ENDLESS LOVE by Scott Spencer was a book I adored. The story of a boy so helplessly in love that he burned the girl's house down trying to get closer to her and her family.
Great book, lousy movie. Everything seemed over the top in the film. Romantic gestures seemed adolescent. And, they were, but not like the movie painted them. Better acting might have helped. A better script. Better directing.
What movie ruined a book for you? What movie makes you have to explain to those unfamiliar, "Yeah, but the book is really great."
47 comments:
Two off the top of my head: RAINTREE COUNTY and SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION (though the scene of the drowning almost makes up for the rest).
I seem to have deleted my comment before finishing it.
Never read ENDLESS LOVE but the movie sucked.
A big disappointment after the book: THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, though it wasn't as hideous as the Brooke Shields opus above. There are others (WATER FOR ELEPHANTS) where I liked the book and I'm refusing to see the movie.
But the worst - hands down - adaptation of a good book has to be BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.
Tom Hanks should buy up all the prints and burn them,
Jeff M.
TOTAL RECALL. And, believe it or not, there's a remake of TOTAL RECALL in the works. TOTAL RECALL is based on a Philip K. Dick story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale." Let's just say the movie folks took plenty of liberties with the original story.
What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson was a brilliant novel that was reduced to a special effects movie with a terrible schmaltzy plot.
Bonfire of the Vanities was the worst, I forgot that one. Have to read the Matheson book.
Raintree County-loved the book-what a shame.
Totall Recall-saw the movie but didn't read the book. See, and after the movie, I never would.
"Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer. Sean Penn added scenes to project his liberal agenda to the audience that never really happen to Christopher McCandless.
KP in Detroit
DUNE, THE CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR, and THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.
Too scared to see INTO THE WILD. That sort of movie freeks me out.
Three prime choices, David. They all give me shivers.
Blood Work by Michael Connelly.
American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis.
I honestly don't think that many films do an actual novel any justice. There are good adaptations but a truly brilliant and accurate one I don't think will ever be made.
On the other hand, how many novels have you read that you've thought, "That would be a great movie"...?
All movies made of John Irving books. Period.
Amen to that, Kieran. Any movie with Robin Williams is ruined for me.
Blood Work is a crying shame.
American Psycho-hadn't read the book.
But that's a good point, David. I say it all the time.
THE LONG GOOD-BYE. I can think of several lousy adaptations, but none come close to TLGB for ruining a great book.
Honorable mention th BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.
I know people who love the Elliott Gould version, but not me. Never a fan of his.
Hum, good question. Weirdly, "What Dreams may come" was on TV last night. I watched a bit of it. I'm not sure I could movies have ruined the book for me, but they may have for others. The recent horrible adaptation of a Princess of Mars would have ruined it if I hadn't already read the book and loved it.
I agree, Patti. I know several people who swear by the Elliot Gould version of the Chandler, but I am not one of them.
There are the occasional movies that are better than the book, THE GODFATHER and JAWS being the two obvious examples that come to mind.
Jeff M.
No movie can "ruin" a book you really love because the book is still there to be read. But for me the worst adaptation of a much loved novel has to be "The Magus", a rancid mess made from my favorite John Fowles novel.
The thing is it makes you begin to question the book itself. Could such a mess come from a good book? Loved THE MAGUS-and have no memory of the movie although I saw it. So in that case, it wasn't spoiled. Thought French Lieutenant's Woman was an awfully strange adaptation but it didn't ruin it.
Reading the comments brings an interesting corollary question to mind. Has there been a novel you had some serious intention of reading that you skipped because of an awful movie version? That's happened to me with a novel mentioned in two comments above--"Raintree County". And I've never even seen the whole movie, just bits and pieces. Is the book really that good? It's not too late to read it, although it is awfully long.
While I loved reading THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN, a film from the book did seem like an impossible task. But to my surprise the film didn't suck. I thought the interpretation was about as good as could be expected.
