/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13541932]

What are some movies that, in your opinion, are just as good as the books, if not better? Asking /lit/ because /tv/ doesn't read.

[Anonymous No.13542269]

Stalker (Roadside Picnic)

[Anonymous No.13542308]

Persona, though it feels like Bergman was channeling Hamlet in some of the themes

[Anonymous No.13542313]

>>13542308
oops - misread the thread subject as "movies that are as good as books,"

[Anonymous No.13542314]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyXCYTfBuf0

[Anonymous No.13542315]

The Shining
2001
The Godfather

are probably the most obvious ones

[Anonymous No.13542318]

>>13541932
Barry Lyndon

[Anonymous No.13543838]

>>13541932
2005 Pride and Prejudice did a nice job of it

[Anonymous No.13543850]

>>13541932
Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

[Anonymous No.13543855]

>>13541932
Sharpe series. I'm amazed Sean Bean made the last one in 2008.

[Anonymous No.13543864]

>>13543855
>Even Sharpe the war chad gets cucked
Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.13543871]

The Searchers is adapted from a pulp western novel that no one cares about, so I would imagine that it’s better.

[Anonymous No.13543876]

>>13542315
Was the 2001 book really that special?

[Anonymous No.13543879]

>>13543876
It's an interesting case of where both the movie and book are equally as good, but different due to creative differences.

[Anonymous No.13543889]

>>13543879
hugh I just gathered it would of been a meh something like a Clockwork Orange. Did you finish the book with a "meh"?

[Anonymous No.13543972]

>>13542269
Bad book, awful movie. Tarkovsky is the ultimate pleb magnet.
>>13542315
Definitely 2001 and Godfather, not entirely sure about the shining.
>>13542318
Absolutely.
>>13543850
No. The book will always be better.
>>13543889
This. Clockwork orange the movie was 200x better than the book, which was hoary trash.
>>13541932
Handmaiden, Big Sleep (and a lot of other Chandler adaptations), To Kill a Mockingbird, Cool Hand Luke

[Anonymous No.13544336]

[Anonymous No.13544634]

I'd say American Psycho. I prefer the book, but they both have good aspects about them that work for their medium specifically. It is honestly as perfect of an adaptation as they could possibly get(Without getting an NC-17 rating at least). Also, most importantly, it stands on it's own merits as a good film.

[Anonymous No.13544743]

>>13544336
what’s the book

[Anonymous No.13544776]

>>13544743
>The Devils is a 1971 British historical drama horror film directed by Ken Russell and starring Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave. Russell's screenplay is based partly on the 1952 book The Devils of Loudun by Aldous Huxley, and partly on the 1960 play The Devils by John Whiting, also based on Huxley's book.
How did you even get to this website if you're too retarded to do a 2 second google search?

[Anonymous No.13544780]

>>13544743
it literally says on the poster

[Anonymous No.13544788]

>>13541932
>>>/tv/ stop making film threads already, this is your 10th one this week

[Anonymous No.13544795]

>>13541932
Blade Runner

[Anonymous No.13544941]

>>13544634
bale absolutely killed it

[Anonymous No.13545009]

>>13544941
For sure. Perfectly cast in my opinion. It's a good thing Harron hardlined for Bale like she did.
>“When I offered [Bale] the part, he said he had all these messages on his answering machine telling him this was career suicide. And that just made him more excited,” Harron told The Guardian in 2000. “That's sort of how I reacted, too.” But the studio wanted a bigger name in the role (this was, of course, years before Bale donned a Batsuit). “They would've taken almost anybody over Christian,” Harron said.

>At the 1998 Cannes Film Festival, Lionsgate executives announced that Leonardo DiCaprio—fresh off his Titanic success—would be playing the lead in American Psycho—which was news to both Harron and Bale. So Harron refused to meet with DiCaprio. “Leonardo wasn't remotely right [for the part],” Harron told The Guardian. “There's something very boyish about him. He's not credible as one of these tough Wall Street guys … He brought way too much baggage with him; I did not want to deal with someone who had a 13-year-old fan base. They shouldn't see the movie. It could've gotten us in a lot of trouble.”

Imagine Dicaprio trying to be Bateman. It would have been so much worse. This is why people with the money should just shut the hell up and let the artist work. It's like they hire them to be themselves, and then try to change everything about the artist that they hired them for.

[Anonymous No.13545214]

>>13544776
why bother if someone is going to answer anyway and I’m nit in a hurry, thanks though

[Anonymous No.13545505]

>>13541932
Total recall is way better than the short story it is based on (we can remember it for you whole sale). It was actually disappointing reading it after seeing the movie.

[Anonymous No.13545945]

>>13543889
>>13543972
I bet you two don't know Russian, or if you do, you definitely didn't grow up with both Russian and English. Nadsat is a joy to read if mixing the languages comes naturally to your mind.
That being said I don't know why other people like it.

[Anonymous No.13546805]

[Anonymous No.13546960]

>>13541932
First thing that comes to mind - No Country for Old Men straight up improves on McCarthy's writing.

A Clockwork Orange, because the ending of the film actually makes sense with what was being conveyed the entire story.

[Anonymous No.13546974]

>>13543850
is this a jokes

[Anonymous No.13546975]

>>13543972
>Tarkovsky is the ultimate pleb magnet.

[Anonymous No.13546980]

>>13544776
its also literally on the poster. You're just as dumb as that guy for not noticing that too

[Anonymous No.13547555]

>>13544634
Honestly the book was rather mediocre, it had some good ideas but the execution was the most generic of postmodern trope box-ticking imaginable. The film was (from my relatively unrefined taste in cinema) quite good, one of the best Hollywood films of the last 50 years, and also the only film directed by a woman that I like.

[Anonymous No.13547563]

>>13544634
The book was very graphic. The movie was good but doesn't give Ellis enough credit

[Anonymous No.13547588]

Lord of the Rings
Starship Troopers

[Anonymous No.13547598]

>>13545945
I speak russian, and nadsat just came across as a cheap gimmick. Although it's possibly the only mildly interesting thing about the book.
>>13546975
>n-no u
Why do plebs seem to have so much difficulty with accepting that they're plebs?

[Anonymous No.13547604]

The Duellists, in my opinion Ridley Scott's only good film

[Anonymous No.13548056]

>>13542269
He fucked up majorly on the sand dunes.

[Anonymous No.13548991]

>>13546980
I'm not just as dumb. The other guy was a lazy fuck that wanted other people to do a LITERAL 2 second google search for him. Also, the movie doesn't even have the same title as the book, so reading the poster wouldn't even help in this case. You retard.

[Anonymous No.13549118]

>>13548991
so you're telling me that by seeing the words "based on the play by john whiting and "the devils of loudun" by aldous huxley" on the poster you still wouldn't be able to tell us what book it was based off of?

[Anonymous No.13549243]

>>13549118
Fine, I'll admit I'm the retard that didn't read the smaller text, but the point I was trying to make was that the guy was just very lazy. That's all.