After a big first day of voting, we’ve got the results—you can see more exact percentages of how everything shook out in yesterday’s updated post.

As a lot of you pointed out yesterday, there were some absolutely heartbreaking matchups. My toughest call, personally, was Bram Stoker’s Dracula vs. The Thing, a pairing that ended in an upset, with the lower seeded Dracula edging out The Thing by only 50 or so votes. I’m pretty upset to see one of my favorite movies get knocked out in round one, but if it had to lose, I’m at least glad that it was to Coppola’s horny Drac’.

Though it might be short-lived, since Dracula’s up against Jurassic Park today—for the record, I’m calling dibs on the movie idea “vampires versus dinosaurs.”

There are a couple of other movies that went far in my personal bracket that didn’t survive the first round of voting: Stalker, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and Master and Commander. Pour one out for the type of film guy who is “all in on physical media these days.”

But Ran, another dark horse favorite and Kurosawa’s least straightforward Shakespeare adaptation, beat Carol, which surprises me. Based on how other things shook out in the Drama corner, I would think yearning and thwarted romance would be the sure bet, but it wasn’t true in this case. Though I suppose Ran has its share of romantic heartbreak too.

Overall, there weren’t a lot of blow outs yesterday, and more than a few very close races: Muppet Christmas Carol barely beat High Fidelity (a victory of Millennial nostalgia over Gen X nostalgia, perhaps?) and Age of Innocence squeaked by The Virgin Suicides. Scorsese’s two for two so far in our bracket.

Now we’re on to round two, and there are a lot of fun pairings I’m watching today: The Boyfriend Canon showdown of Die Hard vs. No Country For Old Men; the Girlfriend Canon showdown of 10 Things I Hate About You vs. Clueless; and who will “Win The G” in Goodfellas vs. Gone Girl?

Over in Drama, Brokeback Mountain vs. Apocalypse Now is a strange pairing, and one that might reveal something about our readership. But the wackiest quadrant by far is Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror, which has immediately gotten very chaotic—nearly every matchup here is impossible for me to predict.

Overall, it was a big first day! Excited to see what happens in the round of 32.

–James Folta

[Click image to enlarge and zoom]

*

INSTRUCTIONS:

We’re looking for the best contemporary film based on a book, short story, or play. In some cases we considered the difficulty and/or finesse of the adaptation itself, but mostly the question at hand is an easy one: Which movie, given the options, do you like best? That’s what you should vote for.

We’ve sorted our top 64 choices into four genre categories: Comedy, Drama, Action & Thriller, and Sci-Fi, Fantasy & Horror. Normal bracket rules apply, because sports. Each quadrant’s winner will face off on Friday, before the final head-to-head on Monday, April 20th to crown our winner.

*

VOTING SCHEDULE:

Round of 64: Voting open now until tonight at 7:00 PM EDT (See the results)

Round of 32: Voting open Tuesday, April 14th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT

Round 16: Voting open Wednesday, April 15th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT

Round of 8: Voting open Thursday April 16th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT

The Quarter Finals: Voting open Friday, April 17th from 10:00 AM, until Sunday April 19th at 7:00 PM EDT

The Finals: Voting open Monday, April 20th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT

And the winner will be announced on Tuesday, April 21st!

*

HOW TO VOTE:

We’ve got handy voting forms embedded below. Simply select which movie you think should advance, and we’ll tabulate the votes at the end of each day.

*

And now, your feature presentation…

*
MATCHUP:

The Princess Bride (1) vs. American Fiction (8)

******************************************

The Princess Bride
dir. Rob Reiner, 1987

Based on William Goldman’s The Princess Bride (1973)

Sub-genres: Your Bisexual Awakening • Cult Movies of Unusual Resonance(s) • Endlessly Quotable • Peak Patinkin

 

There are few films with a higher delight-to-runtime ratio than The Princess Bride. Its particular alchemy of postmodern irreverence and slapstick buffoonery has made it an enduring cult classic despite its initially underwhelming box office returns. Of course, it benefits from being adapted by Goldman himself—not so often is the author of the source text also an Academy Award-winning screenwriter—and from the fact that it was a particular passion project for Reiner, whose father had given him the book, and who was determined to adapt it despite the fact that Hollywood considered it unadaptable.

“When I first met Bill Goldman to talk about this,” Reiner remembered, “he said, ‘This is my favorite thing I’ve ever written, and I want this on my tombstone. And what are you going to do with it?’” Well, we all know the answer to that. –Emily Temple, Managing Editor

See also:

What Makes The Princess Bride Such a Great Movie • How Loving The Princess Bride Led Me to Buddhism

••••••••••vs••••••••••

American Fiction
dir. Cord Jefferson, 2023

Based on Percival Everett’s Erasure (2001)

Sub-genres: Satire On Satire • Academics vs. Hollywood • I’m Laughing But I’m Angry

 

