ONTD

9:06 pm - 01/05/2012

50 Movies That Are Better Than The Book



Passionate bookworms can be a protective bunch. Just behold their furious anger if a paperback-to-film adaptation's screenwriter changes even the slightest element of a beloved novel. And it's usually justified, since far too many Hollywood adaptations either abandon all of the source’s subtext or enhance the showier moments while forgetting about character developments. That’s why the staggering amounts of fans dedicated to the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson’s “Millennium Series” are waiting with baited breath and sharpened knives for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, acclaimed director David Fincher’s much-ballyhooed repackaging of Larsson’s first “Millennium” entry (hitting theaters tomorrow, December 20).

Having sold 15 million copies in the United States alone, Larsson’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a pop culture phenomenon, so thankfully the impeccable Fincher (Fight Club, The Social Network) tackled the project with his signature, superlative talents. His first master-stroke was casting the relatively unknown Rooney Mara as the series’ iconic female badass, Lisbeth Salander, a troubled computer whiz who dresses like a Hot Topic regular and helps solve a 40-year-old murder mystery. In addition, Fincher and screenwriter Steven Zaillian (Schindler’s List, Gangs Of New York) retained the book’s graphically adult nature but also expanded upon characters’ complexities (namely Lisbeth) and sprinkled in sickly clever stylistic touches (the sounds of Enya’s “Orinoco Flow” make a particularly grisly scene all the more disturbing).

Those 15 million owners of Larsson’s Dragon Tattoo can breathe easy: Not only is Fincher’s movie a worthy adaptation, it’s by all means the superior version, even better than the impressive 2009 Swedish film starring Noomi Rapace. Inspired by Fincher’s accomplishment, we’ve taken a look back at cinema’s history to salute The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’s predecessors, a.k.a. 50 Movies That Are Better Than The Book.



50. Shutter Island (2010)
Based on: Shutter Island, by Dennis Lehane (2003)



49. Jackie Brown (1997)
Based on: Rum Punch, by Elmore Leonard (1992)



48. Drive (2011)
Based on: Drive, by James Sallis (2005)



47. Let Me In (2010)
Based on: Let The Right One In, by John Ajvide Lindqvist (2004)



46. High And Low (1963)
Based on: King's Ransom, by Ed McBain (1959)



45. The Verdict (1982)
Based on: The Verdict, by Barry Reed (1980)



44. The Constant Gardener (2005)
Based on: The Constant Gardener, by John le Carré (2001)



43. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Based on: The Bourne Ultimatum, by Robert Ludlum (1990)



42. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Based on: The Short-Timers, by Gustav Hasford (1979)



41. Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Based on: Gone Baby Gone, by Dennis Lehane (1998)



40. Angel Heart (1987)
Based on: Falling Angel, by William Hjortsberg (1978)



39. The Innocents (1961)
Based on: The Turn Of The Screw, by Henry James (1898)



38. Forrest Gump (1994)
Based on: Forrest Gump, by Winston Groom (1986)



37. Island Of Lost Souls (1932)
Based on: The Island Of Dr. Moreau, by H.G. Wells (1896)



36. The Princess Bride (1987)
Based on: The Prince Bride, by William Goldman (1973)



35. Wild At Heart (1990)
Based on: Wild At Heart, by Barry Gifford (1990)



34. Legends Of The Fall (1994)
Based on: Legends Of The Fall, by Jim Harrison (1979)



33. The Last Of The Mohicans (1992)
Based on: The Last Of The Mohicans, by James Fenimore Cooper, Jr. (1826)



32. Atonement (2007)
Based on: Atonement, by Ian McEwan (2001)



31. Double Indemnity (1944)
Based on: Double Indemnity, by James M. Cain (1943)



30. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
Based on: The Talented Mr. Ripley, by Patricia Highsmith (1955)



29. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Based on: The Maltese Falcon, by Dashiell Hammett (1930)



28. The English Patient (1996)
Based on: The English Patient, by Michael Ondaatje (1992)



27. Trainspotting (1996)
Based on: Trainspotting, by Irvine Welsh (1993)



26. Manhunter (1982)
Based on: Red Dragon, by Thomas Harris (1981)



25. Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961)
Based on: Breakfast At Tiffany's, by Truman Capote (1958)



24. No Country For Old Men (2007)
Based on: No Country For Old Men, by Cormac McCarthy (2005)



23. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Based on: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey (1962)



22. Cape Fear (1962)
Based on: Cape Fear, by John D. MacDonald (1957)




21. The Vanishing (1988)
Based on: The Golden Egg, by Tim Krabbe (1988)



20. The Prestige
Based on: The Prestige, by Christopher Priest (2006)




19. Rebecca (1940)
Based on: Rebecca, by Daphne du Maurier (1938)



18. Children Of Men (2006)
Based on: The Children Of Men, by P.D. James (1992)



17. The Haunting (1963)
Based on: The Haunting Of Hill House, by Shirley Jackson (1959)



16. Fight Club (1999)
Based on: Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk (1996)



15. Jaws (1975)
Based on: Jaws, by Peter Benchley (1974)



14. Requim For A Dream (2000)
Based on: Requiem For A Dream, by Hubert Selby, Jr. (1978)



13. L.A. Confidential (1997)
Based on: L.A. Confidential, by James Ellroy (1990)



12. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love The Bomb (1964)
Based on: Red Alert, by Peter George (1958)



11. Blade Runner (1982)
Based on: Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, by Philip K. Dick (1968)



10. Psycho (1960)
Based on: Psycho, by Robert Bloch (1959)

Chances are, most people who've read the late horror writer Robert Bloch's novel Psycho have done so after watching Alfred Hitchcock's genius-status 1960 film version. Which, if you think about it, isn't all that fair to Bloch; from the rule-breaking implications of its iconic “shower scene” (main characters can get killed 30 minutes into a movie?) to composer Bernard Herrmann's unforgettably eerie score, Hitch's Psycho is one of the greatest movies ever made, horror or not.

