I've never actually read The Kite Runner and can't believe that Kaysar from BB is being considered for it. I didn't know he wanted to be an actor.
One of the best movies adapted from a book I think is To Kill a Mockingbird.
It was a great book and a great movie. It's actually my favorite book of all time and one of my favorite movies.
Oh Wow! I didn't realize The Kite Runner was going to be made into a movie. I just read the book, I had so many mixed emotions reading the book. It is a well written book, I hope the movie does the book justice.
To Kill a mockingbird is one of my all time favorites too!
I've never read that story but to answer your question....
Not really. I've never really seen a book to movie that was good enough. there is only a handful of book to movies that I think did a pretty dang good job. Like Dune. Dune is almost as good in the movie form as it is in the book. Another one would be The Lord of the Rings. They also did a pretty good job. It could have been better, but for the size of this movie... I think they did great. One other would be the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That is the best book to movie I've seen so far.
One of the worst book to movies is the Harry Potter series. There are just too many details in the story. it makes a great book, but it dosn't go into movie form very well. The last movie...the Goblet of Fire... they left so much important information out of the movie, I was amazed that anyone watching it, who have yet to read the book, didn't get totaly lost.
I mean.. we finaly learn why Snape hates Harry so much.. and they left it out of the movie! Arg!
There is a movie coming out in a few weeks. I read the book when I was in the 3rd grade I believe.. anyways. it's called "How to Eat Fried Worms" I loved the book as a kid and I'm going to see it as soon as it comes out. And I really really hope that they did a good job on it.
I thought that the old version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder was a pretty good adaptation from the book. Not the one with Johnny Depp, I didn't like that version at all.
I haven't finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo yet, but I really really liked the latest version that came out a few years ago.
I actually rather like the Harry Potter movies, which my husband finds quite amusing since my attempt to read one of the books ended in whimpers of pain after about three pages. (I do not see how anyone can seriously compare JK Rowling to JRR Tolkien; I really don't.)
The only book offhand I can think of where they did a fairly good job of making it into a movie is Like Water for Chocolate. The movie kept quite well to the spirit of the book. I've recently seen some good adaptations of Stephen King's short stories on TNT, though their adaptation of the autopsy story had me yelling at the TV.
Now, the worst book-to-movie adaptation I can think of is The First Wives Club. Other than the opening scene and the fact that there were three "first wives" in it, the movie had virtually nothing to do with the book.
oh, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was good, I must of read that book a million times growing up. I read the whole series at least twice. When I saw the movie, it really brought back memories of reading the book when I was a child.
I liked the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Fight Club. I read the book, watched the movie, then read the book again and the book is practically script. Aside from that, the actors in the movie did the characters of the story justice.
I recently saw the trailor for "How to eat Fried Worms" and happen to have just read the book to my kids. Of course, they can't wait to see it. However, from what I have seen the movie is way off track. I will avoid taking them to see it for fear that it will ruin the experience they had with the book. The movie appears to revolve around a "bully" type experience between the kids whereas the book is really just a group of friends who egg each other on. Like most older stories, it just seems to be more innocent than what today's movie interpretation is. That isn't to say the movie won't be entertaining - I just don't think it will do the book any justice.
Out of Africa - The movie did not really follow the book at all: the movie was more of a biography of Isak Dinesen whereas the book is more of a series of essays about Dinesen's life in Africa. But I felt like the move really captured Dinesen's voice and the feeling of the book. I thoroughly enjoyed both.
The A&E version of Pride & Prejudice. It is six hours long and they still had to leave a lot out, but they stayed true to the book (except for the swimming scene, but I felt like that fit with the movie). I am a huge fan of the book (own the 600 page annotated edition, read it at least once a year...) and I love the A&E movie. Still need to see the BBC version, I've heard that is good too.
A&E also did a series of short film versions of Rex Stout books (the Nero Wolfe/Archie Goodwin detective series) several years ago that were excellent. Very true to the books.
I also like the Harry Potter movies, but I do wish they'd make a six-hour version of each film so they could get more of the details in. If I can sit through six hours of P&P, I'm sure I could sit through six hours of Harry Potter. The books are popular enough, I'm sure if I live long enough (yet another reason to eat right and exercise), someone will do an extended version.
Book to Movie
