Books I Loathed discussion
Loathesome Movie Adaptations of Books
message 1:
by
Jessica
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:01PM)
(new)
Aug 16, 2007 06:50PM

reply
|
flag

Bonfire of the Vanities - not a terrible film per se, just did not measure up to the book.
Pride and Prejudice (starring Keira Knightley) - it seems that the cinematographer or director (or maybe both) had the horn for Keira Knightley because much of the story was cut so that we could be subjected to endless beauty shots of her staring off into the mist, looking thoughtfully at herself in the mirror, or examining the crud under her nails. Weird Darcy.
Pretty much any film version of Jane Ayre.
Both versions of Lolita
Tristram Shandy - I must admit that I have not read this, but such a fuss was made by critics over how wonderful the film was that I rented it and thought it was complete smug, smirking crap. I hope the novel is better.
Dune (yikes!)
That's all I can think of for now - I will revisit later as I think of more.

Harriet The Spy was an awful, horrible, miss-the-point-entirely adaptation.
I didn't hate either Lolita, actually, though the Kubrick might as well have been about a different book.
Bonfire of the Vanities was horribly miscast, for starters.
And Possession was entirely ill-conceived.

Wow the movie is just incredible and haunting and so is the book. However, the book is so tough...there's just no hope. The movie is much easier on the psyche. Everyone talks about Kitty's evolution in the book, but I thought it was much more evident in the movie. The book is good, but just not as good as the movie.

I was terribly disappointed with the movie version of The DaVinci Code.
Rare the-movie-was-better-than-the-book examples:
The Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King (He hadn't quite honed his skills for cluing the reader in without giving too much away in the book, which is why the movie is soooooooo much better.)
The Princess Bride...the book is AWFUL! The movie is one of my all-time favorites.
I second the Jaws adaptation. The book was good, but the movie has kept me out of the ocean (or any dark water for that matter) pretty much my entire life.

Flipping things around, Brokeback Mountain was a very ordinary short story but a stunning film; Heart of Darkness, a boring novel, became magic as Apocalypse Now.

Dr Zhivago - actually a great film, but still sells Pasternak short.
Oliver - excellent musical but SO saccharine compared to the Dickens novel.

any movie of "frankenstein" is just awful. and most movies of dickens' novels tend to miss the mark.
i do, however, love a&e's "pride & prejudice", as well as any branagh shakespeare adaptation.

But A&E's Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth? Wow. Great. The Keira Knightley version did make me want to rinse my eyeballs with acid though.
I liked the movie adaptation of Girl With A Pearl Earring.
A lot of Stephen King adaptations, with the notable exception of The Shining, were total pieces of crap. Any Danielle Steel novel should never be adapted, though it keeps Lifetime in business.
She-Devil with Roseanne Barr was a sacrilege.
A lot of John Grisham adaptations, and Michael Crichton adaptations, were bad. Mostly mainstream and forgettable.

I've long had a soft spot for "Gas Food Lodging" by Allison Anders. However, when I finally read the source novel (Richard Peck's "Don't Look and It Won't Hurt"), I found it to be very disappointing. I'm not sure what it was missing from the book, but I found the film to be the stronger piece of the two, and I'm very impressed that Anders found what she did within the novel.
I feel the same way about "Dangerous Liaisons." And to be perfectly honest, "Valmont" and "Cruel Intentions." I've read the original work in translation, and I've even tried it in the original French, but it wasn't nearly as fun as any of the screen adaptations.

Note on I Robot: It was originally based off a completely different story (I forget what and who's, wasn't anything I'd heard of) - and then the legal department decided it was too much like the Asimov story, so they needed to get the rights to it to be safe... and then they decided they should do something with the story they had the rights to....
Harlan Ellison wrote a screenplay adaption of I, Robot that has been published, though not filmed. It is recommended (Asimov was still alive at the time and liked it).
I thought the first Harry Potter movie was good, but straining to contain the novel in a single movie. Considering that the rest of the books are longer... they should have given up and done mini-series. I'm also not happy with the new director (what's with all the muggle clothes at Hogwarts?).
My favorite adaptations (though it wasn't to the big screen) are the Jeremy Brett versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories.

There are many more that are escaping me right now, I am sure I will post again.
On the flip side though, the movie version of "Notes on a Scandal" was actually better than the book. They took all the things that were wrong with the book (particularly the ending) and changed them! Plus, brilliant casting.

