4 ms·

The movie is in the running for greatest American movie made; so much of it is so very good, and so many things went exactly right. The book, as others have sai

The movie is in the running for greatest American movie made; so much of it is so very good, and so many things went exactly right. The book, as others have said, is a pulp potboiler; no serious critic would place it on a list of 1,000 best novels. Funnily enough, Die Hard is similar. It’s a great action movie, legendary and timeless. The book on which it’s based is awful. It’s so rare that this happens, when usually it’s the reverse — a great book is made into a bad or mediocre movie. The true exceptions — great books made into great movies — seem vanishingly rare to me. Off the top of my head I can only think of a few: Lawrence of Arabia (from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom), The English Patient, The Name of the Rose. Apocalypse Now from Heart of Darkness, perhaps?

d4rkp4ttern 5y ago
As another example of good book + good movie: Roadside Picnic (book by Stugarski Brothers, movie by Tarkovski). I loved the Three Body Problem trilogy, remains to be seen how good he series/movie will be.
colineartheta 5y ago
I had to re-read your comment originally because I thought you were naming more great movies but poor books lol excellent choices! Agree with all three.
mynameishere 5y ago
no serious critic would place it on a list of 1,000 best novels. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fiction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fict... ... Lush Life by Richard Price The Godfather by Mario Puzo V by Thomas Pynchon ... I don't know why everyone has to crap on that novel every time the movie comes up. Much of the movie is a straight copy from the book, including plenty of word-for-word dialogue reuse. The book does have a couple of subplots that are embarrassingly bad, though--almost as if Puzo felt the need to tack on some halted novellas he had in his drawer.
- sonofhans 5y ago
  Wow, I’m totally surprised. I still don’t agree, but I’m glad you pointed it out.
- filmgirlcw 5y ago
  It's not a bad book -- but it IS a pulp novel, Puzo would absolutely admit that. The fact that a decent, but by no means extraordinary book, would go on to be the basis for one of the greatest films of all time is such a rarity (Gone with the Wind is probably the only other similar situation and that novel was probably better critically received in its time than The Godfather was, although it has understandably fallen out of favor today), that it is notable. Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film. Everything about The Godfather should have been a failure. From the casting, to the production, to the monetary situation at the studio, to the lawsuits, to the source material. But it's a near-perfect film. And that sort of anomaly coming out of such chaos (again, Gone with the Wind is probably the closest similarity when it comes to English-language film) is almost as remarkable as the film itself.
  - JackFr 5y ago
    > Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film. I think The Shining is a great example of a good book, while the movie is one of the best horror movies ever made. And yet, reportedly Stephen King hates the Kubrick film. As someone who enjoys both, I simply think he’s wrong and I guess as the author he will always come at it with a unique viewpoint.
    - andi999 5y ago
      I think King tried to convey that actually the Hotel is evil. Not Jack. The movie reversed that.
filmgirlcw 5y ago
A few more great books that beget great films: * The Silence of the Lambs * The Shining * Shawshank Redemption (novella but I'll allow it) * Brokeback Mountain (same) * No Country for Old Men * Little Women (there are a few versions to choose from but I would choose the 1994 adaptation myself, thought he 2019 version was very good) * Requiem For a Dream * Lolita * Roots (mini-series but I think we should allow it) That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Worth noting that No Country for Old Men was originally a screenplay, and it reads like one too.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
Was The Name of the Rose a better book or movie though, not sure. Heart of Darkness was a way better book, I mean it was published 120 years ago and people still talk about it, the only thing I think people really remember from Apocalypse Now was loving the smell of napalm in the morning.
- narag 5y ago
  I do remember more than that about the movie. It really impacted me. It's funny that I started reading the book many years later, not knowing that it was the inspiration for the movie. I realized almost half way through the book.
yesbabyyes 5y ago
These are also great in my opinion (book as well as film): The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Jurassic Park.
- wallscratch 5y ago
  I rewatched lotr after having seen GoT, and I was struck by how simplistic the good vs evil narrative of everything was.
nicolas_t 5y ago
Forrest Gump is in the same category as Die Hard and The Godfather, the book is just mediocre but the movie is great.
nindalf 5y ago
This is so subjective. I’ve seen people jerk themselves silly over Heart of Darkness and it is so ordinary. It is the epitome of “tell, don’t show”. I can’t believe something so mediocre is considered a classic. The English Patient - didn’t read it but the movie is pretty terrible. Exactly nothing interesting happens for 3 hours. Reasonable people can disagree, but at least don’t present these examples as universally acclaimed books and movies.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Heart of Darkness doesn't show or tell you what the actual horrors are, as far as I remember. Isn't it kind of psychological horror that only hits you after you finish it and then start really reflecting on what probably/possibly happened? I think it's a bit of a weirdly paced novel though, and from recollection it's really easy to miss certain implied meanings if you miss a single sentence or so towards the end.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Acclaim only matters for the dollars. Dissinterest is different from uninteresting.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- coward123 5y ago
  You realize that the core story of Heart of Darkness has become countless reinterpretation like Apocalypse Now, right? I mean, how bad can it really be if it spawned an entire motif of sorts? As for English Patient - look, you might not like romantic sagas, but it's rather flippant to call it pretty terrible given the awards it won. Clearly someone enjoyed it.
France_is_bacon 5y ago
richeyryan 5y ago
I think A Single Man is a good example of an ok to good book being made into a great film.

