Wow! That movie was EXACTLY like the book!

How many times have we heard, "Eh, it was alright but I liked the book better."? Sometimes (though scarce) the movie is even better than the book.
How many films have you seen that was EXACTLY like the book? The characters and sets were just as you imagined them and the plot or ending was just as written?
For me only one comes to mind.
1984.
Unfortnately it just doesn't translate well to film so it sucked but by god, I remember the first time I saw it and I'd felt as I've already seen it a few times!
What other movies out there meet this criteria?

It isn't a movie, but the first thing that comes to my mind is "Game of Thrones". EXACTLY like the book. Characters, lines of dialogue, the events that unfold, pretty much identical in every way.

The Five People You Meet in Heaven

Movie = Book

I can't think of any I have ever seen where the book and movie matched up.

Sad.

One I have wished they would make is Without Remorse by Tom Clancy. The book was incredible, but it didn't have Jack Ryan as the main character, so they will probably never make it.

First Harry Potter is pretty damn close.

Nick

The Maltese Falcon is pretty close.

Silence of the Lambs was very close to the book.

The Dark Half was another that was faithfull to the source.

Shawshank Redemption is pretty close, and good to boot.

A Clockwork Orange is pretty literal.

cayman shen said:

---

Shawshank Redemption is pretty close, and good to boot.

If you can get over a short red headed Irishman being played by a tall black man it surely was

For the record I think it was also very true to the book

Watson said:

---

If you can get over a short red headed Irishman being played by a tall black man it surely was

For the record I think it was also very true to the book

Oh yeah, other than that!

Fight Club also was very close to the book...right up to the end. Oh well. But since this thread is looking for EXACT, I won't submit that one for consideration

Scott Pilgrim was pretty bang-on, for the most part.

Dart said:

---

Scott Pilgrim was pretty bang-on, for the most part.

If you have to add 'for the most part' it doesn't count.

Virgin Suicides - line for line.

Believe it or not, with the exception of Norman Bates' physical description, Psycho was nearly identical to the book right down to the dialog. Yet, the book was considered dime store drivel while the movie is considered a masterpiece.

The first Harry Potter was also very close to the book. I can't say much for the rest, because I haven't read past the first half of the second book.

Rosemary's Baby...though i saw the movie first.

There's a number of classics that hewed very close to the source material. For instance, To Kill a Mockingbird. But then, back in those days, Hollywood actually KNEW how to film a book without changing the story!

The most recent example I can think of is about 30 years old at this point... PBS' made-for-TV adaptation of Ursula K. LeGuin's The Lathe of Heaven... VERY faithful to the book!

But the less said about the modern remake with James Caan, the better.

Sin City was very close.

Misery.
When I saw the film, Kathy Bates embodied the part of Annie Wilkes perfectly. Everything about about what she did in that part seemed to jump right off the pages of the novel.
Mike

I've yet to see any film as close to the book as "The Exorcist". There are some minor dialogue differences here and there but I'd say it's 97% exactly like the novel.

"Memoirs of a Geisha" is extremely close to the novel, darn near exactly as described.

The Running Man.

They both had a guy being pursued. Everything else was different.

So I guess that wouldn't be a good example.

As for Shawshank, it's one of my favorite books. There were some big differences, and in some cases, the movie was even better than the book.

And when Red came upon the oak tree and the camera panned around him so we could see it- man they nailed it.

Brian

Everything in Harry Potter 1 was out of the book. The only thing that makes it not dead on is that stuff was cut. Most, though, is found in the deleted scenes. The 'Ultimate' version on BR is closest, but not all scenes were added.

For a 350 page book, it was still a 2.5 hour movie. Bang for Bang would have made it about 3 and they were paranoid no one would go if got too long.

StevenRogers84 said:

---

Sin City was very close.

Books with pictures don't count.

Watson said:

---

If you can get over a short red headed Irishman being played by a tall black man it surely was

For the record I think it was also very true to the book

They comment on that somewhere in the special features. The filmmakers acknowldege it in one way or another. Was it in Freeman's actual on-screen dialogue...?

Funky Jedi said:

---

Books with pictures don't count.

Well there goes Watchmen. That movie was almost exact with the exception of the tentacle monster being replaced by nuclear explosions.