Literary Adaptations
This is a list of all the movies I've seen, where I have also read the original literature from which it was adapted.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll/ directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson
Book- 1865, Movie- 1951
There are many adaptations of Lewis Carroll's 1865 Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I chose Disney's 1951 adaptation, as it's the most well-known. It's funny, because it is really difficult to compare these two. Books and movies are obviously such different mediums. These two feel so different. The book is a wonderfully inventive adventure story that fully embraces nonsensical elements. It's an easy read, but it feels like there's real depth behind Carroll's words. It's a book for children, but there are mature themes and ideas behind it. Disney's version is unique and memorable in its own right. Disney has always done a good job of telling their version of classic stories and Alice in Wonderland is no different. The visuals in the film are iconic and they bring Carroll's story to life. Both the movie and book are effective in different ways. It's incredibly challenging to pick one over the other.
Conclusion: I've toggled back-and-forth on this one. I wouldn't say I loved either the book or the movie, but I did enjoy both. I considered giving a razor-thin advantage to the book, but I think this is one where both are required. Advantage- both.
All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque / directed by Lewis Milestone
Book- 1929, Movie- 1930
When I started writing about movies/books that I've seen, I thought it would be easier to differentiate between them. This is another impossible choice. All Quiet on the Western Front is a fantastic book, an unflinching look at the hardships German soldiers faced during World War I. As an American, you grow up considering the Germans the "bad guys" of the World Wars (for some legitimately good reasons). This book is a reminder that many of the soldiers were young men, innocent of the crimes of German politicians. They were human beings and I loved that this book reminded us of their humanity. The movie does the same thing and is considered one of the greatest anti-war movies ever made. It's hard to watch the film and feel that war is anything but a despicable act and should only be undertaken as an absolute last resort. It won two Academy Awards- Best Director and Best Picture.
Conclusion: I really don't think you can choose between these two. You should read the book and you should see the movie. Both are incredibly effective mediums for this story. Advantage- both.
All the Pretty Horses, by Cormac McCarthy/ directed by Billy Bob Thornton
Book- 1993, Movie- 2000
This is another one where I saw the movie first. I'm a big fan of Cormac McCarthy's writing, but I hadn't read this one. I thought the movie was underwhelming, primarily due to the lackluster direction of Billy Bob Thornton. When I read the book a few years later, this was further cemented in my mind. Thornton adapts the broad strokes of the story, but he isn't able to capture the beauty of McCarthy's writing. The movie feels like a series of events and not the quietly powerful story that McCarthy is trying to tell.
Conclusion: I think any adaptation of McCarthy's work is going to have trouble competing with his iconic, stunning writing. That's certainly the case here.. Advantage- book.
Angela's Ashes, by Frank McCourt/ directed by Alan Parker
Book- 1996, Movie- 1999
This is such an easy decision. Frank McCourt's Pulitzer Prize winner memoir is a near-masterpiece. I remember being riveted, reading the book. It was heartbreaking, but it was hilarious as well. It captures the fragility of life, while inspiring you to think about life in a different way. The book breaks your heart, thinking about McCourt's family and it makes you thankful your life wasn't nearly as hard. It's a tremendous literary work. The movie was good. I'm not trying to be pejorative here, but the book works on levels the movie couldn't dream of reaching. The film tends to focus more on the depressing qualities of the book and isn't able to bring over the humor effectively enough. That results in a bit of downer experience watching the movie, whereas you feel like the book is a much richer experience.
Conclusion: I enjoyed the movie and consider it a solid film, but there's no substitute for McCourt's firsthand account of his life. Advantage- book.
Angels & Demons, by Dan Brown/ directed by Ron Howard
Book- 2000, Movie- 2009
I'm a huge fan of Dan Brown's pulpy Robert Langdon novels. I couldn't stop reading The Da Vinci Code and I was shocked when I picked up Angels & Demons- I actually thought it was better than Brown's most famous book. It was a more nuanced, carefully plotted novel and it gave me an even greater appreciation for Langdon. Even today, with now 5 Robert Langdon novels, Angels & Demons remains my favorite. The movies haven't been as good, but I'm still a big fan. Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, so I was overjoyed that he was cast as Langdon. I know many people criticized the casting (and his hair), but I vehemently disagree. He makes a great Langdon. The movie is solid, it's entertaining and a faithful adaptation of the book. It's exciting, but it feels too surface level. It doesn't reach the same heights of tension and intensity that the book does.