But revisiting Bloch's preceding work, it becomes apparent that even Hitchcock at his most average could have trumped the author's novel. An absorbing and quick read, Bloch's Psycho moves so fast that it's difficult to languish on any one moment; the bathroom murder, for instance, which is such a pivotal and delicately orchestrated sequence in Hitchcock's movie, is barely longer than a page.

Furthermore, Norman Bates, the story's central figure, is a pathetic, chubby little man in Bloch's text; as scripted by screenwriter Joseph Stefano's, actor Anthony Perkin's take on Norman is a disarmingly charming guy, before all hell breaks loose.

9. Gone With The Wind (1939)
Based on: Gone With The Wind, by Margaret Mitchell (1936)

Gone With The Wind is the ultimate Hollywood epic, the first of its massive kind and a sprawling masterwork that remains exemplary 70-plus years after its theatrical debut—Margaret Mitchell's 1936, 1,000-plus-page novel doesn't stand a chance against it. Which isn't to say that Mitchell's book is one that should be instantly dismissed; also huge in scope, Gone With The Wind the book is one of literature's great romances, following spoiled rich chick Scarlett O'Hara's efforts to handle unaccepted love and sudden poverty during the American Civil War.

Changing the film game forever, producer David O. Selznick and directors George Cukor and Sam Wood smashed building-sized piggy banks to make an extravaganza unlike anything that came before it. The filmmakers conceived a 220-minute dazzler full of lavish sets, impeccable period costumes, battle scenes, and first-rate acting—all in 1939, when Hollywood's resources were nowhere near today's endless options.

8. The Shining (1980)
Based on: The Shining, by Stephen King (1977)

No author wants to hear that a movie translation of their own hard, written work is the superior incarnation; Stephen King, however, would undoubtedly flip his lid at the inclusion of his haunted hotel opus The Shining here. But, unless you're the author himself, it's tough to argue against the merits of Stanley Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece of cynical, unpleasant horror. Even on the fifth or sixth time you watch it, Kubrick's The Shining is liable to scare the viewer's pants off, after the urine stains settle.

In King's novel, the scares are vast and the scope is wide, yet there's an underlying sense of optimism—he wants Jack Torrance and his family to overcome the hotel's nightmarish powers. One can't say the same for Kubrick, though; his film is an exercise in chilling pessimism, draining out of all of King's book's hope and amplifying the downbeat terror. And it's incredibly unsettling, especially thanks to Jack Nicholson's unlikeable yet fascinating work as the sanity-losing Torrance.

An example of Kubrick's madcap approach: As the proverbial shit hits the fan, and the ghosts all come out to play, one apparition, wearing a bear suit, goes down on an elder, tuxedo-clad gentleman. Why? Who the hell knows, but it's that degree of lunacy that sets the two versions apart.

7. There Will Be Blood (2007)
Based on: Oil!, by Upton Sinclair (1927)

Greed, the reluctance to accept someone else's religious beliefs, father-and-son turmoil—Paul Thomas Anderson modern-day classic There Will Be Blood taps into universal themes that register deeply, whether you're living in the now or at the turn of the century like the film's characters. In an awe-inspiring performance, Daniel Day-Lewis plays a mesmerizing yet heartless son of a bitch named Daniel Plainview, a ravenous oilman who goes head-on against a young “prophet” (Paul Dano) in his pursuit of the almighty dollar. Anderson loosely based the film on Upton Sinclair's Oil!, mainly the relationship between Plainview and the bastard child he looks after as his own son. But Sinclair's timeless novel can't hold a scented oil candle to There Will Be Blood, which is so forbiddingly complex that each time you watch it discloses all-new, always invigorating and damning facets of Plainview's psyche.

6. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Based on: Rosemary's Baby, by Ira Levin (1967)

In terms of structure and narrative, there aren't many differences between Ira Levin's best-selling novel Rosemary's Baby and Roman Polanski's Academy Award-nominated film version. In adapting Levin's fast-paced, gripping text, about a pregnant woman who suspects her new NYC neighbors are Satanists out to take her unborn child, Polanski remained faithful to the source, so much so that you'd think there'd be little so surprise viewers who've read the first edition.

Just because he stuck to the initial script doesn't mean that Polanski played it safe, though. Heavily tapping into the novel's paranoiac spirit, Rosemary's Baby the movie overwhelms with its they're-out-to-get-me dread, achieved through wide-angled shots (in which possible villains lurk on the edges) and side characters' facial expressions. The film's freakiest sequence, a fever dream where star Mia Farrow may or may not be getting raped by Lucifer, only strengthens the movie's supremacy.