Satire hinges on the specifics. The details need to be both plausible but still legible as comedy, otherwise the jokes will read as hamfisted, or won’t land at all. Erasure is full of those great details, from the book titles (Chaldean Oracles and We’s Lives In Da Ghetto) to the character names (Monk Ellison and Wiley Valdespino)—they just sound right. The escalation of the satire is excellent too, especially as Monk’s attempts to sabotage himself are repeatedly embraced by publishers and Hollywood. The film has to lose some of Everett’s great formal satire on page, of everything from academic articles to C.V.s, but more than makes up for it with excellent acting and direction. What makes Everett such an excellent satirist and Jefferson such an excellent director is that they give each character enough humanity and justification to never be fully right or wrong. In the end, who’s really in on the joke? –James Folta, Staff Writer

See also:

More Than a Satire: American Fiction is a Poignant Reflection on Existence • Taking Center Stage: Eight Novels That Celebrate Black Performance • Neither Plot Nor Character, But… Something Else? Ten Novels with Mind-Blowing Structures • One great short story to read today: Percival Everett’s “The Appropriation of Cultures” • Renaissance of the Weird: Experimental Fiction as the New American Normal • How Black Writers Capture the Comedy and Dark Absurdity of Life in America • Jacinda Townsend and James Bernard Short on American Fiction

 

*
MATCHUP:

Much Ado About Nothing (5) vs. Trainspotting (13)

******************************************

Much Ado About Nothing
dir. Kenneth Branagh, 1993

Based on William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (1600)

Sub-genres: Ye Olde Jokes • Ample Bosoms • Eating His Heart in the Marketplace • By Shakespeare Nerds, For Shakespeare Nerds

 

There’s a never-ending set of Shakespeare adaptations out there but there’s something simply perfect about Kenneth Branagh’s crack at Much Ado, one of the best plays in the canon. Branagh can get self-indulgent in his later work, but this one zips along like the frothy comedy it is, with absolutely radiant turns from Branagh and Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington and Imelda Staunton and, yes, even the much-maligned Keanu Reeves, who brings a particularly human darkness to the too-often-too-cartoonish Don John. Everybody seems to be having a damn good time, it’s all very ’90s, I wish more adaptations would have fun like this one does. –Drew Broussard, Podcast Editor

See also:

The Best 90s Screen Adaptations of Shakespeare, Ranked • Black Lives Matter in the Public Theater’s Much Ado About Nothing

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Trainspotting
dir. Danny Boyle, 1996

Based on Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting (1993)

Sub-genres: Great Nicknames • Hard Not To Mimic The Accents • The Music Is Doing Some Heavy Lifting

 

A brutal movie that is funnier than it needs to be, thanks in large part to Danny Boyle’s expressive, exuberant style that effectively dramatizes the caterwauling lives of Edinburgh addicts. The score of pop tunes adds a lot of dynamism to the scenes—there are a few songs that I now primarily associate with this movie, for good or ill. The balancing act of both the film and Irvine Welsh’s book is impressive. This is an unsparing portrait of addiction, but isn’t afraid to show moments of joy or tenderness, or what’s cool and interesting in this particular youth culture. The lack of simple, after-school-special moralizing of course scandalized all the right people: credit to Boyle and Welsh for freaking out Bob Dole, whose hand-wringing helped the film break out. –JF

See also:

Irvine Welsh Comes to America • Ten Great Books With Their Own Languages

 

*
MATCHUP:

The Muppet Christmas Carol (6) vs. Adaptation (14)

******************************************

The Muppet Christmas Carol
dir. Brian Henson, 1992

Based on Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol (1843)

Sub-genres:  Everybody Loves Muppets

 

Dickens’s novella forever changed the way people related to Christmas, and it’s fitting that the Henson adaptation did the same thing for Millennials’ relationship to the holiday. Real fans never get sick of telling everyone in earshot that Michael Caine only agreed to be in the movie if he could play it as straight as Shakespeare. –JF

See also:

21 Movies You Should Watch This Holiday Season • A brief literary history of The Muppet Show • Did Bob Cratchit really make more than an American on minimum wage? • The Wizardry of Boz: A Brief History of Charles Dickens on Screen • Charles Dickens partied HARD after finishing A Christmas Carol in just six weeks. • On Dickens’s Demons and Weird Relationship with Christmas

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Adaptation
dir. Spike Jonze, 2002

Based on Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief (1998)

Sub-genres: Nick Cage Doing His Thing • Writers on Writers • Tonal Adaptations

 

For my money, this meta fever dream starring not one but TWO Nicholases Cage may be the most interesting adaptation in this whole bracket. Just for being so crooked and inventive. Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze don’t exactly dramatize the content of Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief, but they do take a crucial seed-theme. This is a film about what it’s like to fall in love with a weird, specific subject, and then struggle to articulate why. I.e., the writing process. –BA

See also:

13 Adaptations Better Than the Books They’re Based On • Trouble for Your Thoughts: On Reported Creative Nonfiction • Susan Orlean Is a Really Serious Chicken Lady • Susan Orlean: “In the End, What Matters is Noticing.”