Conclusion: I'm a fan of both the novel and the movie, but this is an easy decision- the book is wonderful and far superior to the film as you find yourself frantically turning each page, dying to discover what happens next. Advantage- book.
Annihilation, by Jeff Vandermeer/ directed by Alex Garland
Book- 2014, Movie- 2018
Oh man, this is a controversial one. Jeff Vandermeer isn't a fan of this movie, and for good reason- it's not really an adaptation of his excellent book. It borrows elements from it, but Alex Garland creates something of his own. If you watch the movie hoping for the book, you will probably hate it. It's a bit of a shame, because the Southern Reach Trilogy is fantastic. While this book is certainly better than Authority or Acceptance, the trilogy is unique and memorable. I remember reading this first book and just getting sucked into this bizarre world of Vandermeer's creation. It wasn't always easy to follow, but it made for a great read. I'm a big fan of Alex Garland's films, so I was beyond excited for the movie. It's so strange, how effortlessly he departs from the source material. And here's the thing- I actually loved the movie too- not as an adaptation of the book, but something different, something that stands on its own. While a closer adaptation would have been great, Garland creates something unique, something that resonates with his own voice.
Conclusion: I actually think this is an impossible decision. The book and the movie are two completely different things. I couldn't rate one or the other because they each stand on their own. If you wanted this movie to be the book, you'll be sorely disappointed. As for me, I enjoyed both for what they were. Advantage- both.
Around the World in 80 Days, by Jules Verne/ directed by Michael Anderson
Book- 1872, Movie- 1956
There have been multiple adaptations of Jules Verne's classic novel, but I'm going with the 1956 version, the most well-known film. I'm actually a big fan of both the book and the novel. The book is exciting, a globe-spanning adventure that sparkles with Verne's trademark excitement. It's a wonderful premise and an easy, fun read. The movie is fantastic in its own right. The visuals are stunning and it really makes Verne's adventure come to life. It's a thrilling, exciting movie that is faithful to the novel while ramping up the level of excitement and intensity that you feel. The movie won 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture.
Conclusion: This might be surprising, but I believe the movie offers a more thrilling adventure than the book. Verne is definitely focused on ideas, while the movie uses those ideas to tell a rousing, exciting adventure tale. Both the book and the movie are worthwhile, but the visuals of the medium actually help nudge this one towards the film. Advantage- movie.
Beowulf, by Unknown/ directed by Robert Zemeckis
Book- c975-1025, Movie- 2007
It's hard to compare one of the most important old English epic poems with a computer-animated movie that came out roughly 1,000 years after the source material. It's amazing to consider the time gap between them. I read Beowulf in school and while challenging, it's an incredible piece of literature. It is obviously hugely influential in human history and a classic in every sense. Robert Zemeckis' film was really good, though. I went into it unsure about the computer animation, but using it in parallel with motion capture definitely gave the film an interesting twist. It was entertaining and I'd consider it a strong movie.
Conclusion: Both are good, but you have to bow down in awe to the importance of the original. Advantage- epic poem.
The Call of the Wild, by Jack London/ directed by William A. Wellman/Chris Sanders
Book- 1903, Movie- 1935, 2020
I'm actually a big fan of all these. I believe I saw the 1935 Clark Gable film first, then read the book, then saw Harrison Ford's 2020 remake. I generally enjoyed all three. London has such a penchant for storytelling. His characters seem larger than life and the adventure and excitement feel nonstop. Whether you're reading it or watching it, this story is a truly exciting one.
Conclusion: London's book is fairly cinematic and I believe the depiction of the thrilling adventure is better with visuals. London was a better storyteller than a writer, anyway. Advantage- movie, and the 1935 film is a bit better than the 2020 version.
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller/ directed by Mike Nichols
Book- 1961, Movie- 1970
I absolutely loved Joseph Heller's book. It's hands-down one of the funniest books I've ever read. I was continuously laughing throughout the entire book. It's just such an insane work of pure genius. The nonlinear story and the zaniness of the book would make any adaptation difficult. Surprisingly, Mike Nichols directs a film that translates much of the book to the screen and retains the tone and feel of the book. It's actually an astonishing feat, and the movie is incredibly good as a result. It's a thoroughly enjoyable film and one that's worth checking out.
Conclusion: While I really liked the movie, I truly loved the book. There's no contest in this one. Advantage- book.
