We have all heard someone rant about how a movie adaptation dishonored one of their favorite books. “That’s not how it happened in the book. That character would never do that. Did they even read the book?” The Giver, Percy Jackson and Eragon seem to always catch a bullet during these discussions — not that I blame those holding the gun. These films deserve to take some fire. With so many failed adaptations in the past, I find myself feeling cynical anytime a new one is announced. Thankfully, all hope is not lost. There are some adaptations that complement, enhance, and even surpass their source material — blasphemy, I know, but it is true. Some adaptations are able to breathe life into a dull character, capture the essence of a story or deliver a scene you love in a whole new way. These are three book-to-movie adaptations that got it right.
The Watch: “Wonder”
By: Sam Boger
“Wonder” was one of my favorite books when I was a kid.
I still remember my sixth grade English teacher reading to us the story of how a boy with facial deformities dealt with the world around him in between worksheets and lessons. I was a year older than Auggie, and I went to a private school similar to the one he starts at for his fifth grade year.
The book was interesting for a lot of reasons. Not only was the story split into eight different parts — each from a different perspective of Auggie or an important person in his life — but you also never knew what he looks like. The only descriptions of his face in the book are that he has “Treacher Collins Syndrome,” a condition that causes misshapenness to the eyes, ears, cheekbones and chin, and that Auggie wears an astronaut helmet everywhere he goes to hide it. The message and magic to it are simple — there is no way you could judge Auggie because you have no idea what he looka like. You only know who he is: a sweet, kind-hearted intelligent kid who was just like everyone else.
When they announced a film adaptation, I was immediately skeptical. Actually showing Auggie’s face would defeat the whole purpose of the book. I was surprised to find out that the film does what the book actually sought out to do — to challenge the potential prejudice you might still have, even after reading the book. It forces you to sit with the possible discomfort that looking at Auggie for an hour and 43 minutes might cause. It arguably does even more than the book: teaching viewers to accept Auggie while actually looking at him, normalizing his features while changing little to the character or story. Both the book and the movie share the same message, as Auggie’s English teacher says, “When given the choice between being right and being kind, always choose kind.” The only difference between the two works is that one requires you to actually choose it.
Stream on Prime Video.
The Watch: “Holes”
By: Sam Poore
“I am tired of this grandpa!” I said, while carrying a brown bag stuffed with leaves up the driveway.
“Well, that’s too damn bad! You keep digging!” answered my brother as he walked past me, returning from his first trip and going to grab another bag.
This quote sits among my family’s vast arsenal of movie lines, ready to be retrieved when the perfect moment presents itself. While this is one of my favorite quotes from the 2003 movie “Holes, ” it is also one of the few lines that isn’t taken directly from the book “Holes” by Louis Sachar.
I first read “Holes” in middle school and then again in high school for the nostalgia. If I am being honest, I can’’t remember which I experienced first — the book or the movie — but after knowing both like the back of my hand, I can confidently say that the movie “Holes” is one of the few films that was better than the book.
Sachar wrote the screenplay for the film, with some scenes taken almost word for word from the book. However, the movie didn’t just recreate the book, but instead did what adaptations are supposed to do: it enhanced the story, added new dimensions and made it accessible to a broader audience.
“Holes” follows three interconnected stories: Stanley Yelnats, a 14-year-old boy who is sent to a juvenile correction camp for a crime he didn’t commit; Elya Yelnats, Stanley’s no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing-great-great-grandfather; and Kissing Kate Barlow, an outlaw known for kissing her victims after killing them. While the time jumps often feel jarring and disruptive in the book, the movie weaves them seamlessly and is able to bring each to life.
The movie also gives life to characters that feel slightly dull on the page. It injects personality and humor into dialogue that often seems bland or stagnant in the book, most noticeably in the character of Stanley, as it transforms him from a somewhat passive book protagonist into a character audiences could root for.
“Holes” the movie isn’t just a great adaptation — it’s a rare case where the screen outshines the page.
Stream on Disney+.
The Watch: “Murder on the Orient Express”
By: Ethan Orwig
“The book was way better.”
Maybe. The statement makes you wonder if it’s even plausible to compare novels and their film adaptations. After all, they’re two completely different works of art, with their own vision and capabilities. What makes one better than the other? Accuracy? Emotional evocation? Digestibility? It depends on the genre. For murder mysteries — known for complex stories with dozens of characters — the biggest question you must ask is, “Can you visualize the story?” For folks who aren’t avid readers, they might choose the movie over the book because it is easier to visualize the story in front of them. However, as a once-avid-reader-turned-burdened-student, this was the experience I had reading Agatha Christie’s “Murder on the Orient Express” (“MOTOE”). Christie fan’s are likely boiling in their seats, but I found myself enjoying the 1974 film adaptation of “MOTOE” more than its novel predecessor.
Don’t get me wrong. The book is incredible, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time reading it. I’ve read dozens of Hercule Poirot short stories alongside the famous locomotive thriller. But with “MOTOE” being such a short book — with so many colorful characters vastly different from one another — being able to see them all on screen helped me track every movement of Poirot’s thoughts and observations during his investigation.
By the end of the film, the final Poirot monologue, where he reveals his roadmap of how the murder of Cassetti occurred, is especially captivating. This monolithic scene is filmed in a handful of long linear shots — and by the end of it, Albert Finney’s Poirot had sweat beading his face. Finney even improvised a moment to take a swig one of the propped drinks to revive his parched throat to get through the 15-minute scene. The camera strategically rotates around the claustrophobic dining car, carefully focusing on the suspects nervously surrounding Poirot, who charismatically tears all 12 of their alibis apart before their very eyes. This last scene really sold this film to me, something that the novel was not able to do as well.
The book-movie debate all comes down to what a medium is capable and incapable of doing. For most people, films allow viewers to visualize complex scenes in a more friendly way than a book can, especially when the film is directed in way that digests each individual character enough before its climax. The 1974 version of “MOTOE” launched the film by doing just that. You watch as all 12 suspects board the train in their own way, revealing their unique character and attitude. Poirot’s interrogation scenes are written in a way that allows the viewer to get to know each suspect, all while being in Poirot’s mind. For first time viewers, it allows them to draw their own conclusions to the murder mystery before the great reveal.
This gives Christie’s novel much credit, as the film is very faithful to the original text. But even though the novel is milestone in the mystery/suspense genre, the 1974 film’s pacing is digestible, the acting is phenomenal and the subtle, genius cinematography all together creates a near perfect film which makes me hungry for more.
Stream on Prime Video.
