Definitely LoTR. Left out a lot, even in the 11+ hours of the extended versions. What choice did he have? Still, it really captured all the major themes, mood and everything important.
Take my advice though, don't watch it all in one day. Pick a three day weekend (new years is traditional in the Lizardo household since the sun goes down early and you don't have to deal with glare on the TV) and watch one a day.
Interesting that you included my personal favorite movie of all time, The Lost World (I even has website! [silentmoviemonsters.tripod.com]). While I obviously adore, adore, adore both the book and the silent film, I freely acknowledge that they have next to nothing to do with each other. Yes they maintain the same essential characters and setting of a plateau with dinosaurs, but that's where it ends. What Rothacker, Hoyt and O'Brien put together was a different beast that stands on its own charms and merits.
I always thought "Something Wicked This Way Comes" was a very good adaptation of the novel, and the original PBS movie version of "Lathe of Heaven" (starring Bruce Davison) did a brilliant job of capturing the feel of its source novel as well.
I'm going to have to protest, Bram Stoker's Dracula and the Handmaid's Tale. I mean, Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of my favorite movies, but not because it's an outstanding piece of work. That acting's terrible and melodramatic. Yeesh. And the Handmaid's Tale really just missed the entire point of the book.
1. Bram Stoker's Dracula--Any adaptation which requires Keanu Reeves to play a Victorian Englishman is, de facto, a bad, bad adaptation.
2. Handmaid's Tale. Completely missed the point of the book. Screwed up the ending.
3. Children of Men
An excellent movie, but a terrible adaptation of the book. Completely changed the main character, his relationship with Jasper, his relationship with his cousin, completely changed the nature of the 3 Fishes. Changed the ending. Bad adaptation.
If you completely change the FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE of the book, the main character, the secondary characters, and the relationship between the main and secondary characters, well, you might have a good movie, but you won't have a good adaptation. If you took "Citizen Kane" and made Rosebud his second wife instead of !SPOILER! that other thing, and made Kane an affable hobo instead of The World's Richest Man, you could maybe craft a pretty good movie--hobo-dom is full of dramatic potential, after all--but it would be wrong to call "Charlie Kane: Hobo at Large" a good adaptation of the original "Citizen Kane."
@cletar: Yes, I'd have to say that the only similarities between the book Children of Men and the movie Children of Men was the initial premise. Plus they both were about some people who did some things in England because something else happened. Only keeping it this vague allows the movie's plot to have any resemblance to the book's.
In other words, after seeing he fantastic movie I had to wonder if the maudlin, poorly paced, atrociously written book I'd taken out of the library with its nonsensical and completely unbelievable ending was another book with the Children of Men cover put on it by accident. It really was a let down after such an engaging movie.
A book has to be bad if the movie adaptation is not only superior, but bears almost no resemblance to it.
@Nigerian Business Executive: I really liked the book--I read it when it came out--and I really liked the movie, but I can imagine it would be disorienting to see the movie and then read the book.
Star wars may be the films that got me into sci-fi, but the Lord of the Rings trilogy will probably still beat it for me. I can't actually find fault with it (bar RotK's too many endings problem). I have to watch them at least once a year.
@LittleDragon: Faithful, yes, but many of them are so very cheesy. I think of Thinner and I cringe at the effects in that one. Ruined the whole movie for me.
As I've stated on here a few times, if you want faithful Lovecraft you really need to track down all the fanfilms, like CALL OF CTHULU. While a number of the larger productions are fun in their own right, the smaller films, mostly shorts at that, do a far better job as conveying the author's sense of tone and atmosphere.
@Lassus: Agreed about Coppola's Dracula. The fact that this film was titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was laughable. From the totally made-up origin-flashback introduction to Mina's sexual obsession with Dracula (who was seductive but not at all sexy in the original book), the movie was all flash, no substance.
