SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
TV and Movie Chat
>
Best/Worst Movies Based on Books
Gary wrote: "...Starship Troopers ...it's not an adaptation of Heinlein's work, but a satire of it, which seems to make a lot of folks mad. ..."It will make some people mad...apparently even you:
Gary wrote: "...WORST:
...Casino Royale (1967)"
Which was a psychedelic, surreal satire (spoof really) of Bond films.
];P
Don't get me wrong, it was a mess...but it was a harmless goofy mess. And, hey, it had a killer Herb Albert theme song! \o/
As for Starship Trooper, the movie, I hate it not because it's a horrible interpretation of the book, but because it fails as both an interpretation of the book and as a parody of the book.The beginning of the film is clearly a straight-out parody and is pretty good at it. But then it loses its way and becomes exactly what you describe above about the book: chest-thumping, rah-rah, gung-ho war porn: underdogs struggle against overwhelming odds and self-interested upper echelon officers; little guy against The Man.
At best the latter parts of the movie exhibit an extreme form of what the Russians call stiob where parody and official party doctrine are so closely married to each other that it is hard to tell one from the other (a more obvious example of stiob from US television would be The Colbert Report).
But if that's what's supposedly going on, it's been widely misunderstood. The people I know who love this film almost always turn out to be ones who are huge fans of the Red Dawn (1984), which if you understand US political divides and see Starship Trooper as a condemnation of our military industrial complex, you'll understand is a bit of an ideological contradiction.
Anyway, I've always felt the movie started well and lost its focus.
Micah wrote: "Casino Royale (1967)"Which was a psychedelic, surreal satire (spoof really) of Bond films.
I watched it maybe 20 years ago, so I really should sit down and have another viewing just so as to be able to speak intelligently about it. It's kind of famous as one of those films that had a bizarre, chaotic production, with actors being out of control, and nothing really like a script. Nontheless, spoofing the Bond movies has become something of a time-honored thing.
As for the stiob (nice word) aspects of Starship Troopers I really think that was intentional on Verhoeven's part. In fact, I've used the film as a litmus test in the past for how much people will "get it" when shown something ironic. Verhoeven is a funny guy; a Stephen Colbert comparison is apt, though I don't think Verhoeven breaks character ever, which makes watching his stuff a little more painful to watch sometimes. Showgirls being a prime example.
Gary wrote: "I think there's really two categories of films that are "based on" books. The first category is films that are faithful adaptations. The second is films that are inspired by the book, but only lo..."For me, Verhoeven's Starship Troopers failed to rise to any standard with a claim to satire or irony, nor anything else so sophisticated. Instead it came off as a ham-handed B movie, the military sf equivalent of Showgirls in armor. It seems to me that if you're making a satire, the cast should probably be in on it--and the cast should not include Caspar Van Diem.
I went to the theater expecting Starship Troopers, not a self-indulgent bye-blow that felt like a junior-high film project with a slightly bigger budget. When I go to a Mozart opera, for some reason I expect to hear some Mozart.
IMHO, if Verhoeven wants to wax "satirical" to this extent he should come up with his own story, rather than mess with someone else's.
Doc wrote: "It seems to me that if you're making a satire, the cast should probably be in on it--and the cast should not include Caspar Van Diem."From what I can tell there are two strategies for making an effective satirical film. The first (and almost certainly better) is to hire talented, intelligent actors and explain the project, or otherwise work it out in collaboration with them during pre-production. I'd suggest the Coen brothers for directors/producers who do that kind of thing. The second is to get your cast by raiding soap operas and modelling agencies for "faces" and don't tell them a goddamn thing. Let them think they are making Zulu Dawn meets Audie Murphy so they'll pile on the cheese like children at the "make your own pizza" buffet.
Verhoeven, for better or worse, generally chooses the second option, and even if he were to explain what was going on to his cast, most of them probably wouldn't get it, as they are basically walking, talking nose-jobs riddled with botox and hair products.
Doc wrote: "I went to the theater expecting Starship Troopers, not a self-indulgent bye-blow that felt like a junior-high film project with a slightly bigger budget. When I go to a Mozart opera, for some reason I expect to hear some Mozart."