My all-time least favorite movie adaptation was "Simon Birch" from "Prayer for Owen Meany." I know some people hate this book, but since the film makers had to change the name of the main character, of course it wasn't faithful to the book nor even, in my opinion, to the spirit of it. However, the main character was an AWESOME casting choice. I never thought they'd find an Owen.
I also thought that Michelle Pfeiffer was horribly miscast in "White Oleander." I pictured someone like Cate Blanchett in that role even while I read the book. Poor Michelle ruined the movie for me. I also thought that Robin Wright Penn and Renee Zelweger (sp?) should have flip-flopped their casting roles. Just a thought.
Some of my favorite movie adaptations are:
*To Kill a Mockingbird (One of my favorite movies of all time)
*Joy-Luck Club
*Memoirs of a Geisha

I was married to a Goth for 6 1/2 years and in all that time, despite many 'good faith efforts' I have yet to make it conscious all the way through 'Interview with a Vampire.'
I did manage to read the book though :D
I did manage to read the book though :D

To Kill A Mockingbird is one of my favorite movies of all time. I can watch it any time and still its riveting.
:) Oh? We're supposed to be loathing something?
Sorry.

Not a book comment per se, but I really like Goldenthal.


The Keira Knightly version of P & P was overly prettified, though it had its moments. And I confess to having enjoyed Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennett, while loating Brenda whatshername as Mrs B.
I enjoyed reading "The Vampire Lestat", but the film was simply unwatchable.
Angelina Jolie in "Grendel"? Excuse me while I rend my garments.
In Order:
Sherri - You got away with peeking? I got stuck watching the first 1/2 hr of that movie at least 6 times (I think the longest I stayed awake was 43 min. but who's counting?)
Michael: I love a good soundtrack, but I'm not familiar with him. I'll definitely check it out, any suggestions?
Alex: Rutger Hauer would've been awesome. Louis should've been more fey, but just like the book he's plenty irritating.
Sherri (again!):You're the second person to mention Blind Fury to me in as many days. I hear it's like the crappy American version of Zatoichi (therefore I must see it).
&
Thanks for the heads up! I thought I'd fallen asleep before the sexually intense parts. Now I have NO reason to ever give that film another shot :D
Sherri - You got away with peeking? I got stuck watching the first 1/2 hr of that movie at least 6 times (I think the longest I stayed awake was 43 min. but who's counting?)
Michael: I love a good soundtrack, but I'm not familiar with him. I'll definitely check it out, any suggestions?
Alex: Rutger Hauer would've been awesome. Louis should've been more fey, but just like the book he's plenty irritating.
Sherri (again!):You're the second person to mention Blind Fury to me in as many days. I hear it's like the crappy American version of Zatoichi (therefore I must see it).
&
Thanks for the heads up! I thought I'd fallen asleep before the sexually intense parts. Now I have NO reason to ever give that film another shot :D

Xysea: the Bleak House miniseries was so good it got me to read the book, and having almost finished the book, I've got to say that the miniseries did a remarkable job with the adaptation. I own Bleak House on DVD now, so will be rewatching it soon.
I was quite disappointed with the Empire Falls miniseries. The ending of the book was so intense, and the miniseries just didn't do that justice.

In the movie it seems to me like it's all about manly men shouting at each other to man up. Before every battle someone has to shout at someone else to pull himself together. The ents, so noble in the book as they go off to what they think might be their last march ever, are so lame in the movie that they have to be tricked into helping with the war effort. TRICKED!
The part in the movies that gets it closest to right is when, in the first one, Merry and Pippin realize that Frodo means to go to Mordor alone and sacrifice themselves to lead the orcs off the trail. Sam's loving gazes at Frodo in the third one struck me as pretty close to the book as well.

NB - for me to do the ironing, a film has to be pretty damn awful.

Frazer's 'Cold Mountain' - a more colourful weepie!
By the way, anyone could tell me a site on movies similar to this site on books? Thanks.




- Memoirs of a Geisha (somewhat entertaining movie, but didn't follow the same storyline as the book)
- The Great Gatsby (there are 2 movie/TV movie versions, the second one with Mira Sorvino, is slightly better, but both pale in comparison to the book)
- The DaVinci Code: the book was good (not awesome), but the movie was absolutely awful. Who the heck cast Tom Hanks in this movie? I like Tom Hanks, but he was so miscast in this movie.
Bad Books, Bad Movies
- Ethan Frome: freshman HS teacher forced us to read the book and then watch the movie, talk about torture, both were horrible
- Tristram Shandy: haven't seen the movie, but any movie based off this book is a snooze-fest
My biggest pet peeve is when filmmakers change the original storyline of the book when they make a movie.

