Great movies can come from anywhere. We’ve had quality motion pictures based on toys, comics, historical events, musicians, anything under the sun. However, since the dawn of cinema, books have been among the ripest places to draw inspiration from, even those deemed “unfilmable.”
On the other hand are those instances where great books were turned into awful movies. These projects squandered amazing texts and transformed them into hideous cinematic creations, tarnishing the source material’s legacy and angering avid readers. Operating in a similar vein are the worst book-to-movie adaptations of all time. These movies would be terrible even if they weren’t based on (often superior) books. Everything about these productions was a disaster, though each film has varying shortcomings.
Books can be tremendous starting points for movies, but not for these misguided disasters. Whatever went awry in these 10 projects, they all gave the very concept of book-to-movie adaptations a dreadful name.
Read more: ’70s Movies That Would Never Be Made Today
Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