There is certainly an issue with the honesty level of calling the project "Starship Troopers" when it really opposes the book upon which it is based.... I'm not sure a film maker is obligated to do something like change the name just to give us a hint that he's doing something else entirely, but I think that's a valid concern. Even a little change is probably more ethical, as in The Wind Done Gone, for example.
Doc wrote: "IMHO, if Verhoeven wants to wax "satirical" to this extent he should come up with his own story, rather than mess with someone else's."
I'd argue that he actually did come up with his own story. [Edit: Or, rather, it's Neumeier's story, though I suspect Verhoeven had a lot of input.] He kept the title, character names and a vague outline of the plot, but the story is really his own. Again, there's an issue with the honesty of doing that as it is so derivative. But when making a satire of a particular product then it's probably unavoidable to some extent.
When it comes to films that are faithful adaptations:BEST
The Shawshank Redemption
Stand By Me (two Stephen King books!)
Sin City
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
WORST
The Hobbit, parts 1 through Who Cares?
Legend of Earthsea (TV mini-series)
Seven Years in Tibet
Twilight (OK, that's not really fair for me to say, as I've never read the book, and I only made it through the first fifteen minutes of the movie before turning it off in disgust. Nonetheless, I'm told it's close to the book, so I'm including it just on its demerits.)
HONORABLE MENTION
Lolita (1997)
The Watchmen
A Bridge Too Far
The Color Purple
Doc wrote: "Gary wrote: "I think there's really two categories of films that are "based on" books. The first category is films that are faithful adaptations. The second is films that are inspired by the book..."Yes ^^^^^
Completely agree with this.
World War Z! That movie made me so mad! and I am Legend.Both were enjoyable enough, but why did they feel they had to name them after novels that had nothing to do with the movies? If they hadn't had the same titles they wouldn't be recognizable as adaptations....weird
The WWZ thing is that I think they needed Brad Pitt to look like a hero. In the book, it was interviews by a journalist after the fact, trying to figure out what started it, and how it got blown out of control and then how they got a handle back on it and defeated the zombies.In the movie, only one of the interviewees even had the same name....and it was all about Brad 'figuring out' a biological response. Really a totally different story, even the zombies evolved differently. and the best stories from the book? No where in sight.
There are certainly movies that, even though the title is the same, has almost nothing to do with the book. Hollywood even buys the rights, so that the author has no beef. A great example of this would be the last PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN outing, ON STRANGER TIDES. They had to pay Tim Powers off for the title, but of course the movie has nothing to do with his book.
Best: The Hunt for Red October - almost exactly the same as the book, and well done.Worst - numerous
Starship Troopers - They never once used the line "On the bounce!" so it has no connection to the book at all.
Wouldn't you love to see Friday or Stranger in a Strange Land as movies?
The Hobbit movie. Come on. A love story between an elf and a dwarf? Took away the essence of the whole book--a beautiful and simple tale of camaraderie and adventure. I don't mind watching what men can do on their own once in a while. That's what made the book fun for me. Just to stick women in it for the sake of it made no sense to me.
Rebecca wrote: "The Hobbit movie. Come on. A love story between an elf and a dwarf? Took away the essence of the whole book--a beautiful and simple tale of camaraderie and adventure. I don't mind watching what..."Really? Of all the changes made to the source material, the elf/dwarf love story was the least of the problems I had with it. It certainly wasn't any worse than the Aragorn/Arwen stuff in the Lord of the Rings movies. Other stuff like Legolas, the ridiculous size of the treasure hoard, the revelation of Sauron were all bigger problems for me.
Michelle wrote: "BEST= the first 3 Harry Potter moviesWORST= Eragon"
I agree about the Potter films--but critics dinged the first film especially, for being too "slavish" to the book. I had no problem with it--I went to see Harry Potter, and Harry Potter is what I saw.
I hated the Lord of the Rings movies. I was pleasantly surprised by the first Hobbit movie, which I actually enjoyed. The second, though, was insufferably terrible.We know that none of the dwarves can die, so that entire hour of them fighting Smaug was pointless. Plus all the pure eye-rolling dumbness on display, like being protected from metal-melting napalm breath by a pillar.