5. Apocalypse Now (1979)
Based on: Heart Of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad (1903)

This one's sure to piss off quite a few literary purists. Speaking ill upon Joseph Conrad's phenomenal Heart Of Darkness is risky business, but let us be clear: Conrad's harrowing look at mankind's inner savagery is a work of genius, and its central figure, the elusive demigod Kurtz, is endlessly fascinating. Apocalypse Now's advantages, though, are what it adds to Heart Of Darkness by modernizing Conrad's themes for a Vietnam-War-stricken culture.

Writer-director Francis Ford Coppola's decision to relocate Kurtz's horror show from the Congo to Vietnam and Cambodia for Apocalypse Now was a master's stroke, no doubt, but the film's biggest achievement, in terms of improving upon Conrad's story, is its overwhelming sense of madness. By the time Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) arrives at rogue Colonel Kurtz's (Marlon Brando) jungle kingdom, the film's startling violence (Laurence “Clean” Fishburne's death scene still knocks the wind out of us), lingering dread, and drug-trip visuals have already instilled macabre unrest in viewers.

Seeing Kurtz's tribal, brainwashed minions slaughtering cattle (real-life cows, mind you—Coppola wasn't playing around) and eventually worshipping at Willard's feet only emphasizes the point of Heart Of Darkness. Conrad's lofty messages about natural evil and the hopelessness of humanity aren't for the simple-minded, but, somehow, Coppola transferred them in pummeling degrees.

4. The Silence Of The Lambs (1991)
Based on: The Silence Of The Lambs, by Thomas Harris (1988)

With his quartet of novels starring sophisticated cannibal Dr. Hannibal Lecter, novelist Thomas Harris has cultivated one of fiction's greatest villains, as well one of pop culture's examples of a “hate to love him” character. In some circles, Harris' second paperback excursion into Lecter's mind, 1988's The Silence Of The Lambs, is considered his most superior work; in damn near every circle of film historians, however, director Jonathan Demme's Oscar-winning, 1991 big screen adaptation is regarded as one of the best flicks ever shot.

And, giving the film another look today, it's easy to understand why. As evidenced by the Academy's uncharacteristic acknowledgement of its horror-film distinction, The Silence Of The Lambs combines stellar acting with balls-to-the-wall gruesomeness. To Demme's credit, however, what's actually seen, in terms of grisliness, is far less than what's implied; more an exercise in taut suspense than a gore show, the filmmaker's embodiment of Harris' already savage novel is a tough one to shake.

3. The Godfather (1972)
Based on: The Godfather, by Mario Puzo (1969)

Many factors contribute to Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather holding fort as one of cinema's all-time greatest films—for starters, there's the phenomenal acting, and elegant direction, and, yes, the litany of remarkable “hits” (i.e., memorably staged kills). But one element of Coppola's production that isn't as often cited is the shrewdness of his and novelist Mario Puzo's screenwriting phase. In Puzo's novel, the pacing is at clunky, diverting character arcs into longer-than-necessary slogs that prolong the Corleone family's key events (at one point, for instance, there's an extended passage in which Sonny's former mistress' vagina gets medically shrunken). For their script, Coppola and Puzo got rid of the pointless fluff.

There's a reason, however, why the technical book-to-film changes aren't readily discussed: The Godfather is one of the finest acted movies ever produced. When Vito Corleone says “I'll make him an offer he can't refuse” in the book, it's an important but not all that impactful line; as voiced with calculated menace by Marlon Brando in Coppola's film, it's quietly ferocious.

2. The Exorcist (1973)
Based on: The Exorcist, by William Peter Blatty (1971)

On the page, The Exorcist emphasizes the importance of “how” and “why.” In William Peter Blatty's terrific novel, the demonic possession of young Regan MacNeil is rationalized to no end, with characters ranging from priests to a fleshed-out and prominent detective searching for answers to explain the situation. And, with its rich characterization and intriguing, non-demon subplots, Blatty's novel is a great read.

Yet none of the book's imagery can compare to the don't-shit-your-pants scariness of director William Freidkin's bank-breaking 1973 movie, also written by Blatty. Cutting many of the book's subplots, Blatty narrowed the focus onto the priests' determination to rid little Regan of her satanic affliction, which led an abundance of disturbing possession sequences and taboo-crushing, WTF moments (such as a little girl declaring “Your mother sucks cocks in Hell!”).

1. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Based on: A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess (1962)

A brilliant dystopian vision, Anthony Burgess' unconventional novel A Clockwork Orange is a difficult one for casual readers to grasp; the delinquent, troublemaking characters, living in a futuristic, unrecognizable Britain, speak in a bizarre slang inspired by old English, Slavic diction, and made-up words (such as “droogies”). Modern editions of the book even come equipped with an extensive glossary.

Simply for making the material easier to digest, Stanley Kubrick's superlative adaptation of A Clockwork Orange is the preferred version, but the film's advantages exceed merely superficial, seeing-is-easier-than-reading reasons. Kubrick's film is truly unlike anything else, an otherworldly dark comedy that burrows into one's head with its horrific imagery (gang rape to the tune of “Singin' In The Rain,” for example), Malcolm McDowell's sinisterly charismatic performance, and composer Walter Carlos' deranged synthesizer score.





