web
counter
 

Ain't That A Kick In The Rectum? The Best Literary Adaptations Of 2011

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (32)



Rooney-Mara-in-The-Girl-with-the-Dragon-Tattoo-2011-Movie-Image-5.jpg

On the one hand, 2011 was a terrible year for literary adaptations. If we count comic book movies (which, don’t worry geeks, I do) then it was downright abysmal. One disappointingly garish superhero followed the next in a parade of movies that, while fun, did nothing to enhance or pay sufficient homage to the source material. Similarly we had another atrocious installment in the Twilight saga and, in The Three Musketeers and Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, we had movies so far off the mark I wonder if the filmmakers so much as glanced at the source material. Why on earth didn’t Guy Ritchie just call his (mostly fun but terribly convoluted) movies Sherlock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels? They have nothing to do with Holmes.

But, on the other hand, there is plenty to celebrate. A good adaptation is tricky. A GREAT adaptation is nearly impossible. And while a filmmaker is at an advantage if he or she is working with a short story with the perfect amount of narrative meat and the right amount of room for poetic license. (Brokeback Mountain, Shawshank Redemption, Memento), any filmmaker who can pull off a full-length novel has my utmost admiration and respect. Here, in order of worst to first, were my favorite literary adaptations of the year. Check ‘em out (but read the book first).

“Mildred Pierce”: This is a bit of a cheat because director Todd Haynes had five hours to tell the over-wrought Mother-Daughter saga. But the performances by Kate Winslet and Evan Rachel Wood were well worth the watch and the miniseries had something James M. Cain’s book didn’t. That would be Guy Pearce’s bum. Enjoy!
EP05_Mildred Pierce_09.jpg

A Dangerous Method: Based on Christopher Hampton’s play “The Talking Cure” which was, in turn, based on John Kerr’s “A Most Dangerous Method,” this was an impressive adaptation that managed to convincingly mask the theatrical elements of the source material (unlike, say, Carnage). While Mortenson and Fassbender were both excellent, I would have given my eye teeth to see Christoph Waltz play Freud, as was originally intended.
dangerous2.jpg

The Lincoln Lawyer: This fluffy potboiler of a novel turned out to be a bloody great potboiler of a movie. It made me miss the Grisham-heavy 90s when a new adaptation popped up every year. It was also the perfect vehicle for Matthew McConaughey, allowing him to turn in his finest performance in years. Add to that a sultry Marissa Tomei, a weaselly Ryan Phillippe, Bryan Cranston and the always fantastic William H. Macey and you’ve got one solidly enjoyable film.
Lincoln-Lawyer3.jpg

Moneyball: I’m not a huge fan of sports or math, which is why this movie is lower on my list than it would be on most anyone else’s. Author Michael Lewis struck box office gold with his previous adaptation, the schmalzy The Blind Side. In that instance, they filmmakers took out the statistics and game analysis and focused solely on the feel-good personal aspects of Lewis’s 2006 book. In that case of Moneyball, the statistics and game analysis stayed put. And that didn’t really resonate with me. What did work, however, were the Baseball Movie Magic Moments. Scott Hatteberg’s walk-off home run? That gave me chills. Pitt, on the other hand, seemed to be doing a Kyle Chandler impression. And, I’m sorry, nobody beats Coach Taylor.
Moneyball_44.jpg

We Bought A Zoo: While adapting a book is hard, adapting a memoir is even harder. The memoir genre can lend itself to bloated, self-indulgent crap. (Running With Scissors…ugh.) But when it’s done right, it can be magic. (My Left Foot, October Sky) This is memoir done right. As if we would expect any less from Cameron Crowe. No, not even Scarlett Johansson could ruin the warm fuzzies this movie gave me.
we-bought-a-zoo-movie-trailer-and-photos-with-matt-damon-29ba9.jpg