Limiting choices just to SF/F, for best adaptations I would list:A Boy and His Dog
The Boys from Brazil
Children of Men
Colossus: The Forbin Project
The Crow
Firestarter
How to Train Your Dragon
Iron Man
Limitless
Memoirs of an Invisible Man
Men in Black
The Princess Bride
Solaris (both)
Soylent Green
Although E.T. The Extraterrestrial movie was so popular, I have to say that I much preferred the book. There were just things that could be said in a book (E.T.'s thoughts for examples) that could not be reproduced in the movie. So as silly as it may seems, I was greatly disappointed with the movie.
G.G. wrote: "Although E.T. The Extraterrestrial movie was so popular, I have to say that I much preferred the book. There were just things that could be said in a book (E.T.'s thoughts for examples) that could ..."Novelizations would be a different discussion, though. ET was a screenplay that was turned into a book.
Huh? The movie was not made from the book? Well that's new, because usually I steer away from a book written from a movie as they are just pale copies of the real thing. Well then, I bow low to the ones who wrote the book. I'm simply amazed.
The movie adaptation of Eragon was really disappointing. The Inheritance Cycle was what brought me into the world of fantasy and continues to be one of my favorite books. The first book is my comfort book. Whenever I am feeling down about life, that's the book I go to. Perhaps it's due to the high expectations I had for the movie (I waited outside the theater over an hour to get prime seats)but the movie did not once live up to my hopes. It's been a while since I've seen the movie but I know one bit, the bit about the magical scene of Saphira immediately growing up just about killed my soul. Arya did not scream elf to me, and they played through the the final battle way too quickly. They glazed over Orik, who was Eragon's guide and friend throughout the book.
There's more I'm annoyed with, but I feel like this post is getting a little long. No disrespect to any movie fans of Eragon, but it seriously disappointed me.
Props on Solaris, Trike. I adored the second remake of that.
Trike wrote: "Limiting choices just to SF/F, for best adaptations I would list:Memoirs of an Invisible Man
..."
never read the book as it seems hard to find but i love the movie. Very under rated
William wrote: "Props on Solaris, Trike. I adored the second remake of that."I thoroughly enjoyed Solaris, so much so that I immediately bought the DVD and the soundtrack as soon as they were available.
Pickle wrote: "Trike wrote: "Limiting choices just to SF/F, for best adaptations I would list:
Memoirs of an Invisible Man
..."
never read the book as it seems hard to find but i love the movie. Very under rated"
The book is better than the movie, but the adaptation is really good. Who knew Chevy Chase had that in him?
Sara wrote: "The movie adaptation of Eragon was really disappointing. The Inheritance Cycle was what brought me into the world of fantasy and continues to be one of my favorite books. The first book is my comfo..."Yeah, the movie was a let down. I'm hopefully we can get a remake or something.
In terms of something good, I really enjoyed The Last Unicorn movie. It wasn't exactly the same, but it captured the feeling of the book very well, I thought.
Pickle wrote: "Trike wrote: "Limiting choices just to SF/F, for best adaptations I would list:Memoirs of an Invisible Man
..."
never read the book as it seems hard to find but i love the movie. Very under rated"
If it's out of copyright, you might be able to find the eBook version at Project Gutenberg for free.
These are the first names that come to mind. I am sure there are others but here is my take:Best movie from a book - The Godfather
Worst movie - Harry Potter and the deathly hallows
Best movie from a book- The Lord of the Rings.Worst movie from a book- So many!
L.G. wrote: "Sara wrote: "The movie adaptation of Eragon was really disappointing. The Inheritance Cycle was what brought me into the world of fantasy and continues to be one of my favorite books. The first boo..."I would be on board for a remake. Second chances, you know?
I guess I can't contribute much to the topic.Except for:
Howl's Moving Castle: It works as a movie but I think it's absolutely horrible as far as adaptions go. They butchered Howl's character, the magic on Sophie doesn't make any sense if she keeps shifting back into being young, they ignored the actual villain of the story and made her into something else ... Urgh. Horrible. /:
Also, every adaption of Le Guin's Earthsea novels. It either goes white-washed TV movie with some random war and nuns thrown in or yet another adaption by Ghibli where they butchered Arren's character this time around, as well as Therru's.
An adaption that didn't work for me:
The Hunger Games
The narrative of the books is veeeery close to Katniss, so now with that narrative missing some things are just '???'.