Charlotte's Web, by E.B. White/ directed by Charles A. Nichols, Iwao Takamoto
Book- 1952, Movie- 1973
It's probably that I read Charlotte's Web in my youth, but I don't distinctly remember it. I definitely remember the movie and all the different emotions I felt watching it. It's not an easy movie for a kid to watch and the themes of life and death absolutely stuck with me. Even decades after I last watched the movie, I remembered it clearly. As an adult, I read E.B. White's story to my children over the course of a month or so. I loved it. Every night, we'd read a chapter and it was a powerful way to spend time together. I'll always remember those nights of sitting in bed, reading together. When we finished the book, we watched the movie again. It was as entertaining and powerful as I remembered.
Conclusion: Both are quite good, but I feel like the visuals, the music, the way the movie presents the story is a bit more powerful than the words of E.B. White. He crafts a great story, but seeing it is slightly more powerful than reading it, surprisingly. Advantage- movie.
The Circle, by Dave Eggers/ directed by James Ponsoldt
Book- 2013, Movie- 2017
The Circle is stunning achievement of a novel. It looks at high tech and the prevalent use of technology through the lens of asking if technology is making our lives better, or worse. The book cemented Dave Eggers as one of my favorite authors and it delivered one of the greatest book endings I've ever read. The feeling of peering behind the curtain of a tech firm was irresistible and the examination of technology in our lives was brilliant. I was over the moon when Tom Hanks was cast in the film and Emma Watson was the perfect Mae. All the pieces were in place for a tremendous movie, especially since James Ponsoldt was a competent young director. And yet, even though the movie is good, they completely messed it up. There's a lot I could nitpick, but I'll really just concentrate on the ending. Eggers' book offers a challenging, shocking conclusion that I thought about for months afterwards. It's what makes the book brilliant. The movie ditches it for the most conventional, yawn-inducing ending imaginable. It sinks the film (although for the record, I still enjoyed the movie).
Conclusion: Not a competition at all. The movie is good, yet forgettable. The book is brilliant and makes you think about the role of technology in our lives very differently. Advantage- book.
A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess/ directed by Stanley Kubrick
Book- 1962, Movie- 1971
This is a tough one for me because I didn't really love the book or the movie. I know people rave about Kubrick's film and many people consider it a classic. I thought it was good, but I never really connected with it. Perhaps I should revisit it at some point, because it felt overly long and not nearly effective enough for me. I can see some of the same issues with Burgess' novel. I will say that the book sucked me in more to that world. The movie kind of turns you off because of its gleeful depictions of violence. The book feels more nuanced and allows you to step into the madness of it all more.
Conclusion: This was a hard decision, but ultimately, the book felt like it made a slightly bigger impression on me. You could argue either way, but I'll take the source material myself. I spent more time thinking about the book than I did the movie. Advantage- book.
Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell/ directed by Tom Twyker, Lana & Lilly Wachowski
Book- 2004, Movie- 2012
There's no way I could make a decision between these two. Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece, one of the most ambitious, incredible movies I've ever seen. I still remember sitting there in the theater with my wife. The movie ended and neither of us spoke a word for almost five minutes. We just saw there, processing what we had seen. I loved it. Some time after seeing the movie, I read the book, which I absolutely loved as well. That started me on reading all of David Mitchell's books- he is one of my all-time favorite authors. Doing it this way helped, since it was easier for me to keep track of all the characters having seen the movie first. Either way, both the novel and the movie are works of genius and I loved them both.
Conclusion: It's amazing how Tom Twyker and the Wachowski siblings were able to make such a great movie out of a book that should have been unfilmable. The book is incredible, the movie is incredible, I could never pick one. Advantage- both.
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker/ directed by Steven Spielberg
Book- 1982, Movie- 1985
This is a really tough one. Alice Walker's story is heartbreaking and her book won the Pulitzer Prize. I think Walker crafted an all-time heartbreaking story in her novel, there's no doubt about that. Reading it, however, was a tough experience. I didn't really enjoy the experience. It's fairly hopeless and challenging from a reading experience perspective. Alternatively, Steven Spielberg directs a movie that is also not much fun to watch- he captures the bleakness of the novel appropriately. It's the kind of film you only want to watch once. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, although it didn't win any. This is a really tough debate.
Conclusion: I have to say it's a toss up. Both are really well crafted in their individual mediums. I think this could go either way, but is ultimately too impossible to select one over the other. Advantage- both.