There's more explanatory narrative at the source for those interested (for 50 - 11). I tried to c/p it but it made the post too long when I put it through. And no one actually reads anything on here anyway so....

Source
arwens 6th-Jan-2012 03:25 am (UTC)
Surprised Lord of the Rings is not on this.
etoile_amore 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
yeah, I don't get that
right when I came in, I ctrl-f'd it to double check
arwens 6th-Jan-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
i scrolled through, and when i didn't see it i ctrl-f'd because I thought I missed it.
astronauteyes 6th-Jan-2012 06:15 am (UTC)
your icon is mad cute
vehiclesshockme 6th-Jan-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
Ditto.
donttakethebait 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
first thing I thought of
theratwhispers 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
If they would have posted Lord of the Rings on the top of this list; they would have been getting a shit storm of hate mail.
doverz 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
Agreed.
pastelstar 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
Yup.
innocentanalyst 6th-Jan-2012 03:31 am (UTC)
I prefer the books over the movies, tbh. Not sure about HP since I never read the books.
rhapsodeeinblue 6th-Jan-2012 03:33 am (UTC)
I was looking for LotR too, not because I think the movies are better, but because a lot of other people do. IDK. I loved the books when I read them as a kid. The books and movies are very different imo.
fffireburns 6th-Jan-2012 03:34 am (UTC)
mte
blackwidow 6th-Jan-2012 03:34 am (UTC)
mte
sadisticsidhe 6th-Jan-2012 03:39 am (UTC)
mte
nick_halden 6th-Jan-2012 03:41 am (UTC)
Probably because the movies aren't better than the books.
yeezy 6th-Jan-2012 03:41 am (UTC)
mte, i was looking for it
theactualworst 6th-Jan-2012 03:43 am (UTC)
I know right? I came in this post specifically to talk about LOTR.
blenderhead 6th-Jan-2012 03:45 am (UTC)
Same.
trinigren 6th-Jan-2012 03:47 am (UTC)
What kind of shit taste would you have to have to prefer the movies to the book?
rainbow_fish 6th-Jan-2012 04:11 am (UTC)
ita.
nuclearsex 6th-Jan-2012 04:19 am (UTC)
mte
megalixer 6th-Jan-2012 05:06 am (UTC)
because tolkien is free of flaws
evocates 6th-Jan-2012 06:19 am (UTC)
because the movies are not better. that's all there is to it.
zoaster_toaster 6th-Jan-2012 06:39 am (UTC)
Lord of the Rings is a kind of love-it or hate-it kind of series - it can be difficult for people to get through the dense language Tolkien uses in writing the series. Thus, its inclusion on the list would be debatable at best.
yrsuchariot 6th-Jan-2012 07:42 am (UTC)
Perfect first comment.
selenia_actimel 6th-Jan-2012 01:46 pm (UTC)
I'm not. And with good reason.
szeretni 6th-Jan-2012 02:00 pm (UTC)
Seriously though, I understand that many people will have that opinion but if you're an academic you wouldn't agree with it. Tolkien was really good at describing people, the enviroment etc. The books have a lot more depth to them than the movies have, and even though I will always love Peter Jackson and his interpretations, the books are better. Although this one is pretty close...
xdecadentx 6th-Jan-2012 02:45 pm (UTC)
Seriously.

The films are definitely better than the books.
mioneste 6th-Jan-2012 04:06 pm (UTC)
It's only better than the book because the books take forever to get into. Once you get into the story it's quite nice, but it does have really slow parts.
vanishingbee 6th-Jan-2012 07:07 pm (UTC)
I came in here to make sure it wasn't.
etoile_amore 6th-Jan-2012 03:25 am (UTC)
this is actually a decent list
fruitariyum 6th-Jan-2012 03:25 am (UTC)
which is better: twilight the movie, or twilight the book ?



a question for the ages
warsawed 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
I could go with a whole dissertation into the topic but I think at the end of it all I would say the movie, because Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart really brought the characters to life, you know?
last_archangel 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
The films are better because Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart do not convincingly hide their disdain for their own characters. Priceless.
anchors_oceans 6th-Jan-2012 03:38 am (UTC)
a girl in my writing class did the twilight books/movies for a presentation that could be NO LESS THAN 30 minutes long. she established that they were both fantastic. i puked everywhere. WE'RE SENIORS IN COLLEGE GROW UP PLEASE.
yeezy 6th-Jan-2012 03:42 am (UTC)
l o l
enslaved_cullen 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
I thought about this and it has honestly stumped me. Question for the ages indeed.
swissbeauty23 6th-Jan-2012 03:34 am (UTC)
neither
ace_kay 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
The book doesn't have the excuse of all the scenery porn though.
porifera_robert 6th-Jan-2012 03:39 am (UTC)
ahahha
the movie
i didn't get past page 50 i think
(only saw and read the first one)
reunionfan 6th-Jan-2012 03:47 am (UTC)
the book. I enjoyed the first 3 tbh, quick light read. and not to sound all ~hipster about it, I read them way before there was rumors of the movie began. I had a fresh look without the over analyzing, so I enjoyed them.
kimberwyn 6th-Jan-2012 04:03 am (UTC)
the movie definitely. that was the most boring book i'd ever read in my life.
dasvedanyaanya 6th-Jan-2012 04:18 am (UTC)
Movie, at least it's good for a laugh. The books is just so poorly written in so many ways.
megalixer 6th-Jan-2012 05:11 am (UTC)
the movie is bad in a so-bad-it's-good way, whereas the book is just plain painful (or at least the first one is, didn't read the others) because bella is such an unlikable protagonist
violue 6th-Jan-2012 05:26 am (UTC)
idk but it annoyed me that the movies never explained Jasper's abilities, but then in one of them (new moon?) Bella's like "jasper no fair using your power" or w/e




although i guess it didn't matter. i'm sure very few people that saw the movie hadn't read the book.