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: This was a tricky endeavor given that an almost perfect adaptation of the novel already exists in the form of the 1976 miniseries starring Alec Guinness. That being said, Oldman was (as usual) so magnificent that I had no trouble believing he was George Smiley (one of John le Carré most famous and beloved characters). And all-star cast and phenomenal art direction means this spy flick should have been more popular than it was. It’s still in theaters, folks. I highly recommend you catch it.
Tinker-Tailor-Soldier-Spy-image-7.jpg

The Descendants: This is director Alexander Payne at his finest. Like his last film, Sideways, (also based on a book), this movie explores the beautiful flaws that make even the most dysfunctional people lovable. Payne managed to capture all the warmth, fun, and pathos of Kaui Hart Hemmings’ novel. Clooney is allowed to be a little loopy (my favorite version of Clooney) and delivers his best performance of the year.
the-descendants03.jpg

The Help: As much as I loathed this book and was ready to hate the film I found myself enjoying it. Against my will. The fantastic performances (specifically from Viola Davis and Jessica Chastain) overshadow the mawkish and misguided message of the book. In fact, I cried. Okay? I wept. I’m not proud.
the-help-pic07.jpg

Drive: This was one of (if not the) best film of the year. The only reason it’s not on the top of the list here is that the adaptation differs so much from the book itself. The non-linear format of the novel doesn’t lend itself to the spare, concise feel of the film, so kudos to the screenwriter for a clever adaptation.
drive-wallpaper_105469-1600x1200.jpg

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Truth be told, at this point in the series, it almost doesn’t matter what happened in these films. (The same was true of the books.) Both Rowling and the franchise have so much goodwill stored up that I think most of us were prepared to love anything with the words “Harry Potter” in the title. That being said, director David Yates did a bang up job with the final two installments, particularly the more devastating moments, and my only real complaint was the piece of wood they cast as Ginny Weasley.
hp7-pt-2-trl-2281.jpg

Hugo: The magical children’s book “The Invention Of Hugo Cabret” was tailor-made for a film adaptation. Because Brian Selznick’s novel is mostly comprised of illustrations, Scorcese took extra pains in transplanting the silent and awe-inspiring images to the screen. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the story is about the history of filmmaking, but the way in which Scorcese captured not only the details of the novel but the over-arching heart of the story make this one of the finer adaptations of the year.
489171-the-invention-of-hugo-cabret-film.jpg

Jane Eyre: Cary Fukunaga’s film has to be at least the tenth adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s beloved novel. And, for my money, it’s the finest. Other versions (mostly miniseries) may have boasted better casting (much love to Ciaran Hinds), but none has done a better job of capturing the psychological tension of Bronte’s gothic romance. The strain, repression, passion, fear, and horror come alive with every frame. A masterful piece of work.
JaneEyre4.jpg

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Unlike my esteemed colleague, Dan Carlson, I loved the hell out of this film. After having read the book and seen the Swedish version, I really didn’t think this adaptation was necessary. But leave it to Fincher to surprise me with this gritty, raw and bleak film. Despite my love for the Swedish actress Noomi Rapace, I thought Rooney Mara was the perfect Salander. Her slight, childish frame made the titular antihero much more of a “girl” than Rapace’s “woman.” (For what it’s worth, this is how author Steig Larsson describes her as well.) Her fragility when contrasted with her ferocity make Mara’s monstrous Lisbeth Salander that much more compelling and terrifying.
Girl-with-the-Dragon-Tattoo.jpg

“Game Of Thrones”: I know I said earlier that a miniseries has the advantage over a feature-length film, but, somehow, ten hours doesn’t seem like enough for George RR Martin’s sprawling masterpiece. But damned if they didn’t do an amazing job. With so many characters to track and backstory to recount, it’s a miracle this series made any sense at all. But it not only made sense, but captured the attention of genre fans and newcomers alike. The casting was brilliant, from Dinklage to Bean to the wonderful young Maisie Williams. I think I can speak for all of us when I say Winter can’t come soon enough.
Arya-Stark.jpg









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Which of these Pretty Pictures Whips You Into the Biggest Nerd Frenzy? | "Work It" Review: It's Enough To Drive You Crazy If You Let It









Comments

Great list! I've been slacking on my film watching this year so there's a lot I have to catch up on. Tiny quibble - I think you'll find it was Charlotte who wrote Jane Eyre, not Emily. There were so many damn Brontes it's difficult to keep track.