As far as good movie adaptions go. Err, well, I'm not very knowledgeable about them.
Let's just say I really liked 'The Last Unicorn'. Probably because Peter S. Beagle wrote the screen play here? It pays to have the author of the book actually write the screen play as well.
The Harry Potter movies weren't so bad. Except for the fifth one. According to one of my aunts she was extremely confused - she didn't read the book.
Best: 1. Jaws. Not sure if we're confining this to fantasy/sci-fi, but Jaws is a very mediocre book made into a great film.
2. Lord of the Rings & Game of Thrones: I think these succeeded admirably, considering the difficulty of and fan passion for the source material. I know some hated LOR for being too hard-edged, for amping up the fighting and romance, and for not being enough about fellowship, but... it's awesome. GOT changed has changed attitudes towards television and fantasy.
3. Braveheart. Did you know it was a book first? And a really, really poorly written one at that. The movie was far better, really ahead of its time.
4. The Godfather. Not a great book. Maybe the best movie of all time (parts 1&2 only).
Worst
1. Golden Compass. What the heck happened? How did they screw that up with that cast and that budget? This material should have been a slam-dunk Harry Potter-esque success. Too bad. One of the best YA/crossover fantasy series ever.
2. The Hobbit part 2. What happened? What did I just watch?
3. The Narnia books. They went from disappointing to downright awful, but I could see they would after book one. The rest just don't translate well to the screen.
Micah wrote: "Best (no particular order):Slaughterhouse Five (Really captured Vonnegut's work)
A Clockwork Orange (sure, it left off the final chapter, but honestly, I think the book would be better without tha..."
I don't know if I would call it the worst, but I agree the focus of the LotR movies was wrong for the books. It wasn't about the battles it was about the growth of the journey and how you can never really go home again. Once you leave, nothing stays the same when you come back. In that sense, the LotR books are an expansion on the Hobbit theme.
And why would anyone need three movies to do the Hobbit? Baskin Robbins (or Rankin Bass if you want to be technical about it) did a great version and they chopped the story quite a bit.
Doc wrote: "Gary wrote: "I think there's really two categories of films that are "based on" books. The first category is films that are faithful adaptations. The second is films that are inspired by the book, ..."So I went and watched Starship Troopers in the Theater with my friend. I was underwhelmed. When I asked her what she thought of it, she called it 90210 in Space with Bugs. I still refer to it as that to this day. The worst scene was the ending. 'It's Afraid?' No Duh doc, there are a thousand gun-totting Marines standing around ready to plug it full of holes. It took a degree to figure that out. That went beyond satire to full slap in the face stupidity.
Trike wrote: "Limiting choices just to SF/F, for best adaptations I would list:A Boy and His Dog
The Boys from Brazil
Children of Men
Colossus: The Forbin Project
The Crow
Firestarter
How to Train Your Dragon
..."
So I love How to Train Your Dragon move, but I have to say after reading the book, the movie isn't really that close. Better, but not that close.
I liked parts of the David Lynch Dune (I am a fan of David Lynch), but the TV remake was boringThe Color Purple was a good adaptations of books to movies, especially given that The Color Purple was written as letters.
The Hobbit parts 1-3 were terrible. Too much filler. I preferred Jackson's LotR which really isn't a bad movie if you forget about the wealth in the source books.
I liked Bladerunner, but I was really expecting it to be an adaptation of The Blade Runner by Alan E. Nourse for which William S. Burroughs actually wrote the screenplay: Blade Runner: A Movie. It really would make a good movie.
So sticking with the theme of the movie not being a close adaptation but better than the book: Freejack. A fun and a somewhat amusing movie that seems to turn some things upside down. After all the Stars of the Movie are Emilio Esteves and Mick Jager. But the coStars are Anthony Hopkins and Renee Russo. Go figure.
The book:
Immortality, Inc.
Is a somewhat tedious read that has little but the basic premise to do with the movie.
Worst Movie
While it might be fun to rip on Peter Jacksons less than perfect adaptations, the biggest gripe I have about them is they are so epic that it is unlikely that someone will try and do it better and more true for a very long time.
As far as Starship Troopers I find it a guilty pleasure, terrible adaptation but at least it has some moments that are fun to watch.
So for the Worst
Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakashi.