I'm going to go with the book, because they didn't have Lautner's wig.
kahled 6th-Jan-2012 06:01 am (UTC)
The movie, because then you don't have to sit through 1000 descriptions of Edward's superhuman good looks, Bella's infuriatingly dull and oblivious internal dialogue, and the ridiculous abuse of the words "chagrin" and "topaz".
zoaster_toaster 6th-Jan-2012 06:43 am (UTC)
No question - both are utter shitfests.
szeretni 6th-Jan-2012 01:55 pm (UTC)
The books are awful so the movies must be better. As opposed to LOTR of HP, where the author actually can describe things, Stephanie Meyer can't - and therfore the movies show you what she couldn't.
sergeant_duckie 7th-Jan-2012 04:12 am (UTC)
The books, because, while they're both embarrassing, the movie is painfully so. I can't make it through the first one without crippling discomfort.
bighype 6th-Jan-2012 03:25 am (UTC)
i'm gonna watch requiem for a dream shortly. is it really as good as everyone says?
daianara 6th-Jan-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
yes. very disturbing
fiddlemearound 6th-Jan-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
YESYESYESYES.

I love it so much. It's so well made and realistic. And it gets super creepy/disturbing at times but ugh, it's on fucking point when it comes to everything. Even the music was perfect.
soul_amazinn 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
Yes. It's a disturbing movie though. So be prepared for that.
phillymademe 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
great movie, but seeing it once was enough for me.
scriptedending 6th-Jan-2012 03:32 am (UTC)
agreed.
mots_inutiles 6th-Jan-2012 03:50 am (UTC)
Could not agree more.
blenderhead 6th-Jan-2012 03:52 am (UTC)
MTE. I remember feeling pretty down for a couple days after watching it.
chiihiro 6th-Jan-2012 03:59 am (UTC)
Definitely. I saw it for the first time not too long ago and my dad wanted to watch it with me shortly afterward and I declined because I don't think I could emotionally handle watching that movie more than once a year, maybe.
jennomac 6th-Jan-2012 04:02 am (UTC)
Definitely. I watched it a 2nd time and I was like "Oh God, this kind of bums me out even more the second time around somehow!"

Ellen Burstyn fucks me up the most out of everyone for some reason. She just wanted to wear that red dress! She just wanted to look nice! Omg let me die, she broke me heart the most for whatever reason!
xtinkerbellax 6th-Jan-2012 03:30 am (UTC)
Yes, the performances, in particular Ellen Burstyn's, are great.
enslaved_cullen 6th-Jan-2012 03:30 am (UTC)
It's good, but kinda haunting. I never want to see the movie again.
hangthemj 6th-Jan-2012 03:30 am (UTC)
it is great but i really have to psych myself up to watch it.
lucky_latkes 6th-Jan-2012 03:31 am (UTC)
Absolutely
etoile_amore 6th-Jan-2012 03:31 am (UTC)
it's pretty fantastic
23bucks_an_hour 6th-Jan-2012 03:32 am (UTC)
It's awesome but depressing. Shocking and really sad.
blackkdiamond 6th-Jan-2012 03:33 am (UTC)
No not really. I found it to be rather boring, the only good thing was the score and the performances by the actors.

friedgold_x 6th-Jan-2012 03:35 am (UTC)
I don't wanna sound over-dramatic but it'll change you. Such a great film.
swissbeauty23 6th-Jan-2012 03:35 am (UTC)
it's...it will fuck your mind. it's a trainride into hell. and as for good, the acting is great, the cinematography is very hipster and artsy buy beautiful imo

it depends on what you like in a film tbh
_______awshucks 6th-Jan-2012 03:35 am (UTC)
yes, it makes me wish Jared Leto would return to acting ASAP
hershelwalker 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
yes
meniana 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
it's awesome yet disturbing