Posted by: koj at January 4, 2012 2:00 AM

Sorry, maybe I've misinterpreted but did you suggest that 'The Lincoln Lawyer" was written by John Grisham? Because it was Michael Connelly. A bit of a tie-in to the Harry Bosch series.

Posted by: wildflower at January 4, 2012 3:13 AM

Why on earth didn’t Guy Ritchie just call his (mostly fun but terribly convoluted) movies Sherlock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels? They have nothing to do with Holmes.

Good God, JoRo, I think I love you.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 4, 2012 5:25 AM

This is the first time I've ever knowingly shared an emotion with a tiger, but that haircut is confusing.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 4, 2012 5:38 AM

Hey, Running With Scissors is a brilliantly acted and soundtracked mess. I mean c'mon, they gave the oft forgotten Clayburgh something decent to do! Can never completely hate that.

Posted by: Mit_Huffman at January 4, 2012 6:08 AM

Joanna, you are so awesome. Love this entire list!

Posted by: annie711pm at January 4, 2012 6:49 AM

Michael Connelly doesn't write fluffy. How DARE you.

Posted by: snapnhiss at January 4, 2012 7:04 AM

What annie711pm said. Twice.

Posted by: Rooks at January 4, 2012 7:10 AM

On the whole I dig this list, but I have to argue that I enjoyed the hell out of Holmes. I have very little knowledge of the books, myself, but went with people who know more ridiculous trivia from having read them than I may about Harry Potter (haha, that's so not true...). And they all loved it, too. Some of what occurs in the movie is direct reference to the books, if I've been informed correctly. And, for my money, RDJ is perfect.

Totally agree with everything else though, at least what I know anything about.

Posted by: KatSings at January 4, 2012 8:21 AM

This reminds me, I really can't stand those Game Of Thrones image macros.

Posted by: the new transported man at January 4, 2012 8:41 AM

thumbs up for " jane eyre " ( generally overlooked ), " ... tattoo"
and the surprising " we bought a zoo " ( even scarjo rose to the
occasion ). 2 widely acclaimed films that made the list were
bores of the first rank. " a dangerous game " was an endless
conversation to no end between jung and freud. knightley was
included to add a bit of spice but the sex scenes with fassbender
were a joke. even worse was " tinker tailor ...." . it was a struggle to
decipher what was going on but who cared? oldham may be a great actor but this film doesn't reveal it. he paints on this dour
face from reel 1 and doesn't change expression for the agonizing 2 hours that the movie runs.... no range required and
i can't imagine a competent actor who wouldn't have been his equal.

finally, " moneyball " may have been an entertaining film and an
accurate adaptation but it is so far removed from reality that it
is anathema to real baseball fans.

Posted by: snake at January 4, 2012 8:42 AM

1) They did not do a bang up job with the final 2 Harry Potter movies. They robbed them of any emotion by cram packing them so full of invented action sequences that you barely had time to register what was happening, let alone mourn any character deaths.

2) While the Sherlock Holmes movies didn't follow any known story and the second one was decidedly heavy on action, I feel like Guy Ritchie explored a side of Holmes that is certainly in the books: the manic, opium-smoking, violin-plucking pugilist. Just because he is usually played as a scholarly old stiff-lip having toff doesn't mean it was originally written that way.

Posted by: SanityFair at January 4, 2012 9:31 AM

to snake: thanks for your comments. It's not often someone reveals their shallowness so succinctly.

