Great books that were even better movies:
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Remains of the Day
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(August 03, 2006 08:15 PM)
I think Remains of the Day was a better movie than it was a novel. The novel was, of course, brilliant. Can anyone suggest great books that were adapted into even better movies?
My picks:
Contact - Carl Sagan: The treatment of science as a form of religion in the movie made it better than the book, which was already great.
Smilla's Sense of Snow - Peter Hoeg: Not a high budget film, and they perhaps played up the thriller aspect of it a bit more than the book. Julia Ormond, playing an "ice queen", managed to make herself ugly without using makeup. Now THAT is acting.
The Third Miracle - Richard Vetere: The book was actually merely good. Vetere's Helen was more of a feminist than she came across in the movie, which didn't seem to be as big a bother to the Catholic higher-ups as one might expect. In the movie, we know almost nothing about her, making her a bit mysterious. Of course, Ed Harris and Anne Heche had incredible chemistry.
Any opinions? -
SlowRain — 19 years ago(August 03, 2006 10:18 PM)
I think
The Remains of the Day
and
Smilla's Sense of Snow
were great as novels and good as movies.
I'd suggest:
The Talented Mr. Ripley
by Patricia Highsmith as the movie corrected some ridiculous elements
The only second chance you get is to make the same mistake twice. - David Mamet -
dosgatosazules — 19 years ago(August 10, 2006 11:36 AM)
Julia Ormond was not ugly in that movie
sheesh.
I nominate the movie White Palace, for a second-tier category: basically good books that made good movies. The book was overlong and the writing style nothing to write home about, but the movie kept the very intriguing story and added James Spader and Susan Sarandon, who were great. -
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(August 10, 2006 06:49 PM)
I didn't even know that was a book. See, I learned something new.
I wasn't saying Julia was physically ugly. She was playing a very unattractive character, though, and for the duration of the movie, I was able to forget that she is the one of the most beautiful women in the world. That's no easy feat.
Strangely, Paris Hilton is able to accomplish it with every public appearance. -
geitje — 19 years ago(October 05, 2006 06:36 AM)
This may earn me a severe beating or two, but I'd suggest the following:
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Virgin Suicides
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
While by no means bad novels, I feel that the film versions had much deeper impact on me. Could of course be perfectly subjective (age of seeing the film vs. age of reading the novel, f.i.), but hey, who needs objectivity anyway?
-
Fred-S — 18 years ago(April 18, 2007 07:35 AM)
I agree that 2001 was an outstanding movie. I also recall that when it was released the question of what it all meant made for many a lively discussion. It was years later that I discovered that the book actually had a story that made sense and made clear most of the mysteries of the movie.
-
GreyHunter — 19 years ago(December 01, 2006 12:36 PM)
I'm somewhat nonplussed that so few people consider the cinematic version of "Remains of the Day" measurably superior to the book. Ishiguro is a fairly good writer in normal circumstances, but he had deep problems with his ability to combine first person narrative, thematic exposition and, frankly, a realistic synthesis of characterization and internal monologue. The movie's redemption, and what makes it far superior, is that it doesn't utilize a voice-over to replicate Ishiguro's use of first person.
Another movie that surpassed the book was, quite frankly, "Bladerunner." Blasphemy to some, I know, but DADOES wasn't exactly Dick's crowning achievement. -
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(December 09, 2006 06:41 PM)
I heard many years ago that Blade Runner was considered the best SF movie of all time. Of course, there have been a number of good SF movies since then (I think that was late 80s I heard that).
After seeing the movie, I got a copy of DADOES, and found it to be nothing like the movie, to the point where I thought I must have been mistaken about the source of the movie. We didn't have the Internet back then to look things up.
It also didn't help that I saw the movie first. I don't think I could ever read a book based on a movie I loved, and think the book measured up.
If I did, that would be a great book, indeed. -
mentoringme — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 07:47 PM)
Sorry Grey Hunter but have to respectfully disagree. Just finished reading "Remains" and thought it was brilliant. I found the narrative point of view to be very consistent and engaging and was intrigued by the weaving in of three narrative threads: the road trip, Lord Darlington's political misadventures, and the love story that never happened along with the exploration of "dignity" and what makes a great butler. In my experience, this kind of subjective/retrospective writing is incredibly hard to sustain and in this case was done flawlessly. I should add that I was drawn to the book by the film which I absolutely love and can't separate from my enjoyment of the novel. All the film performances were great and AH brings Mr. Stevens to life in a way that I could never have imagined.
-
jeffhowardmeade — 19 years ago(December 10, 2006 09:07 PM)
Whatever you do, stop reading "When We Were Orphans" right now, before your appeal for Mr. Ishiguro's writing is ruined. The book is just plain bonkers. Go get "An Artist of the Floating World" instead, or "The Unconsoled". "Never Let Me Go" was also very good. "When We Were Orphans" just made me wonder what Mr. Ishiguro could possibly have been thinking when he came up with that plot.
-
scatterheart — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 09:41 PM)
LoL, this is probably not the best place to discuss When We Were Orphans, but just my quick $0.02. I totally agree with you I thought it was a far inferior book than Remains. But I think that when Banks babbles on about finding his parents after all this time, he's in a state of great desperation and little coherence, and we're MEANT to think that he's bonkers. But yeah. I thought it was a great book, but definitely not as good as Remains, and I can see why you don't like it.
-
GreyHunter — 19 years ago(February 16, 2007 08:44 PM)
I understand. Perhaps my primary problem is that I consider the voice clumsily implemented even for a very proper butler, Stevens' first-person monologue sound stilted to me, as if the narrative was trying too hard in its exposition. But, of course, de gustibus.
-
jg67 — 19 years ago(December 14, 2006 05:36 PM)
Apt Pupil
The Hours
How much did you put out to get in?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5642503