Good Lifestyle

It is accepted the wisdom which, for the most part, thedelivered better than themovie"And it's even more true when the said book is a literary classic struck. Yet, for every page adaptation on the screen that falls flat (sorry,The Hobbit), there is one who elevates and transforms the well-liked source material into cinematographic masterpiece (see:The the Lord of the Ringstrilogy). Without giving up novels, they are based on, these 23 movies sometimes prove the best way to tell a story on the screen.

There is no denying the influence ofL. Frank Baum, including 1900 novelThe wonderful oz magician and its following suites had a lot of impact on the literature of children and countless young spirits. Nevertheless, it's the movie of 1939, led byVictor Fleming, It didThe Wizard of OzOne of the most famous stories never told. Somekinematic moments have the same magic as the one in whichJudy GarlandDorothy goes to Oz and his black and white world becomes flooded with the glorious technique.

Quite interesting,Daphne du Maurier 1938 Novel makes some more provocative choices than the adaptation of 1940, which was to clean up things to comply with the Hollywood production code. So, what makes the movie a superior success?ALFRED HITCHCOCK. The director never allowed himself by the limitations of his time, creating a unique style (and often imitated) who didRebeccaA classic of psychological horror and suspense.

Stephen KingNovellaThe body, published as part of his 1982 collectionDifferent seasons, tells the simple story of four young friends coming out for a corpse. It's a sweet and sour ventilation tale, butRob Reiner The 1986 adaptation raised it to another level. Much of the credit goes to the actors of the phenomenal child together, includingWile Wheaton andRiver Phoenix, which make their characters feel honest and lived. Overall, it is a full-bodied realization of a piece of relatively brief literature.

Anthony Burgess can I havehad his problems With the way its controversial book of 1962 has been adapted to the big screen (namely that the last chapter has been omitted), butStanley Kubrick's Even more controversial 1971 film has resisted the test of time. Kubrick has kept the book distinctive slang and added his own director flair. Although the film has more to offer than aesthetics, it is undoubtedly the beautiful visual style, which presents an unforgettable overview to a dystopian future, which has made it sustainable classic.

When people think aboutFlight over a cuckoo nestThey think the intense conflict between Randall McMurphy patient and the monstrous nurse are hung.Ken Kesey'sNovel 1962, however, is told from the point of view of the chief, who is less a focal point in the 1975Miloš Forman adaptation. The strongest of the film focuses on the two main opponents - played brilliantly byJack Nicholson andLouise Fletcher, respectively - did a momentclassic.

Even ifShinyis generally considered the greatest King adaptation at all times, Kubrick's 1980 film is also notorious to be one of theThe king is the least preferred on his work. It is understandable that the author would not like the fundamental changes to his 1977 novel, including these two famous bicycle tykeas. But no matter the horrible book,Shiny The most durable impression is in the unique imaging of the film: a diabolical hedge animal can not hold a candle with a blood lift.

Sure,Blade runner is technically just a loose adaptation of the 1968Phillip K. Dick novelDoes Androides dream of electric sheep?But the film of 1982 still owes many of his characters andglobal ideas to its source material. And the reasonRidley Scott's The adaptation works so well is how it takes the ideas of classic science fiction of Dick and translates them into a superb but familiar articulation of the future. Watching the film now offers a surprising reflection of how it was predictive.

When he wroteThe princess to marryIn 1973,William GoldmanSaired the genres he worked (fantasy, romance, fairy tales). By adapting his own novel on the screen, Goldman has kept the cheeky tone of the source material while adding a little more sincerity. On top of that, he launched in a modern and modern Chicago framing narrative, in which a grandfather (Pierre Falk) Reads history to a young child (Fred Savage), by making a little more relative than the purely fantastic book version. Throw in a certain direction on the part of Reiner, and you have a classic of 1987 which isimpossible not to vanish.

Jonathan Demme's The film of 1991 was not the first time the brilliant hannibal cannibal serial killer was seen on the screen:Brian CoxThe played in 1986 also rentedManhunter, based on anotherThomas Harrisnovel. But it was in the adaptation of Harris's 1988 bookThesilenceofthelambs thisAnthony Hopkinshad a chance to sink the teeth in the character. With only 16 minutes of Screenme, Hopkins turned Hannibal into an emblematic villain for ages (and Nabbed a better Oscar actor).

Yes, it was the vision ofMichael Crichton's Novel of 1990 which gave us genetically modified dinosaurs itentic the land, but it is difficult to compete with the special effects of the spirit of spirit ofSteven Spielberg 1993 Adaptation of the film. While the most recent suites have advanced movie manufacturing technology, nothing from the originalJurassic ParkHe has so perfectly captured the majesty and the terror of science (and a T-REX) won AMUCK.

KingDifferent seasons comes the novellaRita Hayworth and Shawshargan Redemption, who had a truncated title forFrank Darabont 1994 Adaptation. He also has a narration ofMorgan FreemanAs Ellis "red" redding. Although the plot does not differ greatly from the source material, the film captures the horrors of incarceration and triumph of the human mind more completely than the book.