*
MATCHUP:

10 Things I Hate About You (10) vs. Clueless (2)

******************************************

10 Things I Hate About You
dir. Gil Junger, 1999

Based on William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew (c. 1592)

Sub-genres: Witty Remarks • Not Another Teen Remake • Heath Ledger

 

Ah, the ‘90s, when Hollywood went nuts mining classic literature to make teen movies. There were hits and there were misses, but one of the best was Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith’s clever transformation of The Taming of the Shrew, which retains many of the play’s concerns (How should a woman be? What is the difference between how we present and who we are? What is love worth, no like literally, in dollars?) and has enough wordplay to thrill the Bard himself, but makes it all deliciously modern (and makes these answers to those questions much more palatable). Plus, it’s stuffed with Millennial culture royalty: Heath Ledger, Julia Stiles, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Alex Mack Larisa Oleynik, Gabrielle Union, David Krumholtz. A classic. –ET

See also:

The Life-Changing Magic of 10 Things I Hate About You • The Best 90s Screen Adaptations of Shakespeare, Ranked • What to read next based on your favorite teen comedy. • 50 Fictional Writers, Ranked

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Clueless
dir. Amy Heckerling, 1995

Based on Jane Austen’s Emma (1815)

Sub-genres: Slang Machine • You’re a Virgin Who Can’t Drive • Just Don’t Ask What Happened to Dionne

 

The best adaptation of the best Jane Austen novel (see below) manages to recreate the classic novel in all of its minute social dramas, while making the story feel entirely original in its vision and aesthetic. Austen’s restrained and polished Regency Era is culturally converted to the splashy, enviable world of Beverly Hills in the ’90s: mini skirts, baggy pants, flip phones, convertibles, and all. Cher, our stand-in for Emma Woodhouse, is the it-girl at the center of it all, confident and unflappable in her place in the hierarchy—but with a hint of narcissism that gives her a preening over-confidence in her capabilities. Or as our own Brittany Allen put it, “Cher was as vibrant as she was delulu.” Love, friendship, confidence: all of it can come crashing down far too easily—but oh so enjoyably. –Julia Hass, Book Marks Associate Editor

See also:

Actually, Emma is the Best Jane Austen Novel • On Jane Austen and The Lovable Unlikability of Emma Woodhouse • The Magic of a Slow-Burn Romance • Why Jane Austen Adaptations Just Keep Coming—And We Keep Watching • Did Jane Austen Invent the Wellness Guy? • Jane Austen’s Emma Was Basically Torn Apart in Workshop

* * *

*
MATCHUP:

The Remains of the Day (1) vs. The Color Purple (9)

******************************************

The Remains of the Day
dir. James Ivory, 1993

Based on Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day (1989)

Sub-genres: Antifa • Unrequited Love • Very British Contemplation • Fighting And Flirting With A Coworker

 

Ishiguro’s subtle, introspective novel seems impossible to translate onto the screen, but with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson anything is possible. This was originally supposed to be a Harold Pinter script directed by Mike Nichols, which is quite the hypothetical to imagine, but director James Ivory and rewrites by the Booker and Oscar winner Ruth Prawer Jhabvala are a lateral move at absolute worst.

The film is a quiet yearning romance alongside an interrogation of Nazi appeasement, class, and duty. It does a lot, quietly and patiently. Each emotional beat arrives with soft footsteps, and is all the more affecting for it. A beautiful film and one that feels like a novel on the screen, which is why it takes our top dramatic seed. –JF

See also:

Romance Finely Aged: On the Unique Dynamic of Older Couples • Kazuo Ishiguro: ‘Write What You Know’ is the Stupidest Thing I’ve Ever Heard • 9 Novels in Which Houses Have a Life of Their Own • Sweet (But Not Too Sweet): 6 Essential Literary Love Stories • 10 Books for Being Alone • In Praise of the Unhappy Happy Ending

••••••••••vs••••••••••

The Color Purple
dir. Steven Spielberg, 1985

Based on Alice Walker’s The Color Purple (1982)

Sub-genres: Spielberg Gets Serious • Oprah’s Acting Debut • Robbed At The Oscars

 

I have a preference for the book here, but the adaptation of The Color Purple retains much of what makes the book so moving. Spielberg was an odd choice to direct, especially since he’d only done summer blockbusters up to this point and because Walker was reluctant to hand her book over for adaptation at all (she was apparently swayed by ET—relatable!). But Spielberg is a pro, and handles the material well (with the exception of downplaying the lesbian aspects of the story) and the cast delivers career high performances. And a Quincy Jones score? Amazing. –JF

See also:

Friend, Foe, Family, Stranger: Fourteen Books on Black Motherhood by Black Daughters • In Praise of Problematic Women: A Reading List of “Bad” Mothers • Ten LGBTQ+ Authors on the Books That Taught Them • “Who Are Your People?” A Reading List of Strong, Spirited Southern Ladies • Why Queer Stories Deserve Happy Endings • Making a Way Out of No Way: Celebrating the Power of Black Female Relationships in Literature • The Color Purple and the Language of Healing from Trauma • Intimacy and Manipulation: A Reading List of Fictional Diaries • The Meaningful Mundane:6 Classic Books That Depict Black Girlhood • From Gatsby to Giovanni’s Room, the Stories Behind 5 American Classics

