The Book is Almost Always Better

Last week I wrote about how eager I was to see the film adaptation of Horns by Joe Hill. This really started me thinking about other books that have been made into movies.

Of course, anyone who is an avid reader knows what usually happens when a book is made into a movie.

Film adaptations of books are at a disadvantage before they even finish the screenplay. I mean there is no way that a movie can include all of the details of a book. Think about the Harry Potter movies. They were okay, but so many wonderful scenes and details from the books had to be excluded for time's sake.

Books that are epic in length, highly detailed, and with lots of internal dialogue just do not make great movies. Poor Stephen King has not had a watchable movie made of any of his books. (I will admit that Tim Curry was a disturbingly, creepy Pennywise but the rest of the movie, IT, was pretty horrendous.)

Unfortunately for literature Hollywood loves the classics. How many horrible movies based on books by H.G. Wells, Alexander Dumas, Charles Dickens, and Jane Austen are there anyways? Not to mention the plethora of scathingly bad horror films spawned by Frankenstein and Dracula.

Alright, I have complained enough. On a much more positive note there are a few movies out there that are actually better than the book. Shocking isn't it? You do not know how hard it is for me to even admit that!  Here is my list of movies that I enjoy more that the novels that they are based on:

1.

No offense to Peter Benchley (this wasn't a bad book), but the only character you root for in the novel is the shark. The primary divergence between the book and the movie is how Matt Hooper is portrayed. In the novel Benchley really makes him a slime ball. Hooper even has this weird affair with Ellen Brody, and Chief Brody is just kind of clueless.  In the movie you have this sweet and cuddly Matt Hooper played by the adorable Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Sheider as Chief Brody is all stern and take charge with a soft gooey center. The best part of the movie, though, is Spielberg's spectacular filming. It may have stemmed from problems with the mechanical shark, but not seeing the shark until midway through the movie puts the suspense level through the roof. I still jump when the shark comes up when Brody is chumming and says that they are "going to need a bigger boat".


2.

 I was an English major and I love the classics, but James Fenimore Cooper's books are stupefyingly dry. There is really no contest here. The movie is an epic adventure with raging romance and nonstop action. Daniel Day-Lewis is spectacular and, you have to admit, incredibly hot (he definitely didn't look like that in My Left Foot or Lincoln).

3.

Maybe it is because I saw the movie before I read the book, but for me Gone With the Wind is a stunning movie spectacle and the book is just okay. I don't think that I could have imagined Rhett Butler as well as Clark Gable played him. Vivien Leigh is wonderful too, but for me it is all about Gable and nothing can beat him strutting across the screen.




4.

I admit to being a total geek so I love The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but there is no denying that Tolkien can be a tad dry at times.  Especially when he leaves the action of the story to go on some extremely wordy tangents. I first read The Lord of the Rings trilogy when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in my twenties when Peter Jackson brought Middle Earth to life. It was like living a childhood fantasy. Yes, they have all of the bells and whistles as far as visual effects, but the acting and writing are equally superb. Jackson is doing it again with The Hobbit and I am packed and ready to return to Middle Earth. I guess with this one the movies are just as good as Tolkien's books, and I highly recommend reading them if you want to truly appreciate the movies.

 

5.  

                              

Ok this is the last one. I am sure that there are more great movie adaptations of novels, but these are the top for me.

 I read this book, because I was going to go and see the musical and I wanted to know what the story was about. After I finished I remember thinking:  "How are they going to put this story to music and why would they want to?" The story is depressing and tragic, and there are chapters and chapters about French politics.  If you have seen the musical, you know that the French politics are simplified and the hearing Jean Valjean's story set to music just fits and it's beautiful. The recent film starring Hugh Jackman was amazing. Granted, Russel Crowe was a bit of a let down. I feel horrible saying that, because I really like Crowe as an actor, but his singing was painful. In my opinion Jackman and Ann Hathaway were perfect as Valjean and Fantine. I actually liked the way both of them put the emotion of the lyrics into their singing. With Hathaway you feel the pain,desperation, and regret when she sings "I Dreamed a Dream". The movie tells the story of Jean Val Jean so much more tenderly than Hugo and you feel more connected to the characters than you do when you are reading the book.