The Colour Out of Space, by H.P. Lovecraft/ directed by Richard Stanley
Short Story- 1927, Movie- 2020
I've read most of H.P. Lovecraft's writing. He had this incredible style of crafting stories filled with foreboding. There was always this sense of enormity, of malevolent powers, an indifference to the suffering of minuscule humans. The Colour Out of Space is as effective as you'd expect from his short stories. It involves the fictional Arkham, Massachusetts. It depicts a meteor impact and the insanity and horror that results from it. It's an incredibly effective story. The feature film adaptation came almost 100 years after the short story. It leverages the latest technology to depict visually the horror of Lovecraft's words. It's interesting to consider how Lovecraft put the images in our minds with his words and now we have the technology to depict those horrors visually.
Conclusion: Outside of the impressive visuals, I didn't love Richard Stanley's film. I know it got really good reviews, but I was underwhelmed by it. Advantage- short story.
Contact, by Carl Sagan/ directed by Robert Zemeckis
Book- 1985, Movie- 1997
This is another case where I saw the movie years before finally reading the book. The movie is great- I loved it. Zemeckis does a fantastic job of visuals with the film and crafting a story that embraces logical science fiction while not losing its humanity. I loved how Zemeckis integrated these two very different aspects together in the film. Sagan is obviously responsible for the ideas behind this, but his book had slightly less humanity than the movie. I enjoyed the book, but I was less enthralled, less sucked in.
Conclusion: The movie benefits from Sagan's ideas and story while being able to step outside of the constraints of the book to paint a more vivid, memorable version of the story. Advantage- movie.
The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas/ directed by Kevin Reynolds
Book- 1844, Movie- 2002
This is one where I feel like I'm "supposed" to like the book more. I really loved Dumas' epic- it was an enjoyable read and exceptionally well written. The book is superb, so there's no complaints there. The issue is that the movie is exceptionally good as well. It's an incredible adaptation that makes the characters come to life, leaping off the page into the center of this enjoyable adventure. It's the kind of film that digs deeper and connects with you on a more emotional level. The book and the movie are obviously from two very different mediums, and both of them are excellent in their own ways.
Conclusion: If I'm being honest (which I always try to do here), I like both of these equally. I don't have a preference for one over the other- they both offered wonderful experiences. I simply cannot choose. Advantage- both.
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown/ directed by Ron Howard
Book- 2003, Movie- 2006
I can still vividly remember getting The Da Vinci Code from the public library in Marietta, Ohio and tearing through the book. Dan Brown might not write high literature, but he knows how to tell a thrilling story. I was beyond excited when Tom Hanks was cast as Robert Langdon (the critics can sit down). Ron Howard directs a great movie- it's a faithful adaptation of the book, and the scenes showing Langdon's thought process are incredible. Both the book and the movie are excellent and I'd highly recommend either.
Conclusion: While the movie is great, it can't quite reproduce the page-turning frenzy of the book. It's thrilling, but the book was so intense, your hand would almost shake as you turned the page, unable to wait to see what happens next. Advantage- book.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? / Blade Runner, by Philip K. Dick/ directed by Ridley Scott
Book- 1968, Movie- 1982
It's interesting that I've noticed many science fiction books fall into the scenario where the movie is better than the book. I wonder if this is because of the awe movies can create by visually depicting the incredible futures that the books discuss. Whatever the reason, it's the case here, too. Dick's book is certainly good and it tackles big ideas. However, it comes together in a way that is more visceral and memorable in the film. The funny thing about this is that I've always struggled somewhat with Blade Runner. I think it's good, but I don't see it as the sci-fi classic most of the world does. In fact, I prefer the sequel. Still, there's something raw seeing Philip K. Dick's story on the screen. Plus, the movie's title is superior.
Conclusion: While I didn't love the book or the movie, the movie certainly gets the edge here. From Ridley Scott's direction, Harrison Ford's strong lead performance, the visuals- all in all, it offers a more memorable experience. Advantage- movie.
Doctor Sleep, by Stephen King/ directed by Mike Flanagan
Book- 2013, Movie- 2019
I remember the initial excitement of learning Stephen King wrote a sequel to The Shining. Doctor Sleep felt like a very different book compared to his original, but it offered a rousing adventure while exploring the character of Dan Torrance decades later. I had a blast reading the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. Mike Flanagan did a fantastic job with the movie adaptation. He changed quite a bit, but did it so that the movie serves as a sequel both to Stanley Kubrick's original, while also connecting to unused aspects of King's original novel, AND adaptating the book in question well. Flanagan did an impressive job, no doubt.