Worse than anything Peter Jackson could have dreamed of doing. This movie came out when I was a sophomore in High School and we were all so excited to go see it. It was the first movie I saw in a multiplex, the first time I stood in line for over an hour to see a movie and it was a horrifying experience. Somewhere between three and five different animation styles in one scene (which works all right in Wizards, but not LotR). Hacked the story up so bad that in an hour and a half or so you go from the start to the Riders of Rohan showing up, but no Ents, no Bombidill, almost no plot. I would have left if my friend hadn't fallen asleep saying wake me when the Riders of Rohan show up. When I woke him up he was very sorry he made me stay and watch the rest of it. he was livid.
I would have figured that Tolkein was spinning in his grave so fast that parts of England were suffering lightning strikes.
Worst movie: BATTLEFIELD EARTH! This lemon has the dubious honor of being widely considered as even worse than the book by L. Ron Hubbard on which it was based. That's saying a lot!
Best Movie: a tough contest between SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and FORREST GUMP, both of which feature the actor who is probably the best of his generation: Tom Hanks. Also, both films were very realistic, with great psychological depth and top scenarios.
Best Movie: a tough contest between SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and FORREST GUMP, both of which feature the actor who is probably the best of his generation: Tom Hanks. Also, both films were very realistic, with great psychological depth and top scenarios.
Three part answer: Best:
For sci fi: most will overlook it because it’s older, but I’d have to go with the 1960 version of The Time Machine. Beautifully made and a visual delight. Well cast where it matters. Obviously, the morlocks are a bit cheesy, but it doesn’t really take away much. It also stays VERY close to the book, with some minor changes.
For Fantasy: The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which everyone already mentioned.
Worst:
For sci fi: I’d probably have to go with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The filmmakers had ONE job to do, and they failed. The book was one of my favorite comics, but the film missed it entirely, because they thought it woul be more of a blockbuster film if they changed it.
For fantasy: not sure, but The Golden Compass seems like a good choice. Another adaptation gone wrong from an excellent book series. So bad both as a film and because of the how they told the story, that they couldn’t do the sequels.
3rd part:Excellent film that was a bit loosely based on the novel: Children of Men. Both are great, but different. PD James is/was my favorite contemporary mystery writer, but her lone sci fi novel was a classic. The book managed to convey much of it, but changed some of the plot points. Both worked out excellently.
Bruce wrote: "For fantasy: not sure, but The Golden Compass seems like a good choice. Another adaptation gone wrong from an excellent book series. So bad both as a film and because of the how they told the story..."I thought they were doing a sequel?
Or are they reboothing?
They rebooted as an amazon or Hulu series. I forget which one. It’s supposed to be good.
I can think of a few good books that were made into painfully awful films, where the director and writer should be processed through the justice system: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Casino Royale (Niven version), Lost Horizon; and I Robot (which only had the title in common with the novel).I didn't agree with the choice of what to take out (culture, romantic legend, Bombadil, Galadriel's best lines) and leave in (endless fight scenes) of Lord of the Rings, but that didn't necessarily drop these films into the cringe category. It just wasn't as satisfying as the 1970s Ralph Bakshi cartoon...
My view is that if a novel is good enough to be filmed, it is famous because of the word-craft of the author. A film studio's script writer then takes the general idea and puts their own words and scenes into it, which are really extremely unlikely to be better quality writing than the original content for which the work is famous. If I were to adapt a great writer's book, I would be very light-touch, using the best lines of the main characters without modification - going through the book with a highlighter to make sure I didn't miss anyone's favourite quote.
I think people who work in cinematography are visual thinkers, not word thinkers, so are more likely to cut out a good line and replace it with a candy-shop image. They don't treasure the words enough, unervaluing the author's art with carefully modulated wordplay. If you took 30 words out of a song, it would fail. I think prose is just as vulnerable.
Films which are not just equal to but better than their novels are rarer than the other way around, but Grand Hotel Budapest (Society of the Crossed Keys) is an obvious one and The Spy Who Loved Me came from one of the worst famous novels I've ever read.