d4rkp4ttern 5y ago

As another example of good book + good movie: Roadside Picnic (book by Stugarski Brothers, movie by Tarkovski). I loved the Three Body Problem trilogy, remains to be seen how good he series/movie will be.

colineartheta 5y ago

I had to re-read your comment originally because I thought you were naming more great movies but poor books lol excellent choices! Agree with all three.

mynameishere 5y ago

no serious critic would place it on a list of 1,000 best novels. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fiction https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jan/23/bestbooks-fict... ... Lush Life by Richard Price The Godfather by Mario Puzo V by Thomas Pynchon ... I don't know why everyone has to crap on that novel every time the movie comes up. Much of the movie is a straight copy from the book, including plenty of word-for-word dialogue reuse. The book does have a couple of subplots that are embarrassingly bad, though--almost as if Puzo felt the need to tack on some halted novellas he had in his drawer.

sonofhans 5y ago
Wow, I’m totally surprised. I still don’t agree, but I’m glad you pointed it out.
filmgirlcw 5y ago
It's not a bad book -- but it IS a pulp novel, Puzo would absolutely admit that. The fact that a decent, but by no means extraordinary book, would go on to be the basis for one of the greatest films of all time is such a rarity (Gone with the Wind is probably the only other similar situation and that novel was probably better critically received in its time than The Godfather was, although it has understandably fallen out of favor today), that it is notable. Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film. Everything about The Godfather should have been a failure. From the casting, to the production, to the monetary situation at the studio, to the lawsuits, to the source material. But it's a near-perfect film. And that sort of anomaly coming out of such chaos (again, Gone with the Wind is probably the closest similarity when it comes to English-language film) is almost as remarkable as the film itself.
- JackFr 5y ago
  > Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film. I think The Shining is a great example of a good book, while the movie is one of the best horror movies ever made. And yet, reportedly Stephen King hates the Kubrick film. As someone who enjoys both, I simply think he’s wrong and I guess as the author he will always come at it with a unique viewpoint.
  - andi999 5y ago
    I think King tried to convey that actually the Hotel is evil. Not Jack. The movie reversed that.

filmgirlcw 5y ago

A few more great books that beget great films: * The Silence of the Lambs * The Shining * Shawshank Redemption (novella but I'll allow it) * Brokeback Mountain (same) * No Country for Old Men * Little Women (there are a few versions to choose from but I would choose the 1994 adaptation myself, thought he 2019 version was very good) * Requiem For a Dream * Lolita * Roots (mini-series but I think we should allow it) That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Worth noting that No Country for Old Men was originally a screenplay, and it reads like one too.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

Was The Name of the Rose a better book or movie though, not sure. Heart of Darkness was a way better book, I mean it was published 120 years ago and people still talk about it, the only thing I think people really remember from Apocalypse Now was loving the smell of napalm in the morning.

narag 5y ago
I do remember more than that about the movie. It really impacted me. It's funny that I started reading the book many years later, not knowing that it was the inspiration for the movie. I realized almost half way through the book.

yesbabyyes 5y ago

These are also great in my opinion (book as well as film): The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Jurassic Park.

wallscratch 5y ago
I rewatched lotr after having seen GoT, and I was struck by how simplistic the good vs evil narrative of everything was.

nicolas_t 5y ago

Forrest Gump is in the same category as Die Hard and The Godfather, the book is just mediocre but the movie is great.

nindalf 5y ago

This is so subjective. I’ve seen people jerk themselves silly over Heart of Darkness and it is so ordinary. It is the epitome of “tell, don’t show”. I can’t believe something so mediocre is considered a classic. The English Patient - didn’t read it but the movie is pretty terrible. Exactly nothing interesting happens for 3 hours. Reasonable people can disagree, but at least don’t present these examples as universally acclaimed books and movies.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
Heart of Darkness doesn't show or tell you what the actual horrors are, as far as I remember. Isn't it kind of psychological horror that only hits you after you finish it and then start really reflecting on what probably/possibly happened? I think it's a bit of a weirdly paced novel though, and from recollection it's really easy to miss certain implied meanings if you miss a single sentence or so towards the end.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
Acclaim only matters for the dollars. Dissinterest is different from uninteresting.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
coward123 5y ago
You realize that the core story of Heart of Darkness has become countless reinterpretation like Apocalypse Now, right? I mean, how bad can it really be if it spawned an entire motif of sorts? As for English Patient - look, you might not like romantic sagas, but it's rather flippant to call it pretty terrible given the awards it won. Clearly someone enjoyed it.

France_is_bacon 5y ago

richeyryan 5y ago

I think A Single Man is a good example of an ok to good book being made into a great film.