*
MATCHUP:

Ran (12) vs. The Age of Innocence (4)

******************************************

Ran
dir. Akira Kurosawa, 1985

Based on William Shakespeare’s King Lear (1605)

Sub-genres: Shakespeare Abroad • Moody Men • Swordplay

 

Kurosawa is one of the great directors of Shakespeare, and this adaptation is one of the best. It would be his last epic film, and he pulls out all the stops with the locations, cinematography, and battle sequences. Not surprisingly, it was one of the most expensive films made in Japan at the time.

What I love about this adaptation is how much it diverges from the play. The script began as a story of a 16th century warlord and his three sons—Kurosawa only added elements of Lear later on, alongside other references and inspirations. The result is a not a true restaging of Shakespeare, but Ran is also not divergent enough to be merely “inspired by.” Kurosawa shifts Shakespeare’s plot and the themes just enough, which makes for a fascinating companion and foil. –JF

See also:

In Praise of Remixing Shakespeare • Tyranny as Tragedy: On King Lear, Maoist China and the Unpredictable Nature of Power • How Did Shakespeare Kill (And Heal) His Characters?

••••••••••vs••••••••••

The Age of Innocence
dir. Martin Scorsese, 1993

Based on Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence (1920)

Sub-genres: Lingering Gazes • Society Is The Real Villain • Infidelity Is Wrong… Unless?

 

There’s a lot of yearning here in the drama section, much of it British. But to pair my soft boy heart with my NYC pride for a moment: we can yearn with the best of them over here in New York, as Edith Wharton proves in her top notch romance about flawed, stifled people finding and losing each other. Fellow New Yorker Martin Scorsese’s take is wistful and tender, and I think this movie is a thematic skeleton key for the rest of his oeuvre. Class and society constrain all, and Age of Innocence traps its characters in their gauzy and ornate world. We see insert shots of all the luxe, representative objects, and Scorsese’s shots (the spotlighting in the opera box, my heart!) are a perfect match to Wharton’s prose. What performances! What direction! And that nearly unbearable ending! Scorsese’s not just a mob movie guy, he really can do it all. –JF

See also:

30 Years Later, The Age of Innocence Remains Scorsese’s Most Subtle Deconstruction of Misogyny • What Do We Do with The Age of Innocence in 2020? • The Memories of Streets: A Reading List of NYC Books That Capture the City’s Many Sides • “The Future Belonged to the Showy and the Promiscuous.” How Edith Wharton Foresaw the 21st Century • Edith Wharton on How to Write a Vivid First Line • Some Things You May Not Have Known About Edith Wharton’s Dog Obsession • The Secret Love of Edith Wharton’s Life • Does Edith Wharton Hate Us?

*
MATCHUP:

Brokeback Mountain (6) vs. Apocalypse Now (3)

******************************************

Brokeback Mountain
dir. Ang Lee, 2005

Based on Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain” (1997)

Sub-genres: Iconic Lines • Home (In Your Arms) On The Range • Just Let The Boys Kiss

 

One of the few short story adaptations on our list, Brokeback Mountain makes a feature out of fewer than 3,000 words by paying deep attention to the characters and the nuances in Proulx’s story. (Interestingly, Proulx has said she regrets publishing the story because of all of the wild fan fiction rewrites she gets in the mail. Leave Annie alone!)

Brokeback Mountain looks great—cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto Stambaugh knocks it out of the park. (Look him up on IMDB, he’s shot so many gorgeous movies.) And of course, our sweet, repressed boys steal the show. Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Michelle Williams are all passionately restrained, which has led to endless debates about the characters’ “true” sexuality.

My hot take? The line “I wish I knew how to quit you” lands harder on the page than on the screen. –JF

See also:

On the Outsize Power of the Short Story (AKA the Genre of “High Genius”) • On Reimagining the Limitless Potential of the Literary Western • 43 of the Most Iconic Short Stories in the English Language • Where Are All the Rural Gay Poets? • Billy-Ray Belcourt Wants a Whole Literature of Queer Indigenous Possibility • Thomas McGuane on Not Living the Writer’s Life

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Apocalypse Now
dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1979

Based on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899) and Michael Herr’s Dispatches (1977)

Sub-genres: Almost Directed By George Lucas?! • T.S. Eliot Quotes • Big Music Choices

 

Perhaps the best Vietnam War movie ever made. A savvy translation from the source material by Francis Ford Coppola and right-wing crank John Milius, Apocalypse Now shifts Conrad’s tale of depravity set amidst Belgian colonial horrors to a tale of depravity set amidst American imperial horrors in Vietnam and Cambodia.

