Novels into Film: The Encyclopedia of Movies Adapted from Books

Rating:
Summary: Film Primer
Review: Being more of a "browser book," I did not feel the need to read the entire thing to get a glimpse into its quality. Instead, I read its comparisons of three novel-film counterparts in which I was especially familiar--_Frankenstein_, _Jurassic Park_, and _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_. None of these comparisons contained much substance and were frequently loaded with factual errors. At least the writer of the Oz essay was familiar with Baum's other works, although there many factual errors about them, including the first, as there were for _Frankenstein_ and _Jurassic Park_. The comparisons were very simplistic, and the Oz entry in particular argued for the superiority of the film to the novel, referring mainly to another essay to explain why. While even the best argument probably could not convince me, if it had been better thought out I could at least understand why the writer felt that way. Alas, I could not, as so much of the argument was based on severe factual errors suggesting a very poor memory of the literary counterpart. The Oz entry even cited the Henry Littlefield Populism analogy as fact, despite Littlefield retraction and strong evidence about L. Frank Baum to the contrary.

Using only three entries may seem an unfair litmus test for the book, but my justification is as follows: if the books I'm familiar with are discussed with gross errors about the facts of the texts, how am I supposed to know that other essays, for films and novels I am not familiar with, don't contain erroneous junk that negate their usefulness?

I would love to see a new edition of the book with much more well-thought out essays. Granted, this is published as a "popular" text, but even a popular text should be credible, and this, alas, isn't.

Rating:
Summary: Great idea; poorly executed
Review: Being more of a "browser book," I did not feel the need to read the entire thing to get a glimpse into its quality. Instead, I read its comparisons of three novel-film counterparts in which I was especially familiar--_Frankenstein_, _Jurassic Park_, and _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_. None of these comparisons contained much substance and were frequently loaded with factual errors. At least the writer of the Oz essay was familiar with Baum's other works, although there many factual errors about them, including the first, as there were for _Frankenstein_ and _Jurassic Park_. The comparisons were very simplistic, and the Oz entry in particular argued for the superiority of the film to the novel, referring mainly to another essay to explain why. While even the best argument probably could not convince me, if it had been better thought out I could at least understand why the writer felt that way. Alas, I could not, as so much of the argument was based on severe factual errors suggesting a very poor memory of the literary counterpart. The Oz entry even cited the Henry Littlefield Populism analogy as fact, despite Littlefield retraction and strong evidence about L. Frank Baum to the contrary.

Using only three entries may seem an unfair litmus test for the book, but my justification is as follows: if the books I'm familiar with are discussed with gross errors about the facts of the texts, how am I supposed to know that other essays, for films and novels I am not familiar with, don't contain erroneous junk that negate their usefulness?

I would love to see a new edition of the book with much more well-thought out essays. Granted, this is published as a "popular" text, but even a popular text should be credible, and this, alas, isn't.

Rating:
Summary: Recent Reviews
Review: From the San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 31, 1999 "Novels Into Film: The Encyclopedia of Movies Adapted from Books is a treasure. . . . The hundred or so entries contain a wealth of information, comparisons, insights, and trivia. . . . If you want to know which of the several adaptations of Les Miserables to rent or learn the various convoluted interpretations made of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Novels Into Film is an excellent resource."---Marcy Sheiner From Book Page, October 1999 "Novels Into Film is a great choice for folks who love books, movies, or both."

Rating:
Summary: Film Primer
Review: It is interesting if you like to read. It is also interesting to see how what were once thought as interesting and new stories are old, recycled from novels that few knew existed.

Rating:
Summary: A little disappointing
Review: Like other reviewers, I bought this without actually looking at it and I agree that it could have been done much better. It's a very good idea which seems to have fallen down in the execution. To the list of serious omissions I would add: The Ice Storm, The Godfather (!!) Rosemary's Baby, Midnight Cowboy, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Primary Colours, Lady In The Lake, Fear & and Loathing in Las Vegas (if we are talking about Hollywood here.) National cinemas other than American are very poorly represented. The book does acknowledge that it's the 'abridged' edition, and I would not have liked to have to choose what went in and what got left out, but still. The individual essays vary a great deal in usefulness and quality, with some being really very good and others abysmal. In future editions I would like to see more attention given to non-US filmmaking.

Rating:
Summary: Great idea gone terribly awry
Review: Well, it was a good idea, but...There are far too many omissions to make this book worthwhile. I can understand why genre novels made into genre films could be excluded--after all, how many people know or care that SOYLENT GREEN was based on a Harry Harrision novel titled MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM? Or that the movie COP was based on James Ellroy's BLOOD ON THE MOON? Or that DARK OF THE SUN was based on a Wilbur Smith novel of the same name? But at the same time, how could the authors of NOVELS INTO FILM fail to make reference to Lew Wallace's BEN-HUR? Or Howard Fast's SPARTACUS? Or Jack D. Hunter's THE BLUE MAX? Or Eugene Burdick's and Harvey Wheeler's FAIL-SAFE? Or Pierre Boulle's PLANET OF THE APES and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI? Or Edison Marshall's THE VIKINGS? Or choose to talk about a failed Richard Matheson adaptation like WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, but leave out THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN? Or forget to include..well, never mind. The list of omissions goes on. Yet the above works were all major mainstream novels of their eras, novels that were made into much-beloved and/or critically-acclaimed movies. These novels into films should have been included--especially since the authors of this so-called "Encylopedia" saw fit to pencil in adaptations of currently-popular--but hardly literary--authors such as Stephen King and John Grisham. I bought the book sight unseen--more fool me. I was cheated. Don't get cheated yourself.