To be fair, I haven't seen either of them, but I continually hear about how awful they are. I'm curious what the rest of you think. Have you seen them? Are they really that bad?
I know the Keira P&P has come up several times, but what I really loathed about it, besides all the things you've mentioned, was that it was somehow a MELODRAMA. The BBC version, which did such a great job with casting (except I did think that Mrs. Bennett was actually a little TOO overboard) and using Austen's dialog, had believably controlled tension and passion, and was really really FUNNY. I didn't think anyone in the new version got Austen's wit -- it was way too serious the whole time. How dare the new one end with such a fruity kissing scene?? That's not our Lizzy. This version missed the boat entirely, and was unenjoyable and wholly unnecessary.
So I love the 1980s movie Manhunter, based on the book Red Dragon. Then the new movie, titled Red Dragon, comes out and it's waaaaaay more true to the Thomas Harris novel, but -- guess what? -- what works in a psychological thriller novel does not always work in a film. The new scenes were ridiculous, laughable.
Fear that everyone here will think I'm ridiculous for liking Thomas Harris (Dragon and Silence, anyway -- I have strictly avoided the sequels, which ruined my sister's life)...
Fear that everyone here will think I'm ridiculous for liking Thomas Harris (Dragon and Silence, anyway -- I have strictly avoided the sequels, which ruined my sister's life)...

And if Austen is done right, Kate, it should be funny. She was also well known for satire, Jane was. :)


I didn't remember to add it here because I was trying to blank it out, and had succeeded until you reminded me....lol
Why did you do that? Argh! ;)
And for the record, Demi is a multiple offender, and should be put up for some equivalent of a Razzie. She also had the temerity to offend by starring in 'Striptease' which was a mediocre book by Carl Hiassen - but one of the worst.films.ever.made.

I could. Not. Believe. The television mini-series they did for Scarlett. They LITERALLY changed every single fact they could possibly find, and then threw in SCENES WHICH DID NOT EXIST! I suffered through the first half of the mini-series, literally screaming contradictions out loud at the TV screen. I have never been so disgusted with a film adaptation of a movie in my life!

I too loved Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, I even read (and actually rather liked) Hannibal. I haven't got round to Hannibal Rising because I've heard terrible things about the book, but it'll turn up in a charity shop sometime and I shall read it then ...

Seriously. Take my book - please! :)
If you want it, private message me.


All that being said, I enjoyed Scarlett and of course really love GWTW. Even though many things were changed for the GWTW movie (where did Scarlett's THREE OTHER CHILDREN go?), I felt like it was at least a semi faithful adaptation. With Scarlett, I wanted to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it. It was trite drivel...reminded me of a soap opera rather than the grand sweeping epic of redemption and maturation that Ripley wrote. Everyone involved in the production of that horrible mini series should be made to stand in the public square and have rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at them. I calls dibs on first toss. For shame!

Also, did they have to lose the detail about her headscarves? That's a huge character point lost in favor of Gwyneth's glistening locks.

About Schmidt is one I saw recently, and the only resemblance to the book is the name Schmidt. I was really aggravated by that.
I loved the book Remains of the Day but the movie didn't catch the mood, the repetitive plodding mood, of the butler, even though Hopkins was as usual wonderful.


But, after giving it some thought, I'll say this:
A Handmaid's Tale was a woeful adaptation of the book and, considering the cast, a pretty bad movie overall. Not unwatchable (by my standards anyway) but pretty underwhelming.
Breakfast at Tiffany's. I'm a Capote fan and read the book years before I saw the movie. I adore the book and was completely appalled at what they did to my lovely story when making the movie. That said, if you watch the movie having never read the book, it's delightful.
So, there's my 2 cents.

But there's something to be said for the suggestion earlier about a "Bad Book/Bad Movie" list, and for that list I would like to nominate "The Bridges of Madison County." If ever a worse piece of drivel was put on film, I have yet to hear about it or -- mercifully -- see it. I wish I could say the same for both the film and the book "The Bridges of Madison County."

Very well, then, I suspect I have enough loathing for everyone. By the time Burton was done with poor Washington Irving's story, the only things that remained were the names. Johnny Depp was loathsome, and the entire inane Freudian subplot with Ichabod Crane's mother made me want to throw things.
There were two good things about that movie--Christina Ricci's boobs. Other than that, it sucked rabid swamp rats.

If it is true that Burton is making a feature-length film of Edward Gorey's The Doubtful Guest, I may be forced to commit great acts of violence.
Books mentioned in this topic
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (other topics)Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (other topics)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (other topics)
The Fellowship of the Ring (other topics)
The Da Vinci Code (other topics)
More...