It's hard to believe anyone who has read The Two Towers would say that the movie was a good interpretation. bleh!

Ditto for Great Expectations, unless there is a different version that I haven't seen.

Fight club and double indemnity were 2 superb and generally faithful adaptations (captured the spirit even if they didn't follow the exact story).
What i want to know is, why the hell do ppl always seem to overlook one flew over the cuckoos nest? Superb adaptation of a superb book.

A clockwork orange, turn of the screw (the innocents), persepolis, red dragon (manhunter) and heart of darkness (apocalypse now) are all good examples of the film being much better than the book.

I would vote for the big sleep but i would be referring to the coen's "big lebowski" not the howard hawks/william faulkner "big sleep".

Incidentally i don't think blade runner was much like the novel at all. The storyline was VERY different and thematically the book was much more interesting.

Angie wrote: "It's hard to believe anyone who has read The Two Towers would say that the movie was a good interpretation. bleh!

Ditto for Great Expectations, unless there is a different version that I haven't..."

There are 2 famous versions of great expectations, the 1998 one by alfonso cuaron starring gwynnie paltry and ethan hawke which is thought to be a bit crap and the 1946 david lean version which is a universally acclaimed classic. Which did you see?

This is where this list becomes a bit confusing. How do we know which versions ppl are voting for? in the case of Red Dragon, the michael mann film "manhunter" is a superb film but not a very faithful adaptation whilst the brett ratner film is more faithful but generally sucks.

I was referring to the 1998 version I'll have to check out the other.