Conclusion: While both are so good, I have to give King the edge in this one. In some ways, it's a fitting revenge since Kubrick's film was better than his book. Advantage- book.
Dracula, by Bram Stoker/ directed by Francis Ford Coppola
Book- 1897, Movie- 1992
I had several film options to consider for Dracula. I could have went with Nosferatu, a fantastic silent film. I could have went with Univeral's 1931 Dracula, a very effective movie as well. However, I jumped ahead to 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula, one of the most faithful adaptations of the novel. It's a very effective film and a well-made one- it earned 3 Academy Awards. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and appreciated being able to see the story unfold, there's something chillingly impactful from Stoker's original work. When you think about how many movies were made from this novel, and how many of them are good/great, you know Stoker did somethign truly remarkable.
Conclusion: This is such a hard decision, but you have to consider how many Dracula movies emerged from Stoker's book. Just the three I mentioned- Nosferatu, Dracula, and Bram Stoker's Dracula are all entertaining, memorable movies. I don't have much choice- you have to applaud the book here. Advantage- book.
Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card/ directed by Gavin Hood
Book- 1985, Movie- 2013
Although I can't claim to have a lot of respect for Orson Scott Card as a human being, he wrote an incredible series of books. As of this writing, I've read 7 books in the Ender's Saga/Shadow Saga series. The characters, the writing, it's all terrific. While some of the later books are a bit repetitive and less effective than the earlier ones, the series stands as a classic in science fiction. The movie adaptation was good- it was faithful to the novel and it assembled a strong cast. Something was missing in Gavin Hood's adaptation, though. Card's books are brimming with intelligence- you follow these genius children as they work to outsmart each other, to rise to the top of a class full of the most brilliant strategic minds. And this is all done to defend the Earth from global decimation by an alien species. The book feels like it demands your all, and you start to think differently, more like Ender. The movie has none of that- it's a solid piece of entertaining, but it's not challenging in the least.
Conclusion: Ender's Game is a fantastic read and it takes you into the brilliant mind of Ender Wiggin. The movie is able to tell the story, to let you know what happens, but can't quite penetrate Ender's mind the way the book does. This is an easy call. Advantage- book.
Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton/ directed by John Madden
Book- 1911, Movie- 1993
This is an interesting one because I really enjoyed Edith Warton's novel. It depicts the lives of ordinary people, but there's enough drama and betrayal to keep you engaged. I really found myself sucked into the book and cared about the characters. It was a fun read, but one that also challenged your thinking. It's an excellent book and one I'd highly recommend. The movie was a big letdown. I really believe this is because what made the book so good isn't cinematic in the least. Wharton's story is engrossing to read and significantly less so to watch. The mediums of book and film are so different and while many stories and characters can make the leap, this is one instance where I just don't think it's possible.
Conclusion: The movie is decent, it's not like it's bad. However, it cannot hold a candle to the book. If you can only do one, you need to read Wharton's novel. Advantage- book.
For Whom the Bell Tolls, by Ernest Hemingway/ directed by Sam Wood
Book- 1940, Movie- 1943
I very much enjoyed Hemingway's novel, but I have to admit it was a bit of a slog to get through. The most compelling parts of the book are the slow emotional scenes between the main characters. Hemingway has time and room for those moments to breathe, to develop as needed. The movie doesn't have that luxury, and it suffers as a result. I also felt like the movie was miscast, although I read Hemingway himself was supportive of it. The movie was a big success- nominated for 9 Academy Awards. It's an effective, entertaining adapation- there's no doubt about it. The movie is good, but as you might expect, it can't compare to the novel. Hemingway's book is so effective because of its cerebral qualities and that doesn't translate effectively to the screen.
Conclusion: It's funny to see how many of these really great books also made effective movies. This is a really good one and you have to look at the movie as a success. However, if you're forcing yourself to compare two very different mediums, this is another one where the book has layers that the movie can't hope to replicate. Advantage- book.