If I ever end up teaching, I'll make sure all my students watch this movie
celtic_thistle 6th-Jan-2012 03:38 am (UTC)
It's one of my favorites.
_keng_ 6th-Jan-2012 03:38 am (UTC)
It's really good. Well acted, well scored, well filmed. Parts are pretty disturbing. Although all the characters are doing drugs, the film is very much an anti-drug film (it scares you into not doing drugs... well, for me anyway).
movielooney 6th-Jan-2012 03:39 am (UTC)
No.
porifera_robert 6th-Jan-2012 03:39 am (UTC)
yes!!!
colorzplosion 6th-Jan-2012 03:40 am (UTC)
yes it's excellent, but I found it really disturbing. It's one of those movies that you need to watch, but that you don't necessarily want to watch again.
sassypirate 6th-Jan-2012 03:45 am (UTC)
This was the one movie that definitely made me never want to try drugs ever.
miss_kate18 6th-Jan-2012 03:46 am (UTC)
You'll probably never watch it a second time. I saw it six years ago and I have absolutely no interest in re-watching.
bssybuse 6th-Jan-2012 03:46 am (UTC)
no. i didn't found that disturbing
reach_the_end 6th-Jan-2012 03:47 am (UTC)
No.
superdogbiter 6th-Jan-2012 03:53 am (UTC)
YOU'LL NEVER BE HAPPY AGAIN AFTERWARDS
eatyouramen 6th-Jan-2012 03:54 am (UTC)
it is very good but man it is disturbing
chiihiro 6th-Jan-2012 03:58 am (UTC)
YES. It's extremely intense and disheartening though, so be prepared. Ellen Burstyn broke my heart into a million pieces.
lilienveigh 6th-Jan-2012 04:01 am (UTC)
NOPE
spoilsofwar 6th-Jan-2012 04:06 am (UTC)
I recommend watching some saccharine Disney movie after.
ch33rylips 6th-Jan-2012 04:12 am (UTC)
Yes and stopped me from ever trying anything harder than pot aaaaand it got me an A on my psych paper when I wrote about it
theactualworst 6th-Jan-2012 04:13 am (UTC)
I will never do hard drugs because of it. Ever.
jrs1980 6th-Jan-2012 04:33 am (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie. I just wanted to add to the comment pile.
dobar_dance 6th-Jan-2012 04:41 am (UTC)
The refrigerator scared me
chuckisfuckis 6th-Jan-2012 04:51 am (UTC)
One of my all time favorite films.
likeomgitsalice 6th-Jan-2012 04:55 am (UTC)
lol I'm gonna add to the yeses its really good, after you watch it and like it/feel disturbed by you should read the book. Makes the movie the 2nd time around more disturbing and good.
finchroxxx 6th-Jan-2012 06:05 am (UTC)
The editing is AMAZING.

But the movie overall fell flat for me.
I didn't care about the characters and when bad things happened to them I lol'ed b/c they are shit people (except maybe the mom character).

Trainspotting is 20x better. The way the story is told is intriguing and even though the main characters are all heroin addicts that do terrible things the movie actually makes you care about them.
sessile29 6th-Jan-2012 12:33 pm (UTC)
maybe too late, but just... DON'T watch that movie

it's soul-sucking and unless you need some sort of incentive to stay away from heroin, your life is not enhanced by watching it. the exact opposite, in fact.

idc how well-made it is, i could've gone my whole life without seeing that film.
gabriella 6th-Jan-2012 01:22 pm (UTC)
it's actually better
tilney 6th-Jan-2012 02:40 pm (UTC)
Well, I didn't like it and it gave my husband an epilepsy attack, so.
zakara 6th-Jan-2012 03:23 pm (UTC)
The book is way better.
warsawed 6th-Jan-2012 03:25 am (UTC)
The Shining should be #1 tbh, esp knowing how mad the adaptation made Stephen King.

Shutter Island makes me angry whenever I think about it.

Edited at 2012-01-06 03:26 am (UTC)
vehiclesshockme 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
I like the mini-series version of The Shining better than Kubrick's to be honest.
warsawed 6th-Jan-2012 03:30 am (UTC)
Waaaaat. Girl, that is in my all time top ten. That movie is perfection, and the performances are amazing.
blackwidow 6th-Jan-2012 03:36 am (UTC)
oh my lord, I have never met someone who preferred the mini series! Every time I would tell someone I preferred the mini series, they would either wrinkle their noses and go, "Oh...", or they would tell me they never heard of it.
anchors_oceans 6th-Jan-2012 03:41 am (UTC)
the mini-series scared me more. i can sit through the original with no problems but the mini-series makes me jump a lot.
arcee8 6th-Jan-2012 03:44 am (UTC)
I completely agree. And the miniseries actually kept the little details alive, like the hotel room number and all that jazz.
kimberwyn 6th-Jan-2012 04:05 am (UTC)
This is fact.
angelmonster 6th-Jan-2012 03:31 am (UTC)
The Shining was great but the minute I saw this list it made me angry because I knew this or It would be on the list. King's books are amazing, I disagree.
madonna 6th-Jan-2012 03:32 am (UTC)
He didn't like it?
egosumopacis 6th-Jan-2012 03:50 am (UTC)
I love how Kubrick just fucked with King all the time too.
ooohjoy 6th-Jan-2012 04:11 am (UTC)
i think the book was better, tbh.
gabriella 6th-Jan-2012 01:23 pm (UTC)
why does shutter island makes you angry, i loved it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much
thelovehater 6th-Jan-2012 03:28 am (UTC)
The book has a better ending.
gerrycurls 6th-Jan-2012 03:32 am (UTC)
lolol
moddchicc 6th-Jan-2012 03:26 am (UTC)
OMG, I love so many of these movies.

I feel like such a bad PTA stan for not caring about There Will be Blood at all though :/
futrefilmdirctr 6th-Jan-2012 04:40 am (UTC)
You're not getting an invite to our next meeting. :(

WE DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!
advancedcookie 6th-Jan-2012 08:36 pm (UTC)
I love PTA but I feel like TWBB was one of the most overrated films of all time. I remember thinking it was almost over, turning to my friend and asking, "How far are we into the movie?"