An elite soldier with a fraying mind is sent deep into a wartime nightmare, and the sweaty performances, bold musical choices, and beautiful cinematography take us there. And every film nerd knows that the production’s depravity and delirium almost surpasses the film’s—Apocalypse Now’s Wikipedia page is as wild as the film itself. –JF

See also:

What Really Went on Between Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Sheen During the Filming of Apocalypse Now? • “Invasion is a Structure Not an Event.” On Settler Colonialism and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness • On the Jealous Rivalry Between Nicolas Cage and His Uncle, Francis Ford Coppola • 19th-Century Blues: When Science Killed God and Made Some Englishmen Sad • The Editor Who Pulled Joseph Conrad from the Slush Pile • How Heart of Darkness Revealed the Horror of Congo’s Rubber Trade

 

*
MATCHUP:

Malcolm X (7) vs. The English Patient (2)

******************************************

Malcolm X
dir. Spike Lee, 1992

Based on Alex Haley’s The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965)

Sub-genres: Radical Films • Big Book & Big Movie • Amazing Cameos

 

Thanks to the maximalist Spike Lee, this sprawling biopic replicates the 500-page scope of its source material. We follow the man born Malcolm Little from point of origin to mission fulfillment; from Omaha to Harlem to Mecca, plus many stations in between. The film structure is ambitious because its subject was. You reach the credits appropriately floored by what Malcolm X (i.e., Denzel, giving a tour de force performance) managed to accomplish in such a short time. –BA

See also:

How the Mothers of MLK, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin Shaped America • Naming the Unnamed: On the Many Uses of the Letter X • On the Self-Education of Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, and the Insatiable Quest for Literacy • How to Understand the 1960s in 11 Books • Fatima Bhutto on Channeling the Fearlessness of Malcolm X • How Two of America’s Biggest Columnists Reacted to the Assassination of Malcolm X • The Invention of Mid-Century Cool • Falling in Love with Malcolm X—and His Mastery of Metaphor

••••••••••vs••••••••••

The English Patient
dir. Anthony Minghella, 1996

Based on Michael Ondaatje’s The English Patient (1992)

Sub-genres: So Many Awards • Sexy Archaeology • Biplanes

 

I got an undergraduate degree in archaeology and a lot of my peers cited Indiana Jones or The Mummy as the source of their interest in the field, but I distinctly remember one person saying they were inspired by The English Patient. And they’re not wrong—the movie certainly made archaeology seem like it would involve a lot more falling in love in beautiful caves.

This movie yearns, oh how it yearns. It’s the careful pacing, and the movement through time that builds the feeling, and allows The English Patient to maintain the careful attention of the novel, not easy to pull off with so much fighting going on. Minghella and a stellar cast never lose the tenderness amidst the epic sweep of a world war. –JF

See also:

So, is the The English Patient good or what? • Michael Ondaatje’s Golden Man Booker Speech is Really Great • Telling Everything All at Once: A Conversation with Michael Ondaatje • Michael Ondaatje on the Books He Loves to Reread

* * *

*
MATCHUP:

The Silence of the Lambs (1) vs. True Grit (9)

******************************************

The Silence of the Lambs
dir. Jonathan Demme, 1991

Based on Thomas Harris’s The Silence of the Lambs (1988)

Sub-genres: Ruined Both Chianti AND Fava Beans • And the Song “American Girl” • Still Worth It, Though

 

Jonathan Demme’s adaptation starts out tense (dreary woods and Howard Shore strings from the jump) and tightens the screws, with surgical precision, to an almost unbearable tautness—culminating in one of the great payoffs in film history. And, of course, the repartee (if slightly mismatched) between Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins is a skin-crawling delight. –JG

See also:

40 of the Best Villains in Literature • On the Women Lucky Enough to Survive Horror Films

••••••••••vs••••••••••

True Grit
dir. Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, 2010

Based on Charles Portis’s True Grit (1968)

Sub-genres: “La-Beef” • Forceful Narrators • Great Nicknames

 

I’m glad that it was the Coen’s who adapted this novel by one of America’s funniest writers. The three men share sensibilities: Portis and the Coens all love a freaky little tertiary character, an idiosyncratic turn of phrase, and a manically driven main character. Unlike the John Wayne adaptation from the ‘60s, the Coens honor what makes Portis’s novel memorable: Mattie Ross and her highly opinionated narration. Hailee Steinfeld is great in the role, and all the more impressive that it’s her first film. True Grit is a movie that meets the almost impossibly bar the novel sets. –JF

See also:

A Close Reading of True Grit’s Perfect First Paragraph • He Got Away With Everything: Reading True Grit After the Reelection of Donald Trump • The Paradox of the Contemporary Southern Writer • Bud Smith on the Quintessential “Road Trip” Novel • Eric Puchner: How to Be Funny When Writing a Novel • The 10 Best Literary Film Adaptations of the Decade

*
MATCHUP:

Goodfellas (12) vs. Gone Girl (4)

******************************************

Goodfellas
dir. Martin Scorsese, 1990

Based on Nicolas Pileggi’s Wiseguy (1985)

Sub-genres: Great Narration • Iconic Garlic Slicing On Film • So Much Cocaine

 

What makes Goodfellas the perfect adaptation is its style, and how perfectly suited that style is to the content. On the page, ex-gangster Henry Hill’s story is exciting enough. But it’s Scorcese’s zooming, coked-out sensibility—as felt in sweaty close-ups, indelible needle drops, and brash voice over—that brings our unreliable narrator(s) to life. The scene on the stand, when Hill breaks the fourth wall? Because at this point in the narrative, Henry feels he can break anything!? Is inspired medium translation. No small wonder that Scorcese self-cannibalized the move in several subsequent projects. –BA

See also:

Thirty Years Later, Is Goodfellas The Greatest Mob Movie Ever Made?

