New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Though you can guarantee that the summer movie season will equal a stunning lack of originality, which the A-List touched on last week with its look at the best franchise films, rarely do those movies come from a good, old-fashioned book. No, most movies based on books don't turn into a big series about a globe-trotting archeologist, human-killing robots, or boy wizards. Okay, the last one is based on a book series, but Harry Potter is quickly turning into the exception of this rule.

These days, when a movie is based on a popular book, such as last fall's Twilight or this week's big release, Angels & Demons, a major discussion all about whether the film or book is more superior will go forth. Some times, this discussion can help some people forget that the movie adapation, with or without the source material, is forgettable, if not execrable (Robert Langdon and Edward Cullen fans, unleash your pitchforks!). Films based on books often have to walk the tightrope of remaining relatively true to the source material while also trying to move past the written word.

A great example of how to both fail and succeed at this is the Harry Potter film series. Though I believe each film in the series improves on its predecessor, it's hard for me to ignore that the first two films, helmed by Chris Columbus, are...well, bad. The second film is admittedly better (mostly thanks to the cheerfully over-the-top performance from Kenneth Branagh), but both movies are too faithful to the book series. This faithfulness occurred because the filmmakers were too worried about the rabid fan base being angered by characters or storylines being left on the cutting room floor. Yet, by the time the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, was released, no one complained when characters like Nearly Headless Nick didn't show up, not only because such characters were superfluous to the main action, but because most audiences had long since accepted and embraced the reality that the movie version of Harry Potter should be different, if only slightly, from the written version.

Some of the best movies based on books (including some that will appear on this A-List) are not word-for-word adaptations of their source and all have, in some small way, improved on what was put down on the page. Though even the best film adaptation of a book may not satisfy every reader (especially since the imagination's version of a book may always be better than whatever's filmed), these films are brilliant as adaptations and by their own. Right now, there's only one rule for this list (and it may reflect badly on me, but here goes): if it's not a book I've read, it doesn't go on the list. I can't say the film version of The Godfather is better than the book if I haven't read it, so fair warning. With that in mind, here's the A-List's look at the best movies based on books.

Continued:       1       2       3