Posted by: sauster at January 4, 2012 9:37 AM

Sorry, I thought the Jane Eyre movie sucked. The most current miniseries version was way better. The miniseries was longer YET less boring than the movie version.

Sherlock Holmes was not good. It was nothing like the stories. It was like taking Jane Eyre and dressing her up in a Wonder Woman costume and having her physically fight all the bad guys. It was Sherlock Holmes in title only, and as such was a terrible adaptation. That doesn't mean people didn't like the movie. It just means it had nothing to do with the stories.

The Harry Potter movies just hit the highlights. I wished from the start that they had done the books as a series of animated programs, doing a chapter an episode. You could have shown magic easily in animation, and there would have been no problem worrying about the kids aging out of the characters. Plus they could have included all the funny stuff (more Fred and George and Snape).

Posted by: BWeaves at January 4, 2012 9:43 AM

BWeaves, I had hoped for something similar, although more of a Henry Selick/Tim Burton stop-motion piece. Able to get as dark as the books...

Posted by: SanityFair at January 4, 2012 9:47 AM

I haven't really said this before, so I'll say it now: As someone who loves the hell out of Martin's books, Game of Thrones did nothing for me. NOTHING.

Posted by: Todd at January 4, 2012 10:12 AM

Every time I see Maisie Williams I think of the Artful Dodger. And I want to start singing....

"Consider yourself at home, consider yourself one of the family..."

Is it stuck in your head too now? Good. Because it will be in mine... all day. At least until I start thinking about "Who will buy" damnit... good thing it is in my itunes library.

Oh yeah... good list.

Posted by: MRod at January 4, 2012 10:14 AM

Yay! I'm so glad you like GWTDT too (I also loved the hell out of it). I read the books knowing that my husband Daniel Craig had been cast as Blomkvist so I'm kind of biased, but Fincher hit the nail on the head for me.

But I was disappointed with the last 2 Harry Potter movies. Oh well.

Posted by: Lemon Poundcake at January 4, 2012 10:42 AM

Ugh. "A Dangerous Method"? Really? It was a terrible film, considering its subjects and the story.

Posted by: Pants at January 4, 2012 10:45 AM

Your opinion of Moneyball makes me wonder if not liking sports makes that movie a better viewing experience. I love baseball and thought that movie was mediocre at best. They didn't even address the A's 2002 playoff run, which ended 1 game short of the World Series. A 20 game win streak doesn't validate a team or the guy that built them. A deep playoff run does. I thought Moneyball had some sloppy storytelling I guess.

Posted by: Lucas at January 4, 2012 10:51 AM

That's interesting, Lucas, I was told by some of the more baseball-fanatical folks on the site that the movie was pure magic for them. I just, I don't entirely get it. But, then again, I'm the one in love with the super rapey movie. So. To each his own.

Posted by: Joanna Robinson at January 4, 2012 11:01 AM


to lucas ... you couldn't be more right. tejada/chavez were
ignored and the zito/hudson/mulder troika, the real reason
for the a's success never got a mention. michael lewis is
uber talented but he takes great liberties to craft a story with
broad commercial appeal.

to sauster ... how about registering an opinion so your depth can
be measured.

Posted by: snake at January 4, 2012 11:41 AM

Joanna-- hmm...well, I may be off base (punned!) with the "not liking baseball might make it a better movie" opinion. I suppose I simply didn't dig the movie as a baseball fan or as a movie fan.

snake-- now that you mention it while watching that movie I was thinking, "why aren't they mentioning pitching?" But I suppose the moneyball philosophy doesn't really apply to pitching.

Posted by: Lucas at January 4, 2012 11:49 AM

The Game of Thrones series really fogged my nerdy spectacles. And not in the good way!
For once, I'm actually hoping for less boobs in a television show. The writers need to trust that we can listening to dialogue without having Littlefinger leering over lesbians.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 4, 2012 12:15 PM

Unlike my esteemed colleague, Dan Carlson, I loved the hell out of this film.