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley/ directed by James Whale
Book- 1818, Movie- 1931
This is a fascinating one. Mary Shelley's horror story is intelligently written and thought provoking. There's a great deal of complexity and nuance to her characters. The "Frankenstein" that most people know today is the Monster, not its creator. There's significantly less nuance to the character than she originally intended. And yet, here's the thing- the Frankenstein's Monster that is so iconic is a result of the 1931 film. It's not a great adaptation of Shelley's work, but it's undeniable how influential the film was. The depiction of the monster, pushing boundaries of good taste (and blasphemy) at the time, it is a hugely influential and memorable movie. It's funny to see the differences between the book and the movie, and the respect you can have for both.
Conclusion: This might be controversial because Shelley's book is excellent, but the movie shaped the myth of Frankenstein's monster in ways the novel never did. It's a landmark film that is iconic and I believe it barely gets the nod over the admittedly strong book. Advantage- movie.
Get Shorty, by Elmore Leonard/ directed by Barry Sonnenfeld
Book- 1990, Movie- 1995
This is another tough choice for me, but not because I loved either the book, nor the movie. I liked them both, but never loved them. The book obviously goes into more detail with the characters and the story makes a little more sense with the additional time and focus. The movie's story feels too streamlined. The big difference is that the movie's cast is so strong. You have to focus mostly on John Travolta and his remarkably strong performance as Chili Palmer. Travolta takes the character from the book (who is strong, interesting) and creates this charismatic persona that is just dripping with coolness. That comes to life in such a vivid way, it's superior to the book. I liked Palmer when reading the book, but I loved the character when I saw Travolta play him. That's the big difference.
Conclusion: As mentioned, neither book nor movie are my favorite. I did enjoy both, however. In this case, the movie's coolness factor is what ultimately makes the decision. Advantage- movie.
The Girl Who Played With Fire, by Stieg Larsson/ directed by Daniel Alfredson
Book- 2006, Movie- 2009
I don't think I can truly explain how much I adored Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy. I got sucked down into this world. From the setting of Sweden to the brutality against women across the books, and most especially, the stunning characters of Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander, it was like nothing I had read previously. As much as I loved the first book, the second has a special place in my heart- it's likely my favorite. I loved the deeper exploration of Blomkvist and Salander. It was riveting stuff, written masterfully by Larsson. The movie is a really good adapation and Noomi Rapace was brilliantly cast as Lisbeth. However, there's really no comparison between the two.
Conclusion: In this case, the movie is good, but the book is fantastic. Larsson's exploration of these characters and his unflinching look at brutality simply couldn't be adapted to the screen effectively enough. Advantage- book.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, by Stieg Larsson/ directed by Niels Arden Oplev/ David Fincher
Book- 2005, Movies- 2009, 2011
In this case, I've read Stieg Larsson's fantastic book and I've seen both the original Swedish adaptation, as well as the American remake. I'm not going to spend too much time on the book- there's no doubt that Larsson's work of genius will always defy any attempt to adapt it. They certainly can (and have) worked, but to really appreciate the story and these characters, you have to read the book. In this case, I'll talk about the adaptations in more detail. The 2009 Swedish version is good- it introdcued Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander, and she's excellent in the role. There's no doubt hers is the definitive version of this unique character. However, there's also no comparison between the two films- David Fincher crafts a remarkable movie. His stylistic approach to the film was perfect and the American remake is far superior. It's wildly entertaining and memorable. Daniel Craig is a far, far better Blomkvist than Michel Nyqvist. I really loved Craig's performance. However, as good as Fincher's film is (and it's one of my favorites), the book still comes out on top.
Conclusion: Larsson's book is still one of the most thrilling I've read. I loved getting to know these characters and still feel shocked at some of the events depicted in those pages. I love Fincher's movie, but the book is still better in this case. Advantage- book.
The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck/ directed by John Ford
Book- 1939, Movie- 1940
The Grapes of Wrath is roundly touted as one of the greatest movies ever made. It won 2 Academy Awards and is often listed on the "best" movies lists. I liked the movie, but I have to admit, I wasn't swooning over this one. It was good, it was effective, it was a well-made adaptation of John Steinbeck's book. However, I never felt the emotional hit that many of the best movies leave you with. It was good, but I'd never put this on my favorite movies list. The book was certainly well written and while a bit of a slog to get through, it gives us a more well-rounded view of the Joad family. I liked the book a lot, but to be forthwright, I didn't love it, either.
Conclusion: This may be a movie I need to revisit at some point. I did like both the book and the movie, but here, I'd go with the book. Advantage- book.
