<p>By and large, “classic book” films are not my favorite genre. The book is almost always better. Films and novels are really very different artistic forms, and I tend to prefer films that were conceived as such. I don’t think you could pay me to watch a film of The Brothers Karamazov.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best “literary adaptation” film I can remember is the version of Henry James’ “The Wings of the Dove” from about ten years ago. James is a really sensational stylist, and the filmmakers (whose names I don’t remember, but Helena Bonham Carter is one of the leads) did a fabulous job of coming up with a visual style that gives some of the feel of James’ use of language. (Read some James and you’ll know why that’s an incredible trick to pull off.)</p>
<p>“The Quiet American”, which someone else recommended, does an excellent job of replicating the novel (the charms of which are more politico-philosophical than literary, thus lending itself more to translation).</p>
<p>Then there are the films that confront this issue head on, notably “Tristam Shandy”, which marite recommended (a really valiant attempt to film the unfilmable), and “Adaptation”. </p>
<p>Julie Taymor’s “Titus” was a pretty sensational take on a lesser Shakespearean play (although, in my family, I was the only one able to remain in the room to watch the whole thing). And it’s fun to compare different versions of the same classic: Franco Zefirelli vs. Baz Luhrmann for Romeo and [or +] Juliet, several of the “Pride and Prejudice” movies (including “Bridget Jones’ Diary”), or “Clueless” vs. one of the straight "Emma"s.</p>
<p>There are some cross-cultural films that are provoking in this regard, too. Akira Kurosawa did versions of Macbeth and King Lear in “Throne of Blood” and “Ran”; they work really well. “Apocalypse Now” is very much part of that strain.</p>
<p>Of course, the Harry Potter books and movies provide a really interesting set of different takes on how to try to do faithful film versions of a much-loved book. Speaking of which, I loved Alfonso Cuaron’s version of “A Little Princess”; he was the director of “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”.</p>
<p>Some literary “classics” are so bad that they are vastly improved by professional filmmaking. “The Wizard of Oz” fits that bill. John Huston’s “Prizzi’s Honor” is infinitely better than the Condon novel. (John Huston also directed a great cinematic version of Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King”.)</p>