@Lizardman: But it was such pretty flash! I was dazzled by the sumptuous costumes and sets. And Gary Oldman. (Let's just ignore the Keanu factor, shall we?) However, Dracula as a compelling, seductive figure is a bit of a leap from the book, I agree. Regardless, I still greatly enjoy watching that film when I stumble across it on TV.
@ProfessorSara: Same here. The essential stupidity wears off after a couple of viewings, and you can just relax and enjoy the visuals. Also, Tom Waits was an inspired Renfield.
@Barnabus: On the other hand, every time I watch it, I'm reminded of the memory of seeing it the theater with my dad when I was 13. Most awkward topless vampire orgy scene ever.
@ProfessorSara: Oooh, yes - I had one of those moments after talking my dad into taking me to see Interview with the Vampire when I was 14. I spent the entire Theatre des Vampires scene trying to crawl through the back of my chair.
@LittleDragon: @ThisDudeRufus: I think that's the main problem with the movie, is that people don't watch it as a satire. And the third movie is pretty good. It's about religion.
The man still types on a old Brother 600 typewriter and doesn't give a shit about walking around in a lab coat and boxer shorts while munching on cheese and drinking a Coors on film? I don't think I can respect a man more! I was just waiting for him to scratch his balls on camera also. I think I would've pissed my pants thought if that happened.LMAO
@Im_your_Huckleberry: After watching Dreams With Sharp Teeth with Harlan Ellison, despite differences in personality, I think both of them have a charming nature on camera to simply be themselves.
07:19 PM
Take my advice though, don't watch it all in one day. Pick a three day weekend (new years is traditional in the Lizardo household since the sun goes down early and you don't have to deal with glare on the TV) and watch one a day.
07:02 PM
06:51 PM
06:24 PM
05:30 PM
1. Bram Stoker's Dracula--Any adaptation which requires Keanu Reeves to play a Victorian Englishman is, de facto, a bad, bad adaptation.
2. Handmaid's Tale. Completely missed the point of the book. Screwed up the ending.
3. Children of Men
An excellent movie, but a terrible adaptation of the book. Completely changed the main character, his relationship with Jasper, his relationship with his cousin, completely changed the nature of the 3 Fishes. Changed the ending. Bad adaptation.
If you completely change the FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE of the book, the main character, the secondary characters, and the relationship between the main and secondary characters, well, you might have a good movie, but you won't have a good adaptation. If you took "Citizen Kane" and made Rosebud his second wife instead of !SPOILER! that other thing, and made Kane an affable hobo instead of The World's Richest Man, you could maybe craft a pretty good movie--hobo-dom is full of dramatic potential, after all--but it would be wrong to call "Charlie Kane: Hobo at Large" a good adaptation of the original "Citizen Kane."
05:46 PM
In other words, after seeing he fantastic movie I had to wonder if the maudlin, poorly paced, atrociously written book I'd taken out of the library with its nonsensical and completely unbelievable ending was another book with the Children of Men cover put on it by accident. It really was a let down after such an engaging movie.
A book has to be bad if the movie adaptation is not only superior, but bears almost no resemblance to it.
05:57 PM
05:59 PM
05:15 PM
06:27 PM
04:11 PM
04:10 PM
04:09 PM
Let the Right One In?
05:12 PM
04:04 PM
04:01 PM
Moreso than the 2002 movie, at least, which, while I liked, was not very similar to the book at all.
03:47 PM
The only one I'd disagree with is the Coppola Dracula. I saw a preview in Hollywood when it came out. People were laughing. It wasn't pretty.
Fahrenheit 451 was life-changing, I think, I also saw it young. I had nightmares for about six months, and I never ever forgot the message.
03:55 PM
04:03 PM
04:38 PM
05:13 PM
05:25 PM
06:39 PM
06:57 PM
07:11 PM
03:41 PM
Just kidding.
04:01 PM
04:07 PM
04:12 PM
Although, I do trust Ridley Scott to do The Forever War up to standard.
05:36 PM
07:39 PM
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/19/09