Little Women (2019)
What, you ask, are these? Movie adaptations that are better–in some cases, much better–than the books they are inspired by. Agree? Disagree? What would you add to the list?
Similar Posts
Over the Big Mis
Last night my mom and I watched the 1995 rom com While You Were Sleeping and…. well, let’s just say it was not for us. (My mom, every 15 fifteen minutes: This makes no sense.)Ā What we disliked the most about it–and there is a list–is its premise. None of the film would have been necessary–and…
What to watch after The Lost City?
Dr. Feelgood and I (finally) watched The Lost City (6.1 rating at IMDB) and enjoyed it. I, of course, beamed through all the love for romance novels. If you’ve not seen it, Sandra Bullock stars as Loretta Sage, a romance novelist who has lost her mojo–she’s the author of a wildly popular series featuring…
Has anyone watched any of the films nominated for Best Picture?
The Oscar 2022 Nominations for Best Picture are: Belfast CODA Don’t Look Up Drive My Car Dune King Richard Licorice Pizza Nightmare Alley The Power of the Dog West Side Story
The mini-series based on Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South streamlined the overly sentimental, sometimes melodramic writing common to early Victorian authors.It’s stronger for the judicious editing and the acting is excellent. Don’t get me wrong, the book is very good, especially on audio. Gaskell’s writing is lovely, if wordy. But the miniseries is more powerful in someways. The adaptation of Gaskell’s Wives and Daughters is also excellent.
I also love the movie version of Howl’s Moving Castle as much as the book. They are a little different, but the heart of Diana Wynn Jone’s book shines through the lovely animation of the movie.
I agree re Gaskell and think that TV adaptations of Dickens generally are a lot more digestible than the books – the BBC has done many excellent versions over the years. Same with Shakespeare. I live a 30 minute drive from Stratford upon Avon with the full glory of all of the Shakespearian stuff yet I can’t bear to read it or watch it unless it’s been honed a bit for more modern English usage. Heretical for sure, some will say, but adaptations that are either trimmed down or made a bit more understandable are far more attractive for me. Same goes for the King James Bible. Many think it’s the most linguistically beautiful version of all (possibly) but when I have to do readings in church, I use the New International Version because the language is more approachable for me to read aloud and for listeners to clearly understand.
I agree! Gaskell, Shakespeare, Dickens are all a little wordy and a good adaptation can really work for me, but it has to be good! Another classic is Middlemarch, which is great but super dense with a lot of people, political and social commentary, etc. The miniseries is not better than the book, but it is more digestible. If you have a hankering to read the book, it would be helpful to watch the miniseries first.
I do think the Poldark TV series is much better than the books, especially the early seasons. Aidan Turner, galloping along the gorgeous Cornwall coastlineā¦.
Agree re Poldark but as much as I lust after Sam Heughan, sword drawn, bare-chested in a kilt, the books are, for me, unsurpassable.
I have to disagree regarding Poldark. I’ve seen the 1970s miniseries, the latest Aiden Turner one, and I’ve read the first seven books and I have to say the books are much better at capturing the Poldark world, the community, and the supporting characters which enriches the story. It’s understandable that neither miniseries could do that, although, for me, the 1970s one did it better. However, the books are the best of all.
Bridget Jones’s Diary was SO MUCH BETTER as a movie.
Totes agree!
This, times a thousand, Caroline. I actually disliked the book (main character came across as so self-absorbed) and I almost wouldn’t go to see the movie as a result. But the movie worked for me.
Iāve seen all those movies and read the books for all but the last two (The Notebook and Stardust). Although they were all good books, Iād say the movie was much better than the book for all of them except Little Women. For some reason, Iāve never really liked any movie version of Little Women but I fondly remember reading the book as a young teenager and loving it. I also read and loved the sequels, Little Men and Joās Boys.
Some of the best movies Iāve ever seen were based on some mediocre books. And some of the best books have been turned into some terrible movies. I usually try to avoid reading a book if I know that a movie version is in the works, and if I really like the movie then Iāll get the book. Iām keeping my fingers crossed that Scorseseās upcoming movie, Killers of the Flower Moon, is as good as or better than the book.
Martin Scorceseās adaptation of The Age of Innocence was excellent too. Using Joanne Woodward as voice over to convey Newlandās interiority was brilliant. I have a feeling Scorcese will do equal justice to Flower Moon. His film Silence based on a Japanese novel was very moving and powerful. The only time he failed was in the Last Temptation of Christ, a film adaptation of Niko Kazantzakisās novel.
