In believing that a film of a book never dies it justice?

[ohdearwhatdoidonow]

Am about to stop watching films of the books I've read!

I particularly hated the film version of "my Sisters Keeper" and more recently "One Day"

Now "We need to talk about Kevin" was one of my favourite books from the last 10 yrs. AIBU in avoiding the film like the plague?

Like most on here I think it's very much a mixed bag.

My particular irritation is reserved for the makers of Bond films. The first few followed the books quite faithfully (and were consequently very good) but later ones - especially the Roger Moore era - became silly pastiches.

The most recent examples, with Daniel Craig are really annoying because the script and producton teams have virtually given up and just made pale imitations of Bourne / MI / anyother action clones.

Having been promised in the pre-film publicity a "return to Bond's roots" Casino Royale was a massive disappointment.

Casting an ugly, blond ape as Bond doesn't help either. :(

Agree with pendeen about Bond - Daniel Craig is soooo wrong (lol at 'blonde Ape') as Bond - he is such a dour personality. It should have been Clive Owen (sob) and it is a travesty that it isn't!

DAVID BOWIES "THE MAN WHO FELL 2 EARTH" read the book saw the film re read the book , manymany years later read an article that explained the bit i could not understand >WHEW!!

I find the films of Stephen King films are usually fantastic (eg The Shining) or abysmal (eg Pet Cemetery) with not much middle-ground!

... films of Stephen King BOOKS rather!

I think it helps to think of a film as the reimagining of the book by the director, rather than a translation iyswim.

Books are by their nature able to be read in as many ways as there are readers. That is their glory.
A film can never capture our own personal journey through a book, unless we're the director because the story is often the least important thing to us as the reader.

If one thinks about it as the personal recreation by the director, the concept becomes much more interesting I think.

The Colour Purple both book and film were excellent.

Stephen King himself didn't like the film of The Shining, as he thought Jack Nicholson was miscast and that it became about an evil/insane character when it should have been about an evil/insane force in the hotel itself. I've never seen the film, so have no opinion one way or the other!

I've not seen many King films but The Dead Zone was excellent. Cujo is a decent enough film but the end is all wrong. Christine was awful.

Some mediocre books make good films in the right hands.
I thought High Fidelity was far better than the book. About a Boy: pretty much the same level of blandness
Agree about A Room With a View - it captured the prissiness and naivete really well even when the acting was shit (HBC and Julian Sands).
I liked Oscar and Lucinda quite a bit more than the book.

The most recent, tv adaptation of 'Ballet Shoes' (couple of years back now)- was DIRE, I remember threads on here getting very excited- and it was terrible. Very disappointing.

But I do agree that 'The Color Purple' was both a brilliant book, and film.

And yy to Morgan Freeman being wrong in the Alex Cross adaptations- he is far too old, imo.

Lee Child said that he had Lawrence Dallaglio in mind when he first wrote Reacher! If only he was an actor too!

t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlOE33t263C1GvP21-feej32CTNQwjRgMqO40aUeidpkHxFBhf

Phwoar!

has anyone seen "the piano " atmospheric or not? great acting by all in my opinion so far only ,given away by sunday paper.(thinks , obviously shit film , but wot the hell!)

I hated, 'The Piano' too. Don't know the book. 'The Piano' and 'Brokeback Mountain' are the two worst films I have ever seen, ever, ever. :)

Another rare exception to the good book, rubbish film rule is Stardust. The book was ok, the film was better (although not amazing).

There really aren't many exceptions and yet people still insist on adapting books into films...

the two worst films I have ever seen, ever, ever YOu obviously didn't see Titanic, Remus.

Brilliant book, brilliant film adaptations:

to Kill A Mockingbird

The Accidental Tourist

the Kite Runner

Oh! oh! oh! Committing the cardinal Mn sin of posting before finishing the thread.

Like The surgeon's mate DH loves Patrick O'Brien, and he is always pointing out how Master and Commander is a mishmash of books..., but we still watch it every time it is on.

I adore Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American'. I first came to it through the film, with Michael Caine (the first time I realised what an extraordinary actor he is) and then read the book. The film does the book justice. It does not matter how often I see or read either, I am riveted. Really.... watch it and read it, it is exquisite.

Oh yes and yy to The Accidental Tourist.

I think, like with Michael Caine I love William Hurt's understated acting. But also, it follows exactly from the book.

I read The Time Traveller's Wife way back in 6th form, and loved it. I hated the film - it just didn't match up to the book. There are some concepts that are just too hard to get across in film, where as books can spend pages describing things.

PS, I Love You - I read the book first and parts made me burst out laughing, yet other bits I was in tears reading. The film was ok, but nothing compared to the book.

Bridget Jones was ruined the minute they cast an American in a British role!

Don't get me started on Harry Potter either, I absolutely love and keep rereading like the books, and after every single film I came out ranting about how they'd missed key points and left crap bits in. The ending of the sixth film....