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Gone Girl
dir. David Fincher, 2014

Based on Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl (2012)

Sub-genres: Revenge Served Cool • Writers Behaving Badly • Spitting In Mountain Dew

 

Look, nothing’s ever going to hit quite like that on-page twist—but damn if David Fincher doesn’t almost pull it off. An absolutely feral Rosamund Pike, Ben Affleck at his most charming and hateful (this is up there with Ned in Shakespeare in Love for top Affleck roles), a thoroughly creepy Neil Patrick Harris, and about a thousand other killer performances against the haunting Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score are frankly hypnotizing. Even if you know the twists, the movie still convinces you that you might not. This movie also helps me explain to people why I think the Macbeths are the most mature, loving couple in all of Shakespeare. –DB

See also:

30 of the Worst Couples in Literature • On the Feminine Urge to Murder • Why the Rise of Morally Gray Women In Fiction Is Good For All of Us

*
MATCHUP:

Fight Club (11) vs. The Talented Mr. Ripley (3)

******************************************

Fight Club
dir. David Fincher, 1999

Based on Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club (1996)

Sub-genres: The Boyfriend Canon • Where Is My Mind • Dudes Being Dudes

 

I don’t love all of the changes made to Chuck Palahniuk’s incendiary debut, but it almost doesn’t matter. Ed Norton and Brad Pitt are grimy and beautiful (and don’t get me started about Helena Bonham Carter) and any movie that features Jared Leto getting his ass kicked is worth the candle. Fight Club has always been misunderstood—by readers, viewers, cultural commentators—but I think Fincher manages to get his licks in about capitalism almost as good as Palahniuk does in the novel. And if the ending is a cop-out, well, who hasn’t said, “You met me at a very strange time in my life” to the person they’re dating? –DB

See also:

Everyone Misunderstands the Point of Fight Club • Behind the Scenes of David Fincher’s Fight Club

••••••••••vs••••••••••

The Talented Mr. Ripley
dir. Anthony Mingella, 1999

Based on Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley (1995)

Sub-genres: Beautiful People Doing Murders • Creating Text from Subtext • Boats are Dangerous

 

Matt Damon has never been more convincing than in his turn as Tom Ripley in Minghella’s unsettling and intoxicating adaptation of Highsmith’s complex thriller, but it’s Philip Seymour Hoffman who really steals the show, even against Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Cate Blanchett as the invented but excellent Meredith. The warmth of the film—shot on location in Positano, Italy—only adds to its creeping, sexy menace. Is it better than the book? Not quite, but it makes an excellent companion piece. –ET

See also:

A Close-Reading of The Talented Mr. Ripley as Coming of Age Story • I think about this tiny detail from The Talented Mr. Ripley all the time. • The Lit Hub Staff’s Favorite Villains: Dwyer Murphy on Patricia Highsmith’s Tom Ripley. • All Our Monstrous Fantasies: A Reading List • Let Them Be Morally Flawed: In Defense of Queer Villains in Stories

*
MATCHUP:

Die Hard (7) vs. No Country for Old Men (2)

******************************************

Die Hard
dir. John McTiernan, 1988

Based on Roderick Thorp’s Nothing Lasts Forever (1979)

Sub-genres:  But Is It a Christmas Movie? • Better Than the Book • The Watch is a Metaphor, You See • Yippie-ki-yay

 

An action movie about a cop at a Christmas party that turned out way, way better than it needed to be, thanks to Bruce Willis, the always-excellent Alan Rickman, superb pacing, and most of all, a strong sense of humor. Is it essentially an anti-feminist parable? Possibly! But you’d hardly notice because of all the fun you’re having. –ET

See also:

On the Literary Roots of Die Hard • 21 Movies You Should Watch This Holiday Season • 13 Adaptations Better Than the Books They’re Based On

••••••••••vs••••••••••

No Country for Old Men
dir. Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, 2007

Based on Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men (2005)

Sub-genres: Extra Villainous Villains • Contemplating The Nature of Evil • Hats

 

It’s sometimes shocking to think that No Country beat out two other similarly spectacular adaptations (There Will Be Blood, a very loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s Oil!, and Atonement) for the 2007 Academy Award for Best Picture. I probably watch those other films more often than I do No Country and yet I do think No Country is also the better adaptation. It gave us, of course, Javier Bardem’s most riveting performance as the classically-McCarthy-ian villain Anton Chigurh, but the thing that seals the deal for me is the ending, which somehow brings the true existentialist poetry of McCarthy’s writing to life in the simple delivery of Tommy Lee Jones and the steady camerawork of the Coen Brothers. A true masterpiece. –DB

