Most movies that have been based on a book tend to be a let down. I don't know how much say the author has, or whether they're just happy for the money and publicity. I'm a huge Clint Eastwood fan but having recently watched Blood Work I must say he completely ruined what was an excellent book by Michael Connelly. On the other hand movies like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trilogy have been terrific. What does everyone else think. Any recommendations or ones to avoid ?
One I'm really looking forward to is the Richard Kuklinski movie. http://screenrant.com/mickey-rourke-the-ice-man-movie-richard-kuklinski-ross-27326/
Obvious one in Harry Potter. Awesome films, and awesome books, just ruined because the films miss out a lot of the book, which is a shame. What's "the boy in striped pyjamas" like as a book? I've only seen the film.
I couldn't disagree with you more, Crowley. I find most movies based on books are actually at the very least pretty good.
There are a lot of very very very good films based on books. In the top 30 of the IMDB 250 there are 16 films based on books (and short stories) from the top of my head: 1. The Shawshank Redemption 2. The Godfather 3. The Godfather part II 7. Schindler's List 8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest 10. LOTR 3 13. Fight Club 15. Goodfellas 16. LOTR 1 18. City of God 22. Rear Window 24. The Silence of the Lambs 26. Psycho 28. Forrest Gump 29. LOTR 2 30. It's a Wonderful Life I wouldn't be surprised at all if over 100 of the top 250 were based on books. It's extremely common.
The only thing goods about the HP franchise are 1. Emma Watson growing tits and 2. Alan Rickman as Snape.
True....:fp: when I saw this thread. (Rear Window was based on a short story and not a novel or "book" btw).
Remember watching a doco about him. It doesn't look like Mickey Rouke will play him according to your imdb link
I agree that those two things are awesome, especially the first one! But I disagree with your first sentence.
The series in general sucks compared to the books. Was a huge fan of the book and started reading the series when I was around 11-12. The movies never stood up to my expectations right from part 1.
I was basing my observations on what I've basically seen and read. There are some great films listed there but to be honest I haven't read any of those books so I certainly can't compare. Of course it's hard to fit a whole book into practically 1 and a half hours so yes I realise it's not going to be exactly the same, but so often the story is dramatically changed and the characters completely different to how they were originally portrayed for no apparent reason.
Hardly surprising. The medium just doesn't allow for detail and elaboration comparable to the written word. And the reason you don't see 100-hour movies is obviously because of the cost. I've never read Puzo's The Godfather series but some claim it's even better than the movies. If that's the case, I'm surprised you never see them on classics lists.
