Sometimes, the Movie Is Just Better

It’s time for part 2 of our book-to-movie adaptation discussion. Last week, I talked about three of my favorite adaptations where the movie actually did right by the book. This week, I’m bringing you three movies I think did it better than the book. Yep. You read that right! Truthfully, some books just aren’t great and a film format allows for a more appropriate fit for the story. That’s certainly true of the three listed here.

Julie & Julia by Julie Powell and Julie & Julia, 2009

I’m sorry, but Julie Powell is annoying. In the book, she’s pretentious and whiny, and her whole cook-your-way-through-mastering-the-art-of-french-cooking thing doesn’t read as anything more than a way she wants to make herself famous. It felt far away from a love of cooking and experimentation in the kitchen. The very opposite of Julia Child. Yuck.

In the movie, Meryl Streep steals the show as an authentic, lovable, complicated Julia Child. And who could ever accuse Amy Adams of being pretentious and whiny? She’s actually pretty charming as she fails her way through the cookbook. Would that we all could cast someone to play us in the movie of our lives. Goodness knows it helped poor Julie Powell. And how darling and adorable is Stanley Tucci? This is a great move to catch 45 minutes of on TV on a lazy Saturday.

The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger and The Devil Wears Prada, 2006

Speaking of whiny characters. Andrea Sachs is just that. I found her really hard to like, and if you’re not rooting for the main character, what else is there? I mean, I even cheer on Dexter, y’all. Miranda is truly the devil with little that redeems her. What she really needs is a Meryl Streep interpretation.

This is completely convenient because in Streep’s hands, the movie’s Miranda is complicated, emotional, and somehow, I daresay, a little bit likeable. Anne Hathaway is perfectly cast. She’s just a little annoying and fake, but also has enough redeeming qualities that she’s palatable. The movie is well-paced, fun, and let’s not discount everything that Emily Blunt and her snarky quips bring to the table.

The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks and The Notebook, 2004

It’s a book by Nicholas Sparks. Do I need to write any more of a review? The writing is about what a crafty 8th grader can handle. Sparks’s stories are designed to blatantly pull at the heartstrings, which is to say that they are both predictable and sad. There’s not a lot of depth, because, again, an 8th grader is writing it, and much of it could benefit from a good editor and better pacing.

I’ll acknowledge that the movie isn’t award-winning cinema. It certainly has its flaws. But let’s remember that this isn’t a list of the Best Movies Ever, but rather movies that are better than the book, and this certainly fits the bill. Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling really are sparkly. There is so much emotion, so much pretty and handsome, and so much that takes you back t your own first experience falling in love. It really has shades of gray and more complicated feelings than is ever conveyed in the book. I credit that to McAdams and Gosling and a screenplay that’s at least one step up from the book.

So there you have it, friends. Agree or disagree? Do you have any others to add to this list? Be honest, do I have too many movies including Meryl Streep?

Sometimes, the Movie Is Good, Too

It’s an age-old debate: is it better to read the book first or see the movie?

I’ll save the debating. Read the damn book first. Always.

Personally, I don’t adhere to this rule, even though I aspire to. This is because I’m both pregnant and raising a toddler, so I weigh it like this: do I have time to watch a 120-minute movie or read a 400-page book first? Well. We know how this one ends. That said, I do hold sacred the “Read Before Viewing” rule, so let’s just pretend I’ve always read everything first, deal?

Since I’ve shut down the debate on which to do first, let’s talk about the debatable: are books always better than their movie adaptations? Can movies improve upon sub-par books? Are there great books that truly become great movies?

In my opinion, books aren’t always better than their movie adaptations. Some movies definitely improve on some not-so-good books. And there are absolutely great books that become great movies.

Trying to pick my favorite book-to-movie adaptations of all time is overwhelming, so what I’ll do for you is give you 3 of my favorites (yes, there are a lot more awesome ones out there!). They’re books I’ve turned to over and over, and they’re movies I never get tired of watching. That’s pretty much my standout criteria.

Wild by Cheryl Strayed and Wild, 2014 starring Reese Witherspoon

I’m putting this one up first because it’s probably my most controversial. Even Natalie has blogged about how she felt the book was overrated. But for some reason, this story speaks to my soul. Strayed’s writing is poetic and honest, and I underlined and highlighted so much of it that it may as well be yellow through. Sometimes books just hit you because of your time and space in the world, and maybe that was it for me.

I’ve seen the movie maybe once every 2 months since it came out. I’m surprised by how often I revisit it. Reese Witherspoon is tough and vulnerable in her portrayal of Strayed, and director Jean-Marc Vallée’s vision is perfection. The wilderness is beautiful, the pain very real, and its universality touching.

Emma by Jane Austen and Clueless, 1995 starring Alicia Silverstone

I won’t get into it with you about my love of Jane Austen. Just know that when I studied abroad, I visited her hometown, the house she grew up in, and her gravesite, because it’s that serious. Austen isn’t for everyone, I get it, but I love her stories and I love Emma.

I might have gone with the Gwyneth Paltrow adaptation on this one, but it just isn’t as amazing (or timeless!) as Clueless. Many write this one off as a chick flick, or dismiss it as another cheesy 90s movie, but come on. It’s amazing. This movie manages to take a story from the 1800s, update it, and make it relevant still some 20+ years later after its debut. The cast is funny and silly, but completely sincere. And Paul Rudd is stunningly handsome. I’ll end there.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1, 2010 starring Daniel Radcliffe

What is there to say about Harry Potter that hasn’t been said? The storytelling is above all else; the writing is timeless; the world and its characters are rich and compelling. It’s engrossing. It’s unforgettable. I love it, okay? I’ll stop convincing you now.

Let’s just get this out of the way: the movies as a set are uneven and inconsistent. There are some changes that aren’t so great and others that had to be made for the sake of time and format. Accepting these things as reality allows for some of the missteps (ahem…Goblet of Fire…ahem). But Part 1 of Deathly Hallows? Gorgeous and haunting. The mood, the scenes, the acting: it’s perfect. I’ve re-watched that particular movie in the series over and over again. It’s that well done.

There you have it: three of my favorite book-to-movie adaptations! Next post, I’ll tell you about my picks for crappy books that became better movies.

What are your favorite book-to-movie adaptations? Do you go for classics like To Kill a Mockingbird? Or do you allow for a Clueless in your list?