"In her shoes" is a good adaptation, although it differs from the book in certain aspects. So is "The Green Mile" by Stephen King. But it is difficult to bring out the book and the author's imagination to celluloid, although Jurassic Park is a wonderful adaptation.
This classic book by Chuck Palahniuk was far better then the movie. Not to take anything away from movie, it was indeed well directed and acted superbly by brad pitt. The way in which author sets the context and explains wats going inside the complex brain of the protagonist, it just takes the reader to a whole new world and this stimuli one can never feel while watching the movie.
The Devil Wears Prada? The book was tiresome, and the movie had nothing of the spirit of the book. Which may have been a good thing, when one comes to think of it...
Meryl Streep, though one of my favourite actresses, was not the boss from hell, rather, we kind of pitied her at the end...
It actually depends on the film maker's vision as to how he sees and conceptualises things. Characters or settings which have a particular impressions on our minds, and look completely out of sorts in the movie, are a result of bad vision on the director's part. As far as capturing the subject matter is concerned, cinema makers do have to take the liberty to concise a 400-800 page book to a 3 hour celluloid dream. And as far as potrayal is concerned... it depends on the actor's sincerity and depth behind playing a fictional character, which might have been popular earlier, and he/she has to live upto huge expectations.
I havent come across a worser adptation of a novel to a movie than Da Vinci Code. I strongly believe the only people who have liked this movie are the ones who havent read the book, having no story to compare it to, nothing must have felt missing or incomplete.
Despite the weak script, Ron Howard tries his best to give us an appealing movie. The locations are beautiful. Paris and London have rarely looked so good on film. It's obvious that money was thrown at scene after scene to make it all look great. But this isn't a travelogue. Thus, what we're left with is little more than a European version of 2004's "National Treasure", with its pseudo-history and conspiracy theories. No real justice done to the book.
reading a book and watching it on celluloid are completely different experiences,and hence,usually,modifications need to be made while adapting a book to screen.godfather,though a brilliant movie,did feel sluggish at parts.on the other hand we have chris nolans memento(adapted from his brothers novel memento mori)which changed the plot to a large extent(the conclusions to the celluloid version and the novels are completely different)and i dare say,worked wonders for the plot.the same for chris nolans 'th prestige'(adapted fron priests book by the same name).however,sadly,literary adaptations are a rarity in bollywood(sadly) with vishal bharadwaj being the only notable exception.wish the bollywood directors adapted more literary works.that might just bring a bit more variety into bollywood movies.
RE:Book to Film adaptation
by Asheesh on Jul 09, 2008 06:19 PM
I agree with you.. Watch Godfather, its great.. Acting of Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone is one of the most suitable role of a character for an actor. Just an excellence of a movie....
