List your best film adaptations
I can't call myself a connoiseur, but frankly, Alice denying that she's the chosen one, amnesia about her past life, and resisting fighting fate at the end, at least until she gets back to the real world? Concentrated cliche juice right there.
I'm not saying that Tim Burton didn't make a good film. He did. But it could have been much better. The only true casting dispute that I have was with Alice. Okay, so Michael Gough and Christopher Lee were wasted, but it didn't mean that they were bad as their respective characters, rather that they should have had meatier roles. But Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen, Crispin Glover as Stayne, Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat...all wonderful.
It's the plot and the casting of Alice that I have the biggest beef about. Okay, Mia Wasikowska's an Aussie, and so I should be glad of her getting a starring role, but seriously, she's the wrong Alice. She could in theory play Alice, but I'm not sure that she was right for this particular adaptation.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
Zack Snyder managed to film the unfilmable, and the fact that it is a competent movie as well as an adaptation is remarkable. Not the best that could have been done with Watchmen, but without doing it as a miniseries, I doubt that it can be done better.
I really disagree with this. I thought this was an utter failure. The performances were anemic and unegaging, the casting was dreadful, the pacing was tedious, the whole thing felt uninspired. It didn't seem to me that Snyder had any idea how to bring this to film, and he completely hit all the wrong notes with the subversiveness of the Watchmen series, sucking out all the real appeal of it. And it was ugly to look at. I don't mean gritty or dark, but badly conceived in a visual way. A lot of things could have been done much, much better. Did we see the same film?
The version you need to see is the directors cut. It was alot closer to the graphic novel. Synder was forced to cut alot of stuff for the theater. Its almost three hours. But it accually feels shorter because the pacing was better. I thought all the actors were very good.
On one end of the spectrum, I think "The Silence of the Lambs" is a very good adaptation in that it maintains the spirit of the book and translates words into a visual form of storytelling.
On the other end, "A Clockwork Orange" greatly modifies the style of storytelling and creates what may be a far better work of art.
And then there's Woody Allen's "All You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex, But Were Afraid To Ask" which ridicules the original book with its irreverent and mocking adaptation.
_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")
Bollocks. The book is much better. Kubrick sexed up the movie too much (Alex beats the woman to death with a bust of Beethoven, not a giant dong, and where in the novel did it mention those statues in the Korova Milkbar?) and cut the real ending, even though he was made aware of it.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
Bollocks. The book is much better. Kubrick sexed up the movie too much (Alex beats the woman to death with a bust of Beethoven, not a giant dong, and where in the novel did it mention those statues in the Korova Milkbar?) and cut the real ending, even though he was made aware of it.
The book may be much better. The subjectivity of art makes placing one on top of another an exercise in futility. I like both the book and the film, but for different reasons.
But I guess my reason for suggesting "Clockwork Orange" is that it is so radically different from the book that it presents an interesting look at the process of adaptation. Is the best adaptation the one that is most faithful to the book? I don't think so. I recently saw "Never Let Me Go" which is a very close adaptation. I felt the film missed something that might have been better had they not been so faithful.
Clockwork Orange works as a film in its own right. Any film that puts fidelity to the original above being a good work of art is doing a disservice to both itself and the original. The book may be better than the film for some audiences, but nevertheless, the film is remarkably effective at doing what it does. By that measure, I would say that it is a very good adaptation.
_________________
Never let the weeds get higher than the garden,
Always keep a sapphire in your mind.
(Tom Waits "Get Behind the Mule")
i cannot think of many great films off the top of my head that are adaptations because i am not always aware when i view a film whether it is an adaptation.
i am not suggesting that these are faithful to the stories they are based upon (i have not read all of them). they are great films that happen to be adaptations.
adaptation
the tin drum
the trial
woman in the dunes
the ballad of narayama
rashomon
throne of blood
ran
short cuts
the maltese falcon
the pornographers
being there
apocalypse now
the thin red line
full metal jacket
fight club
blade runner
trainspotting
the ice storm
korol lir
the leopard (italian version)
The Manchurian Candidate (the 1962 version with Frank Sinatra, not the 2004 remake with Denzel Washington). It's based on a 1959 Richard Condon novel. I was so impressed at how relevant and alive it still is today, even after all this time, and Angela Lansbury's performance in particular was brilliant.
Also, not many casual moviewatchers know it's based on a novel, but I also have to mention Die Hard (based on a 1979 Roderick Thorp book, Nothing Lasts Forever). Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman are particularly excellent. I mean, it's one of the most perfect and influential action movies ever made. What more can be said? ![]()