Hamlet, by William Shakespeare/ directed by Laurence Olivier / Michael Almereyda
Book- 1939, Movies- 1948, 2000
I figured I might as well include both versions of Hamlet that I've seen. I was a big fan of William Shakespeare in college- I was an English major and I loved digging into Shakespeare's plays, working hard to make sense of them. "Hamlet" is one of the greatest literary works in human history. Hamlet's Soliloquoy is some of the best writing of all time. I still have most of it memorized- that's how much I loved it. The 1948 Laurence Olivier version is the most famous, as it won 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It's a really good movie. The 2000 "modern update" is okay, but not very inspired. Neither can hold a torch to the original, though.
Conclusion: Shakespeare isn't the most accessible author for today's audiences, but there is something supremely satisfying about working hard to decode the language and understand what he's saying. "Hamlet" is perhaps his best work, this is a clear winner. Advantage- play.
Hearts in Atlantis, by Stephen King/ directed by Scott Hicks
Book- 1999, Movie- 2001
This is a hard one to assess. The movie (which I really love) is based on one of the novellas in the Hearts in Atlantis book. This makes it difficult to compare the two, because it's not strictly a 1:1 comparison. You could compare the movie to the novella, "Low Men in Yellow Coats" as that's the direct source, but I'm going to look at the larger book, too. The problem here is that either way you look at it, these feel like very different works of art. The movie is a straightforward drama, and it's memorable, entertaining- all around, a truly effective movie. I enjoyed it a great deal. The book feels so different because while the story is the same, the book is very much connected to Stephen King's larger Dark Tower mythos. Reading the book within the context of the Dark Tower takes on a completely different meaning. I loved the book ecause of all those connections, what it meant within the larger context of King's magnum opus.
Conclusion: I can't clearly define a winner here. I loved the book because it connected so well to the Dark Tower, and the movie is an excellent drama. Both are worth your time. Advantage- both.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams/ directed by Garth Jennings
Book- 1979, Movie- 2005
In this case, I saw the movie first before reading the books. I enjoyed the movie- it was a little complicated to learn about all these characters, but it was funny and entertaining. A few years later, I read the first four of Douglas Adams' books while I was on my honeymoon (weird time to do it, but we had long flights to Asia). Adams' writing style was so readable and his ideas so big. The quirkiness of his books are fantastic. I had a blast reading the books.
Conclusion: Sometimes I worry that my preferences between books/movies are heavily influenced by which I experienced first. That's not the case here, as the book does things the movie just can't do. Advantage- book.
The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien/ directed by Peter Jackson
Book- 1937, Movies- 2012, 2013, 2014
I read Tolkien's The Hobbit many years ago, but I remember enjoying the literary adventure. It was a good book and although I was probably too young to read it at the time, it stuck with me. I was ecstatic when Peter Jackson decided to do the film adaptation and troubled when he divided the book into a trilogy. The fact of the matter is that the story isn't robust enough to spread across three movies. This hurts the trilogy significantly. Jackson is a great filmmaker and was able to do some wonderful things across these films, but the story is clearly stretched too far.
Conclusion: This should have been 1 film, 2 max. Making this a trilogy doesn't do anyone any favors. Advantage- book.
The Hours, by Michael Cunningham/ directed by Stephen Daldry
Book- 1998, Movie- 2002
Honestly, I can't say I really loved either of these. I saw the movie first and it was fine, if unmemorable. It did feature some strong performances, although Nicole Kidman's prosthetic nose got most of the attention. I read the book a few years later and it was basically the same- it was perfectly fine, but perfectly ordinary. I didn't love it, didn't hate it.
Conclusion: I actually believe the cast is the diffrence here. Seeing Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Meryl Streep separates the film just a bit from the words on the page. Advantage- movie.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire / Catching Fire, by Suzanne Collins/ directed by Francis Lawrence
Book- 2009, Movie- 2013
I'm pretty surprised that I enjoyed Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games books as much as I did. I might not have been the primary demographic, but it was hard to put the first book down. The same could be said for the sequel. I was a big fan of Catching Fire. It continued the story of Katniss and Peeta, delivered more exciting thrills, and further opened up the world of Panem. The movies were good, too. They followed the books faithfully enough and were entertaining. Francis Lawrence did a good job with this film and it felt like the franchise was proceeding strongly. Collins had a way of crafting characters and putting them into fascinating situations that drew you into the pages. That was replicated on screen, but not quite effectively enough.