See also:

Remembering Cormac McCarthy • JD Vance Quoted One of Cormac McCarthy’s Most Evil Characters to Make Some Asinine Point • The 30 Best Diner Scenes in Crime Movies, Ranked

* * *

*
MATCHUP:

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (1) vs. Children of Men (8)

******************************************

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
dir. Peter Jackson, 2003

Based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Return of the King (1955)

Sub-genres: Extended Edition or Die • Movies That Make Me Cry For Over One Full Hour • Sam Gamgee You Will Always Be Famous

 

The Lord of the Rings movies are some of the best films—let alone the best adaptations—ever made. What Jackson (and his co-writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh) manage to do with Return of the King is uphold the world and themes of the book while also clarifying the message and emotional stakes of the original text. They’re talented editors as much as they’re talented adaptors. There is a deep care and respect in every choice made, and no change is made lightly, no cut is made thoughtlessly. Like Tolkien’s novel, this movie is a masterwork of craft. Unlike Tolkien’s novel, we get to see many different crafts succeed at once: writing, editing, directing, costuming, acting, designing, and more. I could talk about this movie for a very long time, but instead I’ll just say: it’s probably been too long since you watched it. Throw it on and have a good 4+ hour cry. –MC

See also:

The Literary Power of Hobbits: How JRR Tolkien Shaped Modern Fantasy • Did Tolkien Write The Lord of the Rings Because He Was Avoiding His Academic Work? • Is The Lord of the Rings a Work of Modernism? • On the time J.R.R. Tolkien refused to work with Nazi-leaning publishers • Imaginary Histories: How Tolkien’s Fascination with Language Shaped His Literary World • Why We Feel So Compelled to Make Maps of Fictional Worlds

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Children of Men
dir. Alfonso Cuarón, 2006

Based on PD James’s The Children of Men (1992)

Sub-genres: The Only Living Boy • Stoner Michael Caine • One Shot Hall of Fame • Too Prescient

 

There was a great tweet from back in the day that wondered if in Children of Men, maybe the rest of the world was still normal and only Britain was like that. It’s a joke that doesn’t strike me as so absurd anymore, from the vantage point of a country that is inflicting a lot of pain on others and on itself, for really no reason at all.

Children of Men is prescient in this and a lot of other ways, but most of all it’s a well-made, thoughtful action movie. Cuarón is a great director, and the speculative plot is complicated by a tired hero, played by the moody and reluctant Clive Owen. In the two decades since its release, I find this movie most memorable for its vivid texture, of life during a violent apocalypse-in-process. –JF

See also:

22 (More) Adaptations Better Than the Books They’re Based On • Speculative Journeys: Sci-Fi for People Who Don’t Really Like Sci-Fi • Writing the Anxiety of Parenthood on the Precipice of Apocalypse

*
MATCHUP:

Blade Runner (12) vs. The Shining (4)

******************************************

Blade Runner
dir. Ridley Scott, 1982

Based on Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)

Sub-genres: The Boyfriend Canon • More Human Than Human • “Computer, Enhance” • They Fixed It

 

This iconic adaptation smoothed out a lot of the tangles in Dick’s novel, but it didn’t arrive perfect. A weird monologue was removed from the theatrical cut, and there have been a number subsequent re-edits and updates of the film since then. But despite all the recuts, Blade Runner has remained popular because of the questions it raises about humanity, labor, and class, alongside great performances and a rich and gritty vision of the future. There’s a lot to like aestethically: blinking machines, Harrison Ford, robots, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos in a flying cop car, dumpling carts on rainy L.A. streets, and Vangelis’s eerie synths. Plus that Rutger Hauer “tears in the rain” monologue? It’s like the film bro pledge of allegiance. –JF

See also:

Storytelling Tips from the Writer of Blade Runner • Bad Old Ideas in a Brave New World • Following the “Mom Rule.” On Writing Sci-Fi My Mother Could Get Behind

••••••••••vs••••••••••

The Shining
dir. Stanley Kubrick, 1980

Based on Stephen King’s The Shining (1977)

Sub-genres: Accurate Depictions of Writers • Famous Axes Of Cinema • Imagine The Trip Advisor Reviews

 

Here’s the thing: is this a great adaptation of the Stephen King novel The Shining? Not really. We all know how much King hates this version (so much so that he made his own! Which was worse, if more faithful!), but it’s like how Throne of Blood is probably the best cinematic Macbeth: Kubrick took the elements he liked, ditched the rest, and turned in one of the great horror films of all time. It doesn’t matter that we lose the psychological nuance of the novel or even that Jack Torrance is already well and truly haunted before he gets to the hotel—because Jack Nicholson’s performance gets at the core of the fear that’s animating King’s novel, just from a different direction. In King’s book, the hotel is evil; in Kubrick’s film, there’s plenty of human villainy to go around. Both are scary, both are exceptional. Perhaps that’s all a good adaptation needs to do. –DB