She responded with, "30 or 40 minutes."

HNNNGGGGGHHH.

I really loved key moments in the film (the part where his son goes deaf is masterfully done, as well as the final scene) but overall I found the film to be really gimmicky and unnecessarily long and drawn out.
guadalcanal 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
Nein, John le Carré is flawless literature
endingonfire 6th-Jan-2012 05:02 am (UTC)
ia
biggrstaffbunch 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
Princess Bride the movie was darling, but tbh, the book was much better. Much much better, and way funnier.
gramfaernes 6th-Jan-2012 03:47 am (UTC)
IA. It's one of my favourite books and I'm actually pissed it's on this list.
zulkey 6th-Jan-2012 03:49 am (UTC)
Yeah I stopped reading the list at Princess Bride.
runsamrun 6th-Jan-2012 03:53 am (UTC)
I feel like they're about equal. Both are hilarious and it's honestly one of the only times when I'd say the movie was just as good as the book.
biggrstaffbunch 6th-Jan-2012 03:54 am (UTC)
I loved the movie, but for me, the book was just more. More everything, more rich in plot and backstory, more clever, more emotional, just...more. I think by virtue of being a book, it could afford to do that. I will always love the book more than movie, though.
snoozeen 6th-Jan-2012 04:07 am (UTC)
Agreed. Of course, it helps that it was William Fucking Goldman adapting his own work.

Few are better.
rainbow_fish 6th-Jan-2012 04:15 am (UTC)
Ita, and I love both.
drownanddive 6th-Jan-2012 04:01 am (UTC)
IA. That was the first on the list for me to literally shake my head at.
subnoose 6th-Jan-2012 04:09 am (UTC)
but the epilogue or w/e was so WTF.
romp 6th-Jan-2012 04:47 am (UTC)
When I saw that here, I read no further. The book is fantastic, down to the red ink. To suggest the movie--which is fine but a Cliff's Notes version of the book--is *better* is absurd.
banabee 6th-Jan-2012 06:57 am (UTC)
I love the book so much
yinker 6th-Jan-2012 11:18 am (UTC)
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!
leopard_legs 6th-Jan-2012 07:37 pm (UTC)
seriously, fuck this list
the princess bride is one of my all time fave books, i can read it again and again and again

it's the little commentary that he has running alongside the actual story...it's all sorts
isntdaveone 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
vehiclesshockme 6th-Jan-2012 03:29 am (UTC)
The remake has Ryan Reynolds running around all shirtless and sweaty and bloody though.
hangthemj 6th-Jan-2012 03:31 am (UTC)
unf that remake is so good
my ultimate guilty pleasure
hershelwalker 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
exactly this
anchors_oceans 6th-Jan-2012 03:43 am (UTC)
i like the remake just for ryan's bod. enough said.
tea_party89 6th-Jan-2012 03:46 am (UTC)
still couldn't save the movie for me
jbants 6th-Jan-2012 06:58 pm (UTC)
Ugh I just could not take the remake seriously. I can't take Ryan Reynolds seriously in a non-comedy movie.
therealycats 6th-Jan-2012 03:34 am (UTC)
POOR JUDD IS DEAD
A CANDLE LIGHTS HIS HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
365reasonswhy 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
These 3 are pretty equal to me:

36. The Princess Bride (1987)
Based on: The Prince Bride, by William Goldman (1973)

19. Rebecca (1940)
Based on: Rebecca, by Daphne du Maurier (1938)

18. Children Of Men (2006)
Based on: The Children Of Men, by P.D. James (1992)

I love the books as much as the movies.
therealycats 6th-Jan-2012 03:35 am (UTC)
I LOOOOOOOOOVE Rebecca so much, but I don't like that in the movie they changed it so that Maxim didn't kill her. I mean it works for the film, but in general I just like the darker feel of the book. Not that the film isn't dark.
sadisticsidhe 6th-Jan-2012 03:42 am (UTC)
I was ticked that Maxim didn't kill her but apparently when the movie was made there was some rule in Hollywood that if a spouse was murdered the murderer had to be punished and that would change the movie more than it being an accident.

But I agree RebeccaBook>>>Rebecca Movie. I love the 2nd Mrs De Winter's POV.
365reasonswhy 6th-Jan-2012 03:43 am (UTC)
They were always changing up the endings of Hitchock's films when he didn't want them to, I think because of the Hays Code. It happened with Suspicion too and that was also based on a book.

But, I think the performances and atmosphere make that up for me. And while I love the book Rebecca, it's not my favorite DuMaurier book (that would be Jamaica Inn or The King's General), so I don't mind it being tampered with as much as I might.
mariemaru 6th-Jan-2012 03:48 am (UTC)
I haven't seen the film, but it's one of my all time favorite books so this list automatically offends me, lol.
elvenqueen86 6th-Jan-2012 04:28 am (UTC)
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I agree, I hate how they changed it in the movie, but otherwise I really liked it.
stellar_kar 6th-Jan-2012 04:45 am (UTC)
I kinda liked they changed it because I loooved Olivier in that film and it would have been weird rooting for a murderer no matter how awful his wife was. The movie and book were pretty much the same though so I think it's silly to really compare them.
friedgold_x 6th-Jan-2012 03:36 am (UTC)
I keep meaning to read Children Of Men. Is the book particularly long?
ms_mmelissa 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
I hated Children of Men the book so much, but I love the movie.
xdecadentx 6th-Jan-2012 02:50 pm (UTC)
Rebecca the book is better than the film I think.

