Can you name any movie that was as good as the book it was based on?

Back in like 1996, I went to this library book sale and bought a few old paperbacks for like .50 cents each. I read this one that was written way back in like 1980 by Robert Ludlum called "The Bourne Identity". I had never heard of the book, and there had never been a movie based on it. So I read it and it was a great book! It was one of those novels that keep you riveted to the pages, and you end up spending too much time on it and therefore you finish it quickly.

Then about 8 years later, completely out of the blue, Hollywood makes a movie based on The Bourne Identity. Dont know why it took 24 years to make it into a movie, but it happened. I am not a big fan of Matt Damon and although he does a pretty good job in some roles, I couldnt see him being cast as the novel ideal of Jason Bourne. Sure enough, it was not nearly as good as the book, Matt Damon seemed out of his league, and I thought he should stick to playing clean cut bankers or family men, not hard core butt-kicking special forces spy types.

But then they made the Bourne Ultimatum, the next in the series, and I thought Matt Damon did a good job this time. He still isnt the perfect Jason Bourne, but he was pretty good in the sequel. Also, more to the OP point, that movie was close to being as good as the book, unlike the first installment.

At about that same time, I read another book I picked up at that same book sale, which was a more abstract novel by Stephen King called "The Dark Half". It was written as a response to it being discovered that Steven King was in fact ghost writing under the name Richard Bachman. It was a good book, and it kept me interested til the end. It was slightly comedic like some Stephen King novels tend to be, and it was a bit cheesy at times, but still good. Then to my surprise, they made a movie out of The dark Half! It wasnt very good, and didnt capture the fear of the book.

I've read quite a few books from the authors David Poyer and Patrick Robinson, who write mostly naval and military intrigue novels, and I can promise you that almost none of them will be made into movies any time soon.... Not that they were bad, just that the subject matter might not be so popular and they arent so well known as authors.

So I cant think of any movies off hand that were as good as the novel. Can you name any movies that were as good as the book(s) they were based on?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is probably the standard for a movie matching a book, and that's because it doesn't deviate; you can tell plainly that the book is the script, and nothing was added or lost in translation.

Fight Club makes an alteration here and there, but the movie's so beautifully done you don't notice..

Although not point-for-point identical of course, I felt that LOTR did a rather good job overall, especially given what must have been the many challenges in adapting these books to screen :thumbsup:

Fire In The Sky and Into The Wild.............

The film version of No Country For Old Men was an amazing adaptation of the book. The plot was altered somewhat, but the overall feel - especially the characters - was well maintained.

The Hunt for Red October was an excellent movie and very true to the book.

The Man Who Would Be King

The short story by Kipling is 150% worth reading; it will dazzle you in just a few moments of your time.

Full text here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8147

The movie with Michael Caine and Sean Connery and whomever plays Billy Fish, fills out the framework of the short story with the images Kipling didn't have time to pen...

The movie is really like a full-spectrum version of the short story, watch it after reading and you will have dreams about British Kafiristan...

Bridges of Madison County, movie was much better than the book. That's the way I saw it.
p
~ Chance

No, the book leaves the imagination active while a film gives a definitive visual view.

For me the film that was as good as and most true to the original was Sophie's Choice. The original work by William Styron is a lengthy, complex novel and it was translated masterfully by Alan J. Pakula who wrote the screenplay and directed. In fact, the screenplay was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium. Meryl Streep's astonishing performance won her the Academy Award for Best Actress and according to Wikipedia her performance is "considered among the best performances in the history of film". This comes as no surprise to anyone who has both read the novel and seen the film as she absolutely became the living embodiment of the character of Sophie from the book. Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol weren't too shabby either in their roles as Stingo and Nathan. I remember being almost reluctant to see the film some thirty years ago because I didn't think there was any way that a film version could do justice to Styron's writing in terms of detail, style, tone, sense of place and emotional nuance but came out of the theater just blown away that this WAS indeed the novel on film, masterfully realized.

Sophie's Choice, I still haven't forgiven the person who told me I had to see it. The film broke my heart.
p
~ Chance :mecry:

The Bridge on the River Kwai was better as a movie.

Princess Bride was a great movie, and, I thought a better version than the book.

idleprocess said:

The film version of No Country For Old Men was an amazing adaptation of the book. The plot was altered somewhat, but the overall feel - especially the characters - was well maintained.

Click to expand...

I concur. I saw the movie first, then picked up the book in hopes that it would have more detail. I came away very impressed with how well they did the movie.