Funny thing. I LOVED the film when it first came out - primarily because of the casting. I am a HUGE Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons fan. Loved the rest of the cast as well.
I saw it in theater about five times. Alone and with friends. Just loved it to pieces.
But then I watched it again last year and was taken aback by how much my opinion of the film had changed. It just doesn't hold up.
Part of the problem could be that there is no really good dvd available. The film needs re-mastering - believe it or not, I mean, it's only a few years old.
But still there is that great kiss among the haystacks...sigh!
A film that ruined a book for me?
How about the Series Of Unfortunate Events travesty with Jim Carrey. I'd only read one of the books and enjoyed that. But the film - yegads! SIMPLY AWFUL!
(except for the odd little baby)
Carrey is such a monster on film. I mean he just takes over the whole screen and demolishes everyone else who has the misfortune to appear with him. Dreadful.
I agree about Carrey.
Over the years I have flashed by FLW and it looked so stagey, so over the top. I was afraid to watch it.
And yes, I have definitely put off reading books for that very reason. I will think of an example and get back to you.
I am not sure RTC would hold up. It may have been very much of its time like James Michener.
I am probably the only person on the face of the earth who thinks this but here goes: I think Kubrick's THE SHINING does a great disservice to Stephen King's book. I'm no longer a King fan. I think most of what he writes is derivative and/or repetitive. But I think THE SHINING was one of his few totally original novels. Kubrick turned it into a dreadfully paced, almost sleep inducing, psycho movie with one partially frightening moment in the entire movie. Kubrick does creepy very well, but THE SHINING should've been a terrifying movie and it just wasn't for me.
Similarly, I cannot stand the movie version of GHOST STORY. Peter Straub's book is richer, more imaginative and truly frightening at points. The movie took only one portion of the book and treated it like a movie-of-the-week mystery with a boring ghost. The stellar cast of old movie veterans (Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, etc.) seemed embarrassed at times to be a part of it.
At one time I found it an okay movie although not as good as the book. But I watched it again a few years ago and I just found it horrible. Jack just mugs his way through it and Shelley Duval is an awful actress, way too quirky to play the part. It wasn't scary, just silly.
THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES
THE CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR
THE BLACK DAHLIA
THE BLACK DAHLIA was the one I was trying to think of all day. Thanks.
Yes, The Black Dahlia. How could they do that to such a masterful piece of work?
A comment about RAINTREE COUNTY: I found the book a lot easier to read once I'd read Larry Lockridge's biography of his father, IN THE SHADOW OF THE RAINTREE. Ross Lockridge was trying to write an American ULYSSES, but it got interpreted on-screen as a soapy romance (in addition to which, Ross Lockridge's name was wrong in the movie's credits--how hard is it to verify the name of the author?). Lockridge eventually committed suicide. His son's book is both a biography and an attempt to come to terms with what RAINTREE COUNTY meant to his father.
I have to agree on THE SHINING. I also found the stuff with the kid and the 'talking' digit to be silly.
I did like the tracking shot with the tricycle.
Jeff M.
Wasn't there a book written about three one-hit wonders that died tragically. Can't remember the other two.
I think the book you mean is Ross and Tom: Two American Tragedies by John Leggett. The "Tom" was Thomas Heggen, the creator of Mister Roberts.
Jeff M.
That was it, Jeff. You are a walking Book of Knowledge. All those years in the business, I guess.
I was so disappointed in the film version of THE OUTSIDERS. I love that book, have since I was 14. The movie was very faithful to the book, and yet it just did not work for me. But it couldn't ruin the book for me; I'll always have a place in my heart for Ponyboy, Sodapop and all the others.
MP has it all right...the bad film can't destroy the novel...Patti, you should know better than ever to judge a book by its adaptation. In any way. Because there are those Brian De Palmas waiting to eat up and vomit out their "reinterpretation" of the likes of THE BLACK DAHLIA. And I'm not the biggest fan of Ellroy, but that film is just one of many as to why your daughter and her buddy are Incredibly Wrong about the value, in any way, of De Palma. Meanwhile, while I already didn't like King by the time I saw THE SHINING, that is almost certainly Kubrick's worst film after FEAR AND LOATHING. Yes, even worse than KILLER'S KISS.
