After tabulating yesterday’s results, we’ve arrived at the quarterfinals. The end of the bracket is shaping up to be just the hits, all killer and no filler. Each of our four top seeded movies is still in contention, and up against exclusively #2s and #3s. The underdogs put up a good fight though: The Talented Mr. Ripley, Blade Runner, and Arrival all came very close to making it to the next round.

Heartache abounds, of course. Shakespeare is out, Scorsese is out, and the Muppets are out. Personally, you can find me sitting outside of The Age of Innocence’s Paris apartment, remembering what we once had and wondering what might have been…

There aren’t any quiet movies left in the final eight, with the very notable exception of The Remains of the Day. Though I suppose you could make the case that the suppressed emotions of that book and film are larger and deadlier than Dr. John Hammond’s genetically engineered T. Rexes.

It’s not just giant animatronic dinos stomping and water rippling ominously—there are a lot of monsters in the remaining movies. We’ve got Hannibal Lector, the Uruk Hai, Christopher Guest’s Count Tyrone Rugen, the brutal American War Machine, and 1930s Britain’s most dedicated Nazi sympathizers. In particular, the action/thriller showdown between The Silence of The Lambs and No Country For Old Men features two iconic screen psychopaths, and is reminding me of our best villains in literature bracket.

Looking just at the question of adaptation itself, we have an interesting variety of approaches still in the mix. There are big swings, like Clueless and Apocalypse Now, which both transpose their source texts into something almost unrecognizable and new, alongside more faithful, one-to-one adaptations like The Remains of The Day and The Lord Of The Rings, films which succeed by not just by replicating the specifics, but by managing to transmit something essential about the experience of reading the novels they’re based on—quiet introspection in the former and the vast sweep of an epic in the latter.

There’s no right way to adapt a book. But there can only be one winner of our bracket. Let’s vote.

–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 (See the results)

Round of 16: Voting open Wednesday, April 15th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT (See the results)

The Quarterfinals : Voting open Thursday April 16th from 10:00 AM – 7:00 PM EDT

The Semifinals: 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. Clueless (2)

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

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••••••••••

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. Apocalypse Now (3)

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

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••••••••••

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:

The Silence of the Lambs (1) vs. No Country for Old Men (2)

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

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••••••••••

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. Jurassic Park (3)

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

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••••••••••

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

 

That’s all until the semifinals tomorrow!