a novel: the WGBH/Boston (PBS) production of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, with Meg Foster playing Hester Prynne, John Heard as Dimmesdale, and Kevin Conway as Roger Chillingworth. Frankly, I can't stand most adaptations of Hawthorne, and especially of this one -- to my mind, they all miss the boat. But this one... it captures the feel of Hawthorne's writing... that multi-layered feeling of things happening both on the surface and on an otherworldly plane; they weren't afraid to take on the metaphoric and figurative aspects of Hawthorne -- one can see here, for instance, that Chillingworth may well be a "diabolical agent" in the form of Hester's husband, who really did drown at sea... or perhaps not; the ambiguity about such things is kept balanced throughout, leaving the viewer in a state of suspense about how much is simply the view of the time, and how much really is tied to the supernatural.... Also, Meg Foster, I think, makes the best Hester Prynne I've seen... a complex characterization, to say the least. Some flaws, definitely, but an amazingly good adaptation of a writer difficult to adapt to any dramatic medium, nonetheless....

"The Scarlet Letter" (1979) (mini)

[roddglenn]

I thought Hannibal actually was a decent film adaption and more so for the fact that Ridley Scott changed the ridiculous ending that Harris had put into the book. Apart from the changed ending and missing out a sub-plot involving Starling's friend from the academy I thought it was very close to the book.

[Foxbat]

I still contend that you could do something very close to the novel as a film (or perhaps a mini-series), and it work. For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there? Then it plays on both levels, as he is both an object of pity, and a frightening figure, and the tale keeps its ambivalence between the two....

I vaguely remember a mini series from the seventies. I think it was a BBC production and I think it had Jon Finch in it. I also vaguely remember that it was quite good and pretty accurate.....then again, my memory might be a little vague

[j. d. worthington]

Will have to look and see if I can find that one... I'd like to at least give it a whirl, and see..... Thanks.

[Allegra]

I agree with some King's films mentioned above, such as The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption, even The Shinning.

A few others I can think of for now:

Doctor Zhivago
Gone with the Wind
The English Patient
The Horse Whisperer
The Bridges of Madison County
Silence of the Lambs
Ripley's Game
Chocolat

[Overread]

Foxbat - from a time when the BBC produced quality not trash - I remember their productions of narnia and hitchhikers guid to the galaxy - almost word for word and scene for scene - I found the hitchhikers book partially boring as after the tv series I know nearly every joke.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

For one thing... when do we actually get a version of Frankenstein's creature that is actually articulate in the way he is presented there?

Perhaps when you can convince movie makers that a being can get THAT articulate by learning language by overhearing a conversation and then discovering a happy treasure of philosophical tomes just when he needed to hone his newly learned art. Perhaps even THEY find it a difficult swallow

But but but...have you seen Hammer's Frankenstein must be destroyed? That film contains IMO one of the more articulate representations of the creature on celluloid (in a terrific performance by Freddie Jones)...although he is not created the classic way.

[Quokka]

Schindler's List was very good, it does cut out alot of Schindler's life before and after the war, so you don't get as true an impression of the man Oskar Schindler but maybe it works better as a film (certainly a 'blockbuster') for it.

I haven't read The Princess Bride but I'm sure its been mentioned before that its very true to the book?

I thought the Harry Potter books did very well at capturing the feel of the books and The Andromeda Strain is a really great translation of a Michael Crichton book, Sphere isn't.

High Fidelity, proof that occasionally a good adaption can even survive being transplanted (England to America)

I wasn't actually a big fan of the movie to start with and having now read the book I like Contact even less and finally, I am still waiting for that really good adaption of Dune, unfortunately it looks like they're going to keep trying untill I get it .

[ravenus]

I loved Contact the film a good deal more than Contact the book, which suffered from Sagan's "all the nice good and inherently cool scientists of the world come together and try to bring about world peace and harmony" claptrap. The film made a right decision in concentrating on the heroine's personal journey.

A really good adaptation of Dune...in which I assume the word good stands for 'faithful' will just make for a very tedious film except for people who're obsessed with the source work and regard it as infallible.