Worst: The Dark is Rising. I managed to get excited about the presence of Christopher Eccleston, but when you take a delightful imaginative kids book and then feel the need to modernize it, muck it up, alter the nationality of the main character and even give him a long lost twin not in the book, you lose the right to say 'Based on'. Peter Jackson's Hobbit interpretation doesn't hold a candle to how awful this was. close runners up include Disney's recent attempt at A Wrinkle in Time, and Prince Caspian. 'Time' fired the message of the book in favor of highly watered down ideas and Reese Witherspoon as a cabbage dragon. Caspian similarly had the depth of the original character ruined by adding a decade to his age for sex appeal and adding conflict between 2 main characters that was entirely absent in the book. though it departs far more from the book than I would like, they were at least truer to the spirit of the book in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but the nails in the coffin of that franchise were already secured by their botched handling of Caspian. Fantasy that got it right? The Discworld movies.
best non fantasy book to movie interpretations for me: October Sky, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Seven Years in Tibet.
Best: The Lord of the Rings, The Godfather I & II (III doesn't count as it wasn't based on the book, whereas I & II largely were). The Princess Bride.Worst: all the various King Arthur and Robin Hood movies. As a big fan of these myths, I have been severely disappointed that no one is capable of actually making a movie that tells those stories at all. They just write their own clichéd story and dress up actors to look the part. Please, someone just make a really good movie that actually tells the original story.
Also, the newer movie version of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader....seriously, don't just write your own story and then fit a few random things from the book around that.
The modern Hobbit movies are kind of an honorable mention. They are fun if you entirely forget about the source material. But, basically, we still don't have a real live-action The Hobbit movie at all, and now it's probably not going to happen. At least the old animated The Hobbit was quite good.
Mod
I much preferred Starship Troopers the movie to the book, but that's well trod grown.
I felt that the women in A Song of Ice and Fire came across much better in the show and for that I preferred the shows first few seasons to the books that have been released.
The Queen of the Damned was a movie that had characters with the same names and nothing else in common. It was the first to come to my mind as a bad adaption.Watchmen had a very good film. Not a complete clone, but close enough. It was the first to come to mind of a movie done right.
Brenda wrote: "The Narnia books were well served by films. Tilda Swinton was a perfect Queen Jadis."I agree! The movies really brought the magic to life and captured the beauty in the book so well.
A great film that comes to my mind is Blade Runner. I liked it more than the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?.Imo a bad adaptation was The Circle movie because it changed the end of the book The Circle too much.
Best: I will go with LotR and The Martian. Worst: World War Z
Best Good but Different: Ready Player One
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (other topics)The Circle (other topics)
The Queen of the Damned (other topics)
Watchmen (other topics)
Immortality, Inc. (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Alan E. Nourse (other topics)William S. Burroughs (other topics)
The Starship Troopers book vs. movie argument is a long-standing one, but I'm going to chime in real quick to give a little love to the film. Yeah, it's not an adaptation of Heinlein's work, but a satire of it, which seems to make a lot of folks mad. However, as that is the point, those who hate the film because it isn't the book are (apparently, unwittingly) illustrating exactly the point Verhoeven was trying to make. As such it's quite an effective film.
Heinlein's novel is thinly disguised fascist apologist war porn--and that's fine if someone is reading it for what it is. There's nothing wrong with a little chest-thumping, rah-rah, gung-ho, emotionalism from time to time just to get the blood pumping. It's not the kind of thing one should base a life on... but like fast food, alcohol or sugar, a little in moderation won't hurt you.
However, if you're a guy like Verhoeven, who witnessed the Nazi takeover of his homeland, and spent his youth in the rubble left behind by an ideology that is--if one is being honest and objective--expressed as the only moral good in the novel, then it's reasonable to want to oppose that content with one's own work. In that context, his film is an excellent product. So, it's not a "best adaptation" or "faithful interpretation" but it is a "film based on a book" even if it is "based" on ridiculing it.
OK, with all that out of the way, here's a list of movies that are only "based" on the books, not exacting translations.
BEST:
The Godfather
The Wizard of Oz
Apocalypse Now (only loosely based on Heart of Darkness.)
The Bourne Identity
WORST:
I, Robot
Dune (both the 1984 film and the Sci-Fi mini-series.)
The Bonfire of the Vanities
Casino Royale (1967)
HONORABLE MENTION:
Casino Royale (2006)
Starship Troopers
Lolita (1962)
L. A. Confidential