Conclusion: This is an entertaining, fun movie, but it's not nearly as good as the book. The novel was much more of a page-turner and while the movie has some of that intensity, you should still choose the book. Advantage- book.
The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien / directed by Peter Jackson
Books- 1954-1955, Movies- 2001, 2002, 2003
I know there's three books/movies here, but I feel the same way about them as a whole, so I'm going to do one review instead of three. There's not enough nuance to divide them out. I did this in reverse of the typical order- I saw all three movies first, and then later read the books. I'm actually really glad I did it this way. The Lord of Rings trilogy is one of the greatest of all time and movies I absolutely loved. It was great fun going back and reading the books after seeing the movies, because it expanded on the themes and characters with which I was familiar. There's something great about doing the book before the movie and that was the case here. The movies are fantastic because of the visuals, the emotional connection you feel with the characters. Tolkien did an impressive amount of world-building in his novels, though. As long as the movies are, they still can't get to the detailed level of the books.
Conclusion: This is a case where the movies and the books are both excellent. Neither has a clear advantage here, as both leverage the strengths of their mediums effectively. I'd highly recommend both. Advantage- both.
The Remains of the Day, by Kazuo Ishiguro/ directed by James Ivory
Book- 1989, Movie- 1993
I absolutely loved Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day. We're introduced to the character of Stevens and brought into his English manor world. This is one where self-sacrifice, blind loyalty, and the utmost professionalism at all times, no matter the cost, are the tenets of success. Ishiguro slowly allows us to more and more deeply understand Stevens' worldview, before he delivers the crushing blow. There's a moment in the book that absolutely gutted me, where you realize how Stevens' upbringing, everything he believes to be true, makes him a great butler, and prevents him from living a fully human life. It's beautiful and heartbreaking in a way that few books ever are. James Ivory's film is really effective, though. Anthony Hopkins is perfect as Stevens and Emma Thompson adds a terrific performance, too. The film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards.
Conclusion: I enjoyed the movie, but I was devastated by the book. The movie does a good job of telling this story, but you really need to see into Stevens' head for the story to have maximum effect. Advantage- book.
The Road, by Cormac McCarthy / directed by John Hillcoat
Book- 2006, Movie- 2009
Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel is one of my all time favorite books. I was enthralled by his writing and the story of this father, protecting his son at all costs. I'm not ashamed to admit I bawled in an airport while reading this book. McCarthy writes something truly beautiful that perfectly captures the best of fatherhood. John Hillcoat directs a great movie, but one that barely reaches the level of "greatness". A few changes he made from McCarthy's book (most noteably answering the question of "What is the fire?" way too early) significantly hurts the effectiveness of the film. As this is one of my top 5-10 favorites books ever, I hoped the movie would be better.
Conclusion: The movie might be great, but it feels worlds away from the spectacular novel. There's no doubt that McCarthy's novel is far better than the movie. Both are so good, but if you had to choose one, it's obvious in this case. Advantage- book.
The Shining, by Stephen King/ directed by Stanley Kubrick
Book- 1977, Movie- 1980
Stephen King famously dislikes Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation, but this is one where the king of horror has it wrong. His book is excellent and the ideas behind it are superb, but Kubrick takes those themes and transforms them into one of the all-time great horror movies. You feel the dread differently in the movie. The visuals, the performance of Jack Nicholson, it all comes together in a brilliant, unforgettable way. The book is good, too- make no mistake. While the book hits you more intellectually, the movie gets to a deeper emotional level.
Conclusion: Another case of both mediums being excellent, but but the movie creates a more visceral, memorable experience. Advantage- movie.
2001: A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke/ directed by Stanley Kubrick
Book- 1968, Movie- 1968
This one is fairly interesting, because the book was developed concurrently with the movie. The novel was released after the film, and Arthur C. Clarke was intimately involved with the movie. So, there's not the question of the movie being faithful to the book, as the opposite is true here. While Clarke's book is a good read and worth doing, there's no doubt that the movie takes primacy here. Kubrick's film is one of the all-time great movies. "Hal" and the stunning conclusion to the film are far more memorable than how Clarke writes about the same events. There's a poetry and imagery in the movie that causes it to be beautiful, while the novel feels more scientific.
Conclusion: While I enjoyed the novelization of the movie and would recommend it for more details, this is a case where the visuals and the mystery of the movie far outweigh the scientific prose of the book. Advantage- movie.