Rarities: 7 novel-to-film adaptations that are BETTER than their source material and why.
When adapting a novel for the big screen, it is very rare that one can manage to make a film that actually improves upon its source material - if it even manages to live up to its source material in the first place. That said when this extremely rare breed appears, it deserves some attention. Here are 5 films based on books that I feel are BETTER than their source material - and why.
List activity
1K views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
7 titles
- DirectorMilos FormanStarsJack NicholsonLouise FletcherMichael BerrymanIn the Fall of 1963, a Korean War veteran and criminal pleads insanity and is admitted to a mental institution, where he rallies up the scared patients against the tyrannical nurse.Despite the fact that I feel that Ken Kesey's original novel is quite underrated and deserves more attention than it is given, there is no denying that this wonderful film managed to improve on the novel in more ways than one. The book had some moments that felt weird simply for the sake of weird, and it was also a bit exaggerated at times. The film is much more focused and more realistic, not to mention more dramatic than the novel. I also feel that it was smart of the screenwriters to save the fact that Bromden was only faking his deaf/mute nature for the end of the film, whereas it is revealed on the first page of the book.
It is also an example of a film where the characters are improved upon through the sheer power of the performances given by their actors. Arguably the best example here is Louise Fletcher as nurse Ratched. Ratched had her moments in the book - but it was Fletcher who turned her into the insidious bitch that we all know and fear. I also feel this is Jack Nicholson's finest role, and he does an absolutely fantastic job bringing Randle Patrick McMurphy to life. - DirectorFranklin J. SchaffnerStarsCharlton HestonRoddy McDowallKim HunterAn astronaut crew crash-lands on a planet where highly intelligent non-human ape species are dominant and humans are enslaved.Planet of the Apes is one of the most universally recognized and beloved sci-fi films ever made - especially for its iconic twist ending. That is actually one of the reasons I feel the film is better than the novel, even author Pierre Boulle admitted that he wished he had thought of the films ending.
The other reasons mainly stem from the fact that the film is a bit smarter, honestly. Tim Burton's remake is actually closer, and some of the over the top things that many attribute to Burton were actually from the original print. The book is still superior to that awful flick though and is worth a read, but it is definitely sloppy at times. - 19641h 35mPG8.4 (519K)97MetascoreDirectorStanley KubrickStarsPeter SellersGeorge C. ScottSterling HaydenAn unhinged American general orders a bombing attack on the Soviet Union, triggering a path to nuclear holocaust that a war room full of politicians and generals frantically tries to stop.One of the best films of all time, and a strong bitter satire. Would you believe it that the novel it is loosely based upon - "Red Alert" - is a tepid cold war drama? The movie definitely differs greatly and it is a stretch to have it on this list, but I still feel like it deserves this list. The novel DOES keep the basic concept of the novel - a crazy general launches a nuclear strike on the USSR and holes himself up in his Texas headquarters, and the book follows the struggle of Russian and US diplomats to try and cancel the bombing.
Yet the book has none of the biting satire, no interesting characters, and all comes off as lukewarm and contrived. I can't really recommend it. - DirectorStanley KubrickStarsMalcolm McDowellPatrick MageeMichael BatesIn the future, a sadistic gang leader is imprisoned and volunteers for a conduct-aversion experiment, but it doesn't go as planned.This one comes VERY close - as there are things about the novel that are still, in some ways, better and I absolutely love the book. However there is one reason that I feel the movie excels: Malcolm McDowell. Yet another example of how a truly great actor can improve a character with a strong enough performance. McDowell's portrayal of Alex is legendary, and he puts so much energy and style into the role.
Last year, my wife & I went to a special screening of the film where McDowell appeared and after the show, he did a Q&A session with the audience where we learned that Malcolm actually did a fair amount of Ad Libbing, and in my mind - that only makes me respect his performance even more. - DirectorStanley KubrickStarsJack NicholsonShelley DuvallDanny LloydA family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter where a sinister presence influences the father into violence, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from both past and future.This is the LAST Kubrick, I promise. I am a huge Stephen King fan, and in my eyes the novel "The Shining" and the movie are truly two different stories about two different things. The novel is about a boy who learns that he has psychic powers, whereas the film is about a writer who loses his mind and enacts his madness upon his family.
While the novel is an excellent book, the movie just comes off as... smarter. There's a bit more character study happening in the film, and it is much more believable to me. However the most important aspect is the horror itself. The novel is chilling, to be sure - but is it as terrifying as the movie? No. That is the movies trump card - it is genuinely terrifying. - DirectorRon HowardStarsTom HanksAudrey TautouJean RenoA murder inside the Louvre, and clues in Da Vinci paintings, lead to the discovery of a religious mystery protected by a secret society for two thousand years, which could shake the foundations of Christianity.I actually enjoyed this movie. However, I was quite mixed on the book. The film actually sticks fairly close to the book - but the movie wins out for one reason: The book was very poorly written. Dan Brown isn't a particularly talented writer, and there were so many grammatical mistakes in the book it was embarrassing and it also suffered greatly from diarrhea of the word processor, wasting time on scenes with no point and boring the reader.
The movie manages to take what made the book intriguing (The idea and story itself) and manages to remove the awful writing mistakes Brown made in the book; hence, a superior film. - DirectorFrank DarabontStarsThomas JaneMarcia Gay HardenLaurie HoldenA freak storm unleashes a species of bloodthirsty creatures on a small town, where a small band of citizens hole up in a supermarket and fight for their lives.Once again - I am a huge King fan and his novella "The Mist" is a great piece of fiction. However, the film manages to improve upon it - most notably due to the ending of the film. The novella had a rather vague ending, leaving the survivors stuck in a different building and accepting that they would most likely never find help. The ending to the film however was far more brave, far more bold, and most importantly: Far more terrifying. The ending supplied in the film was downright bone chilling.
It also deserves credit for being one of very few Stephen King horror stories to work on screen. Most adaptations based on his horror novels turn out as god awful B-Movies, yet The Mist was handled well and turned into something great. I figure we should thank director Frank Darabont for that, as he directed two other wonderful King adaptations (The Green Mile, Shawshank Redemption) and it's clear that his talents extended to making this film.