But it's like my favourite book.
angelmonster 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
The Shining? Atonement? I dont think so!
anchors_oceans 6th-Jan-2012 03:44 am (UTC)
have you read atonement? i liked the movie a lot but i haven't gotten around to the book.
arlen_mci 6th-Jan-2012 03:53 am (UTC)
i LOVED the book, i seriously WTFed seeing that on the list
angelmonster 6th-Jan-2012 04:12 am (UTC)
It is no easy read, by far, but I loved it. I love Briony in th snook, hated her in the movie. Plus the writing style is one of a kind.
mcwicca 6th-Jan-2012 04:50 am (UTC)
The book is perfection. I love the movie but the book is phenomenal.
mondengel 6th-Jan-2012 07:06 pm (UTC)
For me the book and movie are pretty much equal. It's one of my favorite books, and the movie happened pretty much how I'd imagined it all in my head already. It's an amazing adaptation; I don't know why it's on this list.
leopard_legs 6th-Jan-2012 07:49 pm (UTC)
i'll add to the praise, it is indeed a marvellous book
it's a little tough going in parts, a little slow, but ian mcewan is a solid author - his images of war and heartbreak and how he wrote bryony, all spectacular
once i got into it I couldn't put it down

i'd also recommend enduring love
eatyouramen 6th-Jan-2012 03:55 am (UTC)
iawtc
aphrodite5239 6th-Jan-2012 06:07 am (UTC)
Atonement is one of the most beautifully-written books I have ever read, book>>movie imo!
lovejoydiver 6th-Jan-2012 09:12 am (UTC)
lol mte. i hated the movie adaptation of atonement.
lamb_lover444 6th-Jan-2012 05:05 pm (UTC)
ikr??? came into the post to make sure it wasn't on the list... can't believe it. I read the book before I heard about the movie and loved it- I've read it twice. the film is beautiful but the book is even better

thelovehater 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
The Godfather should top this list because as a book it doesn't have any redeeming values. Clockwork Orange is a well written book IMO.
swissbeauty23 6th-Jan-2012 03:37 am (UTC)
ia

i don't get why Clockwork Orange is #1
molkat 6th-Jan-2012 04:09 am (UTC)
I really felt the movie should have kept the whole plot with the chick Sonny fucked at the wedding going on to having a vaginoplasty in Las Vegas.
piratesswoop 6th-Jan-2012 08:37 pm (UTC)
lol that whole subplot, i'm like WHY THO
romp 6th-Jan-2012 04:49 am (UTC)
The book is great and plays with the language more than the movie could. It's not the different so to the movie is BETTER is...bleh.
sitbashenjoi 6th-Jan-2012 05:49 am (UTC)
i hate that clockwork orange is #1. the book is wonderfully written, and tbh i think it's a lot better to handle the subject matter through print rather than through visual. sure, the film has the shock value but when you read the book, your mind is just taken to some really dark, serious places and you're forced to imagine some of these things which i think is much more effective. the film was fine and i like it okay, but it fell flat for me. that book will remain with me forever
xeroxicide__ 6th-Jan-2012 07:21 am (UTC)
UGh! The movie never grew on me. I found the book exciting and haunting as a child. Damn list.
trixielollipop 6th-Jan-2012 08:26 am (UTC)
I really didn't like the Clockwork Orange movie that much, I thought it was a bit overrated, frankly.

The book>>>>>>

Though the book isn't amongst my faves either.
dothestrand 6th-Jan-2012 07:16 pm (UTC)
A Clockwork Orange is a fantastic book. Much better than the film.
blocaholic 7th-Jan-2012 12:35 am (UTC)
Clockwork Orange is a brilliant book imo and I much preferred it to the film.
onyxobsidian 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
1. I didn't know Requiem for a Dream was a book.

2. Where the fuck is Lord of the Rings.

3.
xtinkerbellax 6th-Jan-2012 03:33 am (UTC)
1. The book is really similar, the scene with Ellen Burstyn and Jared Leto is pretty much word for word, but the book takes place in the 70s I believe, maybe the 60s I haven't read it since high school.
subnoose 6th-Jan-2012 04:10 am (UTC)
I loved how the book was written. It took a bit to get used to, but I thought it was really a unique style.
dobar_dance 6th-Jan-2012 04:43 am (UTC)
What was your No. 3?
scornedsaint 6th-Jan-2012 03:27 am (UTC)
44. The Constant Gardener (2005)

LIAH (I do like the movie, but I like the bleakness of the book much better and find it more realistic)

And do not even get me started on Rebecca. That is the WORST ADAPTATION OF ALL TIME.

Edited at 2012-01-06 03:28 am (UTC)
romp 6th-Jan-2012 04:54 am (UTC)
That's one of the classic novels in here that made me shake my head. I should just dismiss this as being a list of novels made into movies at an obscure site.
This page was loaded May 25th 2013, 8:31 am GMT.