The Top Ten Worst Book-to-Movie Adaptations (That I have seen)

There have been a few movies released recently (and rumors of movies to come) that have made me ask questions - questions like "Why?! Why?! Oh God! Why?!" And it boggles my mind that any of these movies make any kind of money at all. And then I think of the of the level of intelligence of the people who would pay money to see these movies. After doing the math, I get horribly depressed. There are lots of astoundingly stupid people out there - and some of them are allowed to make movies. This introspection led me to make a list of one of the banes of my existence: book-to-movie adaptations. Bad ones. I apologize if you happen to like any of the movies in the following list. If you think it's a good movie, I urge you to read the book and reconsider. If you have read the book and still think it's a good movie . . . then I have no hope for you. Live in peace. Readers, I give you the top-ten worst book-to-movie adaptations that I have ever seen.

10. Sherlock

This 2002 made-for-TV movie made me want to cry. I love Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a fascinating character that the general public does not fully appreciate. I believe that this is because (in America, especially) he is seen as a stuffy, boring British ponce with a pipe permanently wedged between his teeth. Some of the film adaptations do nothing to dispel this perception, Basil Rathbone notwithstanding. Therefore I was somewhat intrigued when I saw that there was a post-1990's film adaptation, and unwittingly decided to add it to my Netflix queue.

It was terrible. Sherlock was not smart (Moriarty was kicking his ass, as far as mental acuity goes). Moriarty was not smart, and only mildly evil (he got Sherlock hooked on heroin and killed his love interest. That was all). Watson was not a veteran of Afghanistan, but a coroner. Mycroft was terribly disappointing. Sherlock had a love interest, and she was not That Woman (hopefully those of you familiar with the Sherlock Holmes stories will know what I mean).

Who's to blame for this? Director Graham Theakston and writer Piers Ahsworth. Don't be gentle on them.

9. The Adventures of Huck Finn

Elijah Wood child-stars in this 1993 bastardization of Mark Twain's classic. I don't blame him for it; he was just a kid at the time. I do, however, blame Stephen Sommers for writing and directing it. As I understand it, Mark Twain began writing Huckleberry Finn in much the same spirit as he had The Adventures of Tom Sawyer - but ended up with something much more significant than a mere coming-of-age young male adventure. It is a brilliant description of a journey from ignorance to awareness and an intelligent commentary on issues that are still important to us today. Perhaps I set my standards too high for this movie, but I was nine years old when I saw this movie and I still hated it. Enough said.

8. The Cat in the Hat

A problem that many book-to-movie adaptations face is that the people writing the adaptation sometimes have to make hard choices about content. It's difficult to compress the average novel into a two-hour film. That being said, the opposite problem should be avoided like the plague: having to stretch a children's picture book into a full-length movie. Don't try it! And if you absolutely must attempt it, do not depend on your lead actor(s) to carry the film. Those types of films are called "star vehicles", and are never a good idea. You can almost hear Mike Meyers' back breaking under the massive weight of the scenes that Alec Burg managed to squeeze into Dr. Seuss' wonderful little story. And the less said about the art direction of the film, the better. Bo Welch has enough to apologize for in this 2003 monstrosity.

7. Chicken Little

Please see my review for #8, but substitute Mark Dindal for Bo Welch and Alec Burg, 2005 for 2003, and remove any reference to star vehicles. There are some otherwise talented people inexplicably connected to this movie. Try not to hold it against them.

(See also: Polar Express)

6. Pride and Prejudice

Subtitled "A Latter-Day Comedy", this one actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit - and I didn't even watch the whole thing. Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors, and while Pride and Prejudice isn't my favorite novel by her, it deserves more than this. Much, much more. I'm not even totally against the idea of shifting the story from the Victorian era to modern times, but this film makes me pray that it never happens again. It's a good thing that imdb.com doesn't give out contact information for writers and directors, or else I would feel honor-bound to send director Andrew Black and writer Anne K. Black (husband and wife, perhaps?) irate letters. And even that may not stop me. Again, I didn't watch all of this 2003 film, so I may have missed something. But I doubt it.

5. Troy

This film technically fills my requirement because it is based on Homer's Iliad. Loosely. I will say this: I appreciate the scale of this movie. Those massive battles between the Greeks and the Trojans are impressive, I admit. That being said, the one character I liked dies long before the end of the film, so everything after Hector's death is completely unbearable, rather than just marginally unbearable. Orlando Bloom plays whiner Paris, and inexplicably attractive Brad Pitt plays asshole Achilles. I recognize that it would be difficult to make such selfish characters remotely sympathetic, but I don't believe either of these guys even tried. This film was vomited upon the world in 2004 by director Wolfgang Petersen and writer David Benioff.

4. Bicentenniel Man

Some short stories can be made into good feature-length films. For that to happen, do not cast Robin Williams. Robin can be extremely good as part of an ensemble (see The Birdcage), but if his character is the focus of the entire movie, watch out. He'll pass in star vehicles, but not in an Asimov short story. And not when it's directed by someone who obviously doesn't understand Asimov, and has possibly never even read the story (I'm looking at you, Chris Columbus). This 1999 film was a strange modge-podge of Asimov and Robert Silverberg.

3. Eragon

This is a rare case. I didn't even really like the book this movie was based on, which makes its disappointment that much more terrifying. I was actually hoping that the so-so novel would make a more entertaining movie, and I couldn't have been more wrong. Also, I hate John Malkovich, and I don't care who knows it. Although the baby dragon was cute. We can lay the blame for this 2006 travesty at the feet of director Stefen Fangmeier and writer Peter Buchman. And I'll lump Christopher Paolini in there, too, for writing it in the first place.

2. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I tried so hard to like this movie! I really, really did, but eventually I came to grips with myself and admitted it: the movie sucked. The casting was okay (except, of course, for John Malkovich), and the look of it was all right (except for Marvin's look - wtf?!), but it completely lacked the brilliance of Douglas Adams. All of his wit, his intricate plotline - it was somehow lost in this trans-media translation, and now there are people in the world who will never read the book because the movie was bad. And that is unforgivable. I'm going to blame this on the director, Garth Jennings, because Douglas Adams collaborated heavily on the screenplay before he died. Perhaps it would have been different had he been alive during production - he died in 2001, and the film was released in 2005.

1. Ella Enchanted

There was and is so much wrong with this movie, I don't know that I have the courage to go on. I will do my best, however. I read Ella Enchanted when I was in junior high, which was a difficult period in my life. This book made me happy. It won a Newberry award. It is a wonderful story about a girl just about my age (at the time) who overcomes a terrible curse and saves herself, her country, and the boy she loves. Ella (in the book) is an intelligent, independent, and irrepressible person who achieves her goals and richly deserves the happy ending that comes to her. Ella (in the movie) is Anne Hathaway, and stinks of Disney. Nothing is right in the movie. There's an evil royal uncle that should not be there. The evil stepsisters succeed only in being annoying. There is a bizarre and unexplanable romance between a giantess and an elf. Basically, the only thing that this film has in common with the book is the names of the characters, and sometimes they don't even get that right. A thousand curses upon director Tommy O'Haver and writer (I use that term in the loosest sense of the word) Laurie Craig. May they and all their children, and their children's children be bitten by fleas. Repeatedly.

Okay, I'm through it. Now for the dishonorable mentions: Dune (1984), War of the Worlds (2005), The Hobbit (1977), The Lord of the Rings (1978), The Black Cauldron (1985), Matilda (1996), and Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (2004).