What book turned movie is the best/worst in your opinion?

I just saw "Eat, Pray, Love" with Julia Roberts. The movie is so well done and follows the book almost exactly! As far as movies that don't follow the book--- almost all of Stephen King's books are dissapointing as movies. Only exception would be The Stand. That was well done... I agree with you about "Angels and Demons." The book was excellent, the movie not quite as good, but still much better than "The Davinci Code." "Forrest Gump" was an excellent movie --- a real classic. But it was nothing at all like the book.....

I think that the best book to movie adaptation to me is Anne Rice's "Interview With A Vampire." Now the worst is another Anne Rice adaptation and that is "Queen of the Damned."

Drawing a blank on worst right now. As for best, I think The Princess Bride is one of the best. Most of the changes from the book are trimming characters down and giving some dialogue to others. And some scenes that take place in the book are compressed to one character explaining what happened to another. Like instead of showing what happens in the childhood of a character, which they do in the book, the movie has the adult character tell the story to another one. But, there aren't any actual changes to what happens. Some things are taken out, but everything that's in the movie is in the book in some form. I would say this is most likely because the same man who wrote the book wrote the screenplay for the film.

The one movie I absolutely HATED when compared with the book was Eragon. It was a horrible representation of a very good book. On the other hand, I enjoy the Harry Potter movies. They are not nearly as good as the books, but I understand why they left certain parts out. They are at least better than the movie mentioned above. Nights in Rodanthe was a good book and a good movie. Nicholas Sparks' books usually have good movie adaptions.

I'm an avid reader and a movie lover... so I can really talk for hours about book to film adaptations. I think the best adaptations stay true to the nature of the characters and don't deviate too much from the plot of the book. I don't really mind if a few details get left out or a few changes have to be made in order for the adaptation to better fit the format. I don't mind if the characters don't look anything like I'd pictured them or if the sets don't look like I pictured them. Everyone has a different vision of the book. They can't please everybody! But since I think books are better than movies period, then I usually think the book is better than the movie... no matter how good of an adaptation it is. My favorite book turned movies are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Holes, City of Ember, and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. The worst adaptations I've seen have been Ella Enchanted, Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief, Eragon, and Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.

Alice in Wonderland was ABYSMAL! I can't believe I wasted a couple of hours of my life on that garbage. Mr. Carroll was rolling in his grave, I do not doubt! Can you tell that I mildly disliked that movie?

Best for me was the "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World", this was very much like the graphic novels and the characters were perfect. The worst for me was "Twilight". Even though the film was shot beautifully, if anyone has read the books, the books are far more cheesier than the movies.

Here is one of my favorites. The book was good, and the movie was excellent to. And, that is Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karinina". It is so interesting to read the story. Leo Tolstoy's books are really literatures, enchanting historical stories. The movie was also well-cast and perfectly directed. I became pretty much addicted to it, and I watched the movie twice.

that is hard to say. it seems like many times movies leave out many of the scenes and thoughts of the characters that the book has in them. I just saw 'Eat, Pray, Love after reading the book, and I thought it was good, but had no where near the detail of the book.

well harry potter,jurassic park and lord f the rings are my favourites.do you watch bollywood movies?i would suggest you to watch 3idiots movie starring amir khan and is based on book 5point someone written by chetan bhagat.

Harry Potter series is rocking in both the paper and also in the screen!! I like both the versions, whilst in movies a little information is being skipped, but u get the complete message.. Angels and Demons are in appropriate for movie version, the book has a lengthy version, movie got struck and they missed many important facts!! however they tried to convey, still i don't get ot alongside with the book!!

well i also loved interview with the vampire. but i havent seen any recent ones that is a book turned movie.

I've read a lot of books turned into a motion picture.. I've read the Harry Potter Series and watched all of the movies.., So far all of the movies were good but there are certain scenes mentioned in the book that was omitted in the movie.., same as the Twilight saga.., I love the details in the books but some scenes were modified in the movie.., i wouldn't say it was the worst because.., it's still good.. and I love the casts..=)

Harry Potter books are way better than the movie adaptation.Twilight books have interesting characters and plot but it wasnt well written.full of inconsistencies and unnecessary side story. The movies and books are both mediocre.

I really loved Gone with the Wind. It was an old movie and I was a kid when I first saw it, but I think that the actors were great and the movie was perfect. Just like I imagined Scarlet O'Hara when I was reading the book.

The last couple of Harry Potter seemed to be a bit lackluster in my opinion. There is a case of fitting books that have lots of information that you need to understand the story, into a two and a half, three hour, whatever movie. I always thought that the Potter series was one of those books that would be an ill fit for a movie. There are points where if I never read the books, I would be lost. Of course, rarely is there a time where the movie is better than the book. Books are good for their medium and movies are good for their medium I think. There is some crossover in some cases, but there are a lot of times where the mediums just fall flat. For instance, putting an exciting action movie in print would fall flat, especially if it relies on the visual. Unless it was the greatest writer in the world, it would fall flat. I don't think that I have ever seen a movie that I thought was better than the book.

"The Green Mile" is good in both movie and book as is the "Forest Gump". And you are right Angels and Demons is not good to watch compared to reading.

Hi Chiyosan!. I think there are many book that are not well adapted to a movie because you loose many part that essential in the book, not make the story not realistic. I thing a book thats really well adapted into movie is Lord of the ring. Another's movie also lost many essential part including harry potter. I prefer reading the books. I think memoirs of Geisha a the worst one because there are so many thing thats missing in the movie.

The worst? Definitely Queen of the Damned, what a terrible piece of crap movie that was. It did not coincide with the book at all, which was so disappointing considering Interview with the Vampire was very well done (though had it's flaws, of course.) Trainspotting is probably one of the best movies I've seen where I've also read the book. I love Irvine Welsh, and they did a really good job at expressing his writing style in the movie.

I agree with everything you said! It's really sad sometimes when the film doesn't live up to the book. I don't know any best/worst movies I can name. What stands out to me is Great Expectations, the film with Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert de Niro and Ethan Hawke. It's a modern retelling of the book, and I think it's a great interpretation. It can really stand on its own as a film.