But among the incredible botches of literary adaptation:
DOCTOR DOLITTLE (the Murphy free adaptation in title and conceit only was OK...the musical, Not OK)
similarly, THE STORY OF MANKIND
all the Amicus anthologies, trashing Robert Bloch's scripts from his own short stories, with the exception of horribly-titled TORTURE GARDEN.
the first two THE MALTESE FALCONs (latterly aka DANGEROUS FEMALE and SATAN MET A LADY, respectively)
WEIRD WOMAN, an atrocious free adaptation of Fritz Leiber's CONJURE WIFE
Robin Williams was pretty good in SEIZE THE DAY. Jim Carrey in ETERNAL SUNSHINE...
I'm sure more bad examples will come to mind in the next hour...
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB. Not a terrible film, but a bad representation of the novel.
Yes, Eternal almost makes me change my mind. Similarly Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love, Will Ferrell in EVERYTHING MUST GO. A good director can coax a good performance, I think.
Murphy is a sad case but hated the Rex Harrison version too.
I just remember THE OUTSIDERS as that brat pack movie by now. Most did not go on to sterling careers.
AMERICAN PSYCHO the film improves on the novel (difficult not to). BIRDY...noted.
THE GREAT GATSBY. Although I can't say I cared much for the book, either.
The Murphy DR. DOLITTLE had so little to do with the book, aside from title and animal chat conceit, that it was hard to be too upset with it...while the Rex Harrison musical was just awful.
Will Ferrell also decent in STRANGER THAN FICTION. What's required, more than a director, is a script, in these cases. Carrey tried in THE TRUMAN SHOW, for example, but the script wasn't really there. Even Jerry Lewis can do THE KING OF COMEDY.
A lot of latter-day H. G. Wells adaptations, if we wish to call them that.
SLAPSTICK...terrible film from the second-weakest (or maybe third-weakest, considering TIMEQUAKE) of Vonnegut's novels (BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS was a worse novel, bad enough that the probably atrocious film adaptation, which I haven't seen, is probably not worse enough). Rather like THE BETSY...how could one take an utter piece of goofy trash and make a much worse movie from it? They managed.
My goodness...how could I forget, so far, the remakes of THE HAUNTING and PSYCHO, and THE LEGEND OF HILLBILLY JOHN aka WHO FEARS THE DEVIL?, trying ineptly to be a good representation of Manly Wade Wellman's John the Balladeer stories collected under the latter title? At least the ineptitude of the last was well-intentioned.
The good, depressing novel JACK IN THE BOX by William Kotzwinkle, adapted into the shallow, annoying film BOOK OF LOVE.
Another that would've occurred sooner had I not been working tonight...the dumbing down of THE EXECUTIONERS as CAPE FEAR...much worse in the remake, in most ways, but neither film is a patch on John D. MacDonald's novel.
A good book can't be ruined by a bad movie version. Some I've been disappointed in were all four versions of I AM LEGEND.
David lists DUNE and I think it's the winner of worst film adaptation here, but I's also list the Disney animated WINNIE-THE-POOH films/cartoons, which have nothing of the magic of the Milne books. One more that comes to mind though it's not a movie, is the SPENCER television series.
There were so many horrible versions of childrens' books in the not so distant past, it is hard to choose one. Murky, lackluster films.
I have a sneaking fondness for the David Lynch-directed DUNE...I thought it the best filmed comic book I'd seen up to that opening night in 1984 (much in the same way that TRON the original was the best Saturday morning cartoon I'd seen up to it in 1983 or so--low bars). But I don't love Herbert's novel, either.
I do love Herbert's novel, which is certainly not a comic book. If there was a comic book version I'm glad I never saw it.
Post a Comment