Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not going to say it was as good as the book, but the most pleasant surprise EVER had to be Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy..... It truly was the most awe-inpiring adaptation of a story that no one ever thought possible....
I was a bit disappointed in a couple of the parts that were left out, but in seeing the length of each film I can see where it might have been difficult to include them....
I wholeheartedly agree with VA Fury -- I thought the Lord of the Rings trilogy was very well done. I have one more to add "Prince of Tides", again left out some of the side themes, but got the essence of Conroy's book very well.
I have to say that the A&E/BBC's version of "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth was wonderfully made and relatively close to the book version. Now, when I am reading about the dashing Mr. Darcy, I always picture Colin Firth...
I'll go with Primal Fear and The Firm and sometimes TV movies do a better job than theatrical movies, usually when they get more time to tell the story.
I remember reading Six Days of The Condor and when the movie came out it was Three Days of The Condor...and it was only half as good as the book.
I usually stay quiet on the forums, but I feel like I need to add my 2c here
Move version of a book "A Scanner Darkly" by Philip K. Dick was, imo just brilliant. Usually movies based on PKD's books are nothing like the book (to name only"Total Recall" with governonr Schwarzenegger :P) because it is extremely hard to translate them to the movie language, but here everything was perfect.
Here is some more info on it: A Scanner Darkly (2006)
One of my favorite books is Jane Eyre. I have seen many tv and movie versions of this wonderful story--most have been horrible, IMO. If you are going to adapt a book, do not add extra plots, cast the wrong physical types, and generally abuse the author's themes.
The most recent terrible example of this was on PBS recently. The woman cast as Jane was pretty good. The actor playing Rochester was too young, too 'nice' and not the right type...he's supposed to be brooding and dark..and about 20 years older than Jane.
The best versions I have seen are (in no order) the one with Orson Welles from the 1940s, the one with Timothy Dalton in the 1980s..Another terrible one had William Hurt as Rochester...(awful).
I remember reading Six Days of The Condor and when the movie came out it was Three Days of The Condor...and it was only half as good as the book.
That might be the case but imo Three Days of The Condor is much better than the average thriller or spy movie of that time which usually had scenario's made straight for films.
lol Yac
I thought you were stepping in to discipline somebody.
I haven't seen A Scanner Darkly but have heard good things about it.
eyhossenlopp, I've seen all the P&P's, and the only one that really made me feel as if I were seeing the book brought to life was the 1980 BBC production.
Elizabeth (portrayed by Elizabeth Garvie) was superb: intelligent, sincere, mature, and a quiet beauty.
Mr. Darcy (David Rintoul) was just as I had pictured him: tall, "a fine figure" of a man, proud and aloof--yet not at all without feeling.
Actually, every single character was perfectly cast, especially Wickham and Mr. and Mrs Bennet. And Bingley. And Bingley's sister. I could go on and on.
Both the direction and low key production values reflect the society and customs of the time: The mood and scenes are more mannered and less lush than the A&E version, which to me, felt more like the book.
Obviously, this authenticity does not necessarily have to matter.
Austen's "Emma" was turned into the movie Clueless, and I thought they did a good job.
But for me it was enchanting to see P&P come alive just as I had imagined it.
Well, cil, I'll have to find the 1980 version of P&P...I've made it my duty in life to see all versions and vote which one is best. I like the 1940s version of P&P with Laurence Olivier, however, it seems a little too happy for P&P. I know...weird comment but P&P has a dark, brooding character and it can't be too happy of a film. I enjoyed going to the movies and watching the Kiera Knightly version BUT too many things about the movie didn't go right, aside from the passion displayed between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth...theirs is a limited to the viewer passion, not a huge kiss...I don't know. Because I thorougly enjoyed the A&E version, I compare everything else with that.
I love the Dexter books. I haven't caught the show, but I've heard it is great, but also somewhat different than the show (with some of the plot-lines, etc.)
I'd recommend the books highly though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