Yes. Usually Dan and I have similar tastes, but this time I couldn't have disagreed more. I thought the movie was great and it's nice to see some positive feedback, even if it is just a scant paragraph.

Posted by: superasente at January 4, 2012 12:41 PM

I am ashamed to have to participate in a thread in which there is even the most mild disparagement of Game of Thrones. Your opinion does nothing for me. NOTHING. May you malcontents be mounted by legions of Dothraki and your eyes gouged out so that you aren't bothered by the sight of gratuitous HBOobs.

Posted by: Greedy at January 4, 2012 1:17 PM

Have to agree with you, JRob (and superasente). I also loved GWTDT. I had just finished the book, and then read Carlson's review...and I often agree with the reviews on this site, but not this time.
I thought it was great. I thought Rooney Mara inhabited Lisbeth Salander.
Granted, I have not yet seen the Swedish version, so cannot compare Rooney to Noomi but I do plan to.
My husband hadn't read the book and he enjoyed the film too, for what that's worth.

Posted by: melisseh at January 4, 2012 2:13 PM

I loved HP and the DH pt2, but I'm a fanatical Potterite who'll gladly eat the crumbs from Rowling's table and call it haute cuisine. Oh, well ... I still hope Rickman gets an Oscar nomination.

Game of Thrones was fantastic, and prompted me to read the series just to find out what happens next. With apologies to GRRM fans, the books are just too long and convoluted for me to fully enjoy (although some have said that about Harry Potter), so I'll always prefer the
TV series. Besides, the books didn't feature Jason Momoa's ass, so there's that.

I wasn't as crazed about Jane Eyre as many critics were, but Fassbender as Rochester was the first time I actually enjoyed someone's interpretation of the character. Most of the time, Rochester is played as some big, blustery type with a marshmallow core. Fassbender's Rochester was the first -- really, the only -- interpretation I've ever seen that offered a glimpse of the bitter, deeply damaged human being he was.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is one of the best I've seen this year. I'll see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy this Friday.

Posted by: PDamian at January 4, 2012 4:13 PM

Winter's coming too damn slow for me.

Posted by: Protoguy at January 4, 2012 10:56 PM

Mildred Pierce was brilliantly acted, but even though I recognize this is irrational -- I didn't love Evan Rachel Wood before, and now I think I will feel instantly angry at the sight of her face forever. Perhaps that is a testament to her performance, but I think that character would've ruined any actress for me. Ye Gods.

I just watched the last HP film a couple days ago for the first time, and I was pretty disappointed. I thought Deathly Hallows Part 1 was solid and I expected more from Part 2. Dan Radcliffe has certainly improved over the years, but the direction fell flat for me at a lot of points. I agree that Bonnie Wright was woefully miscast as Ginny (a character that I admittedly do not care for even in the books, but at least she isn't totally bland there). And this is probably an extremely unpopular opinion, but I absolutely hate Alan Rickman's performances as Snape. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't picture his character like that (the same goes for McGonagall, but Maggie Smith is so wonderful that I had to revise my vision of the character), I found him boring and one-note throughout, more and more with each movie. The same exact facial expression, the stiffness of movement, that affected spitting out of words one by one ("Mr.... Potter...") ... I know it worked wonders for most people, but even though I adore Rickman I wish Snape had been cast differently.

Posted by: Colin at January 5, 2012 7:59 PM

On a positive note, I cannot wait to see The Descendants! As well as We Bought a Zoo and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I thought Moneyball was utterly charming.

Posted by: Colin at January 5, 2012 8:01 PM

I still think that the Ruth Wilson/Toby Stephens version of Jane Eyre is the best so far. The Lincoln Lawyer was a very pleasant surprise, the opposite of which I can say about Harry Potter, but I'm immune by now (after four movies of action-action-heaven forbid any character development actually occurs-action-action-oh look some magic-explodey goes boom).

Posted by: Irina at January 6, 2012 5:49 AM