The first four yes, the last two I haven’t seen, but I agree with KarenG ā none of the film versions are as good as the Little Women book. Of course, that may be because I read the book (and all the sequels) when I was 12 and I suspect no movie ever lives up to the experience of a beloved book at age 12. I did, however, like Gabriel Byrne as Professor Baer. He made Jo’s choice much more understandable!
I’d add that in general, movies do better with things like swashbucklers or films they don’t pay too much attention to the book, like The Thin Man.
The Thirty-Nine Steps (1935 version) was also better than the book.
Iāve read and enjoyed a few Rafael Sabatini swashbucklers (Scaramouche, Captain Blood), and they were made into some gorgeous technicolor movies. Most movies based on books take a lot of liberties with the story, which is one reason I try to see the movie first before I read the book. But I agree, that swashbucklers, mysteries, thrillers, etc., tend to have better movie adaptations than more literary novels.
Sorry, Captain Blood was in BW, not technicolor. But Erroll Flynn was at his swooniest in this movie.
I hope all of you who have seen these swashbucklers have seen my favorite: “The Sea Hawk.” (And let me tell you: like “Captain Blood,” it’s soooo much better than the book.)
TCM plays it a couple times a year. Good movie. Love a good swashbuckler.
Very rarely do I try both. For those I have Starship Troopers the movie is noticeably better than the book and I haven’t touched my very tattered copy of Lord of the Rings since the movies came out (Yes, I am old. No need to make a big deal about it. š )
Tolkien’s world was Jackson’s gorgeous canvas. I’ll never read those books now!
I preferred the book on both, and that’s coming from someone who watches Jackson’s extended edition movies probably three or four times per year. I love the films (especially the Hobbit trilogy), but the book is excellent, with a lot more nuance. I will always resent that there was no time to show Faramir and Eomer fall in love, as both deeply deserved that HEA.
I think I’m with you Maggie. But you mean Eowyn (Lady of Rohan) and Faramir’s relationship, not Eomer (Leader of the Riders of Rohan), correct? Or maybe I need to reread the books again – it’s been a while. š
I love the films but am always bummed about the general lack of Eowyn’s role/contributions when I watch the films.
Sorry, yes.(Smacks palm to forehead) Where was my head? It’s Eowyn, Lady of Rohan. Not the Captain of the Rohirrim, Eomer. I did like the few bits in the films Eowyn had and think the actress did a great job with the role she was given. But I agree it was too little. I really like the Faramir character as well and felt he could have used more screen time also.
I hate how the movie changed Faramir’s character. He never thought about taking the ring in the books. It completely changed how the viewer sees him.
If I ever pick up the books again Faramir will the THE reason that I do so. He was my favourite in them and, of course, underdone in the movies.
When it comes to LOTR, I think it would be a real shame if people didn’t read the book and only watched the movies. Yes, the books are long and wordy, but it’s some of the most beautiful language and descriptions in literature, and filled with absolute genius. I can absolutely see going back to the movies over and over, I have watched them several times. But I would have been much poorer for the experience, imo, if I hadn’t read the books as well. Plus the Appendixes flesh out so much in the story.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Does happy dance. The appendixes are so crucial in LOTR. I love how they explained that Faramir, not Boromir had the support of the people. It was only his father who adored Boromir. I do wish Jackson had done more with the Faramir character. Also, in Two Towers book the battle is two pages long but it takes up almost the whole movie. A lot that happens in the book is simply missing, so if you don’t read it the experience, IMO, is lessened.
I put the movies on not long ago because I hadn’t seen them in a while. I have to say I was surprised to find myself bored by all the non-stop violence. As you point out, The Two Towers is a full-length novel, and a lot more than fighting happens in it but you wouldn’t know that by watching the movie(s). It was just too much.
I hope you have also read The Silmarillion. It was my favourite book at one stage.
Yes and I’m also watching Rings of Power, although the difference in storyline makes it like the two aren’t related at all.
I suggest that those who love Tolkien avoid RoP. That certainly wasn’t the glorious Numenor filled with the greatest of men that Tolkien created.
I actually like RoP but view it as separate to Tolkien. It doesn’t really take place in the same world — or at least not in the Middle Earth most of us know and love. Watching it as its own thing makes it enjoyable.
I actually haven’t, but was just looking at our copy today thinking it’s past time I did. š
Be prepared for MAGNIFICENCEā¦ both good and bad.
Your heart will soar, and plummet.