Although he was heavily implied on his 1997 release (Roger Ebert slapped withA criticism of two stars),Starship TroopersSince earned a well-deserved recognition for its acute satire of militarism and nationalism. On this forehead, thePaul Verhoeven The film is a big step forward from the 1959Robert Heinleinnovel, which has beencritical For his apparent approval of things the most popular things. Although Heinlein, the defenders stated that the policy of the book is misunderstood, the film is certainly less ambiguous.

The 1997 film and the 1990 novel pays homage in love from the years 50 to 50 years old. CornCurtis Hanson The film is finally more effective thanJames Ellroy's Book by replicating the look and conviviality of its predecessors. Adaptation is a rich and satisfactory viewing experience that feels distinctly from its time and transplant from another era. It helps that movie stars actors likeKim Bastier and then unknownGuy Pearce andRussel Crowe, which are goodbye to the pieces of the period.

Everything ends at the end: without giving anything,David Fincher's 1999 film raises the issues of the highest point that is much more explosive than the conclusion at the 1996Chuck Palahniuk novel. The result is a job that feels more in contact with its satirical goals. While some havemisinterpreted both the book and the movie As an appropriament of toxic masculinity and violence, the fingerFighter club ends up offering a clearer reflection of his irony.

Fantasy fans will tell you thatJ. R. R. TOLKIEN'S The trilogy, originally published in 1954 and 1955, is an excellent literary explanation - and they are right. But that does not just have dense and heavy books are an easy reading, especially for those who are less accustomed to the genre. Of course, Tolkien's attention to retail is part of what has helped to doPeter Jackson's Kinematic trilogy, released between 2001 and 2003, such a success.

Jackson has traveled fat and took some of the stories of jice buried at the bottom of Tolkien's annexes - especially, the romance between Aragon (VIGGO MORTENSEN) and Arwen (Liv Tyler) - And put them before and center on the big screen. In doing so, the writer-director created a more satisfactory and accessible series, which won an impressive 17 Academy award.

Tight stimulation and striking mysteries ofDennis LehaneThe literary fiction made its first adaptation on the screen. His job is worth seeing alone, but the 2003 film version of his 2001 novelTHE MYSTIC RIVERValue As cinema can make the stories built of Lehane even better.Clint Eastwood's management helped produce exceptional performance ofSean PennandTim RobbinsBoth have gained Academy prices for their work.

P. James' 1992 NovelChildren of men Deserves praise of a meadow of science fiction well Troden (humans suddenly and mysteriously can no longer reproduce, the society plunging into a merciless dystopia). CornAlfonso Cuarón's The 2006 cinematographic adaptation turned the art work of the highest form.

The film is an impressive look on which movie is only able to accomplish. While the history of human infertility and a collaborative society is most of the same thing, it is the tight direction of Cuarón which makesMen's children Unforgettable with so cleaning sequences, you end up with your breath.

In terms of intrigue,Joe Wright's The 2007 Hews movie close up close toIan Mcewan's 2001 ROMAN. But because as long as the book takes place in the minds of his characters, the film must count on a more visual language. The result is indelible imaging - namely,Keira Knightley In an emblematic green dress and a deep-hearted photo reveals the truth of what happened to Cecilia. (We do not spoil him for you.) Although the two works are devastating, adaptation proves a more haunted touch.

Cormac McCarthy novels are not exactly the most accessible and accessibleThere is no country for old menis not an exception. With their adaptation of the 2007 Oscar-winner, however,JoelandEthan coen Give the story a larger feeling. You can get just as lost in the book you can in Neo-West, but the latter is a somewhat more enjoyable excursion, thanks to a good black comedy of the collaborators who lacked the Prose Clause of McCarthy.

Be right to the authorUpton Sinclair,Paul Thomas Anderson The film of 2007 prohibits only resemble his 1926 novelOil!Nevertheless, the film is unequivocal an improvement of its source material. While works share thematic similarities - and parcel points - the film is an even more amazing epic. It also presents the director's black humor of the director and an integrated strangeness, which makes it more convincing and more memorable.

Stieg Larsson's Novel 2005 rendered the author posthumely famous when he was released a year after his death. His three partiesMillenniumThe series was a deeply convincing criminal fiction and introduced the troubled computer pirate readers Lisbeth Salander. Over the years, Lisbeth has been played, in several adaptations, by actresses likeRooney Mara andClearbut it has never been better than when it is incarnated byNOOMI RAPACE in the Swedish adaptation of origin 2009. The raptor took over the role in twosequence, make the definitive Lisbeth.

By adapting his own 2010 novel for the screen in 2015,Emma Donoghuedoes less claustrophobic things. The film spends more time outside rather than in the holder room, which gives it a depth and scope that exceeds its original work. The adaptation ofRoomcatapultBrie larson in Stardom, and with good reason, but the most captivating performance of the film comes from the child actorJacob Tremblay, who manages to describe innocence and wisdom far beyond his years.

Many morememorable lines In 2017Luca Guadagnino Romance was drawn directly fromAndré AcimanRoman, who has released a decade before. But the exceptional casting of the film helps to give it an advantage over the book: Timothy Chatalamet and Hammer bring a real complexity and emotional depth For the characters of Elio and Oliver, respectively and their chemistry is just palpable. And to watch a more truly classic literature, here is 40 pounds that you have hated in high school that you will love now .

To discover more incredible secrets about the life of your best life, Click here To follow you on Instagram!