See also:

Jack Torrance and Me: On Writing and Self-Loathing in The Shining • How Stanley Kubrick Brought Stephen King’s The Shining to the Big Screen • Bestsellers to Blockbusters: Stephen King Reflects on the Adaptations of His Work

*
MATCHUP:

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (11) vs. Jurassic Park (3)

******************************************

Bram Stoker’s Dracula
dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1992

Based on Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897)

Sub-genres: Making Dracula Sexy Again • Heart Hair • Steampunk Realness

 

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is one of those movies that turns me into an old-timey film guy who shouts, “What a picture!” at the screen. It’s a gorgeous movie, with ambitious in-camera effects, sumptuous and intricate costumes, and lush, colorful cinematography—Coppola’s take on Dracula has influenced every vampire film since. (Notably, Coppola foregrounds the sexual subtexts in Stoker. The best read on this topic comes from my friend Luke, who identified that Keanu Reeve’s Harker is the only character who doesn’t seem to understand horniness, a tension which dooms him.) –JF

See also:

The 52 Best Draculas, Ranked • On the Victorian Science and Prejudices Behind Bram Stoker’s Dracula • On Dracula‘s Lost Icelandic Sister Text • This is the weird horror novel that outsold Dracula in 1897 • Charles Band on Shooting Inside His Own Castle and Borrowing a Costume from Bram Stoker’s Dracula

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Jurassic Park
dir. Steven Spielberg, 1993

Based on Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park (1990)

Sub-genres: Preoccupied Scientists • Clever Girls • The Most Blockbuster of The Summer Blockbusters

 

You can hear the sweeping John Williams right now, I’m sure, a sign of how indelible this movie has become. Jurassic Park is a classic, full of great performances, endlessly quotable lines, and all those dinosaurs moving in herds. It’s quintessentially summer. It’s so good that even the atrocious sequels can’t take the shine off of it.

One thing I’ve always wondered is that if Jurassic Park were real, would the park have the equivalent of annoying Disney Adults, whose entire personalities revolve around the dinos? It’s just one of the reasons I’m glad this is fiction. –JF

See also:

The 25 Most Iconic Book Covers in History • 40 of the Best Villains in Literature • The Scariest, Creepiest, and Most Frightening Animals in Fiction

*
MATCHUP:

Carrie (7) vs. Arrival (2)

******************************************

Carrie
dir. Brian De Palma, 1976

Based on Stephen King’s Carrie (1974)

Sub-genres: Bad Prom Dates • They Fixed It • The Stephen King Cinematic Universe

 

A wildly influential film that spins high school revenge fantasy into a dizzyingly gory spectacle. The final sequence is pure American Giallo (complimentary): the bullies’ comeuppance is delivered with flying knives, a fire hose turned into a spitting cobra, and microphone electrocution. Sissy Spacek keeps the cast on track, and I think De Palma has a better handle on the story’s themes and anxieties than King does. De Palma gets the pain of youth on a more nuanced level, and smartly dials back the violent scale of the ending to put the focus closer to home. –JF

See also:

The Most-Rejected Books of All Time • The Living Authors with the Most Film Adaptations • Girls, Interrupted: A Reading List of Female Madness • Stephen King: Master of Almost All the Genres Except “Literary”

••••••••••vs••••••••••

Arrival
dir. Denis Villeneuve, 2016

Based on Ted Chiang’s “Story of Your Life” (1998)

Sub-genres: What Even Is Time, Man? • Jeremy Renner Loves A Helicopter • Word Nerds On Film • Aliens That Make You Cry

 

As Lit Hub editor emeritus Aaron Robertson put it: “What if language was the key to knowledge, not only about your neighbor, but about strangers and yourself as well? By the end of Arrival, the Denis Villeneuve film based on Ted Chiang’s 1998 short story, “Story of Your Life,” the viewer understands this as the movie’s central question. Linguist Louise Banks (played by the ever-reliable Amy Adams) and physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) are called by the US Army to help study one of twelve extraterrestrial spacecrafts that have positioned themselves in scattered locations around the world. What Banks and Donnelly discover aboard the craft are two amorphous alien specimens, which they call “heptapods,” that communicate using a complicated system of logograms, or written characters that represent a word or phrase. This straightforward set-up lays the groundwork for a moving, and often anxiety-inducing, investigation of language, empathy, and miscommunication. Arrival’s surprising endgame cemented it as one of the most heartfelt movies of the last decade. The film’s meditative aesthetic is also boosted by a rather primal, ruminative score by the late, great Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson.” –ET

See also:

Ted Chiang on Arrival, the Boredom of Moviemaking, and The Princess Bride • Why Arrival Looks So Different After COVID-19 • Ted Chiang on Superintelligence and Its Discontents in J.D. Beresford’s Innovative Work of Early 20th-Century Science Fiction

 

Thanks for voting! We’ll see you on day 3!