I love the Hobbit book but I’ve tried the LotR books several times but I can’t get past them walking in the grass, the grass is green, let’s sing about how green the grass is and onwards. So while I appreciate how everyone loves it, for me the movie is WAY better and gets rid of alot of the stuff that bores me in the books.
“co-sign”
The books got rid of Tom Bombardilā¦ Greatest. Editorial. Decision. Ever!
Useless bloody yellow booted rhyming bastard.
LOTR: I had never heard of the story and loved the first movie when it came out so much that I bought the books. Surprisingly, I adored the books. Gorgeous language, though I did skip some pages when there was too much rambling going onā¦ By the time the second movie came out I had read the trilogy (and liked it a lot) and was disappointed by the character changes to Eowyn as well as all the extended violence, and the third movie was just one long blood bath to me. I never rewatch those two, only the first one and I fast-forward thru its battle scenes,
In the books I think Frodo and Sam’s time with Faramir is as magical as the time in The Shire but the movies don’t capture that.
I’m torn regarding the Godfather. Al Pacino and Marlon Brando (the whole cast, really) did such a good job of capturing the characters, and the director did a fabulous job with the setting/plot that these films truly are masterpieces. However, Kay Adams (Diane Keaton’s character) lost some of the nuances of what made her believable and sympathetic in the transference to film, as did the character of Sunny (who was still a jerk in the book but one with more depth.) For all others listed (except Stardust, which I haven’t read), I’m old school and prefer the book to the movie. š
I have to say, you are the only person I know who thinks that about The Godfather. Interesting. I did love how it showed up in Barbie. SO BELIEVABLE.
“After Issa Raeās President Barbie has been deprogrammed and deployed as the next Barbie decoy, she uses the most surefire distraction tactic: telling one of the Kens sheās never seen The Godfather beforeāand she goes the extra mile by pronouncing it God-FATHER, like sheās never even heard the word spoken out loud before. And no Criterion Collection guy could let that slide. Ken quickly corrects her pronunciation, tells her that The Godfather is āa rich blend of Coppolaās aesthetic genius combined with Robert Evans and the architecture of the ā70s studio systemāāinformation he has no idea she has any context forāand vows to start the movie over and talk through the entire thing, all for her enhanced enjoyment of The Godfather.”
Haven’t seen Barbie yet, but this sounds pretty fun. I loved how they used The Godfather in You’ve Got Mail (Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan) I’m skeptical as to how many people have actually read Puzo’s Godfather to compare it to the film. My understanding is that he wrote both, which is probably what makes the movie so good. Saying which is better is hard, but Kay’s character is definitely different between the movie and film, and the storyline with Constanza, her husband, and Sunny is also less nuanced. Sunny himself is a bit short-changed as are many of the secondary characters who play a role in movies 2 and 3. Which isn’t to say much because again, the movies are great. But the books have their charm, too.
I read it but all I remember is the sex…. I think I was 13.
I read The Godfather – although it’s been a few years – and was surprised at how clunky the prose was. My memory is that the movie and book are very similar in terms of plot details.
When the book came out, I couldn’t put it down. I teach a movie course and just did “The Godfather” which holds up very, very well, as does “Godfather II.” It’s amazing to me how books and movies can make us love monsters.
Gone With the Wind has no place on this list: A virulent racist treatise and an unapologetic defender of slavery should not be given any artistic merit.
John Grishamās three novels into movies (The Firm, Pelican Brief and The Client) were far more entertaining and gripping than the novels. His A Time to Kill novel and the film were equally good in different ways.
Movie adaptations always outshine novels (especially if the novels are plodding to begin with) when you have charismatic actors playing the part: Tom Cruise, Denzel Washington-Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon, Matthew McConaughey!!!
LA Confidential is a great movie as it really streamlines the book which has way too many characters. Also Last of the Mohicans movie is amazing and the book is, well, the polite terms is problematic I believe.
The Bourne Idenity is a much better movie than book, love those movies.
Jurassic Park: I have come to love the movie. It is paced well, the story is tight, and it is great entertainment. I do love the book and have reread it many times. Michael Crichton knew how to write a great thriller!
Andromeda Strain is a wonderful book, the movie was good.
Jaws: After watching it the third time I was curious about the book it was based on and was baffled by the differences between both. I like the movie better than the book but honestly, I think it is simply because I saw the movie first and read the book second. I often find that whichever medium I experienced first is the one I end up liking better.
Jurassic Park
Fight Club
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
To All the Boys I Loved Before (I really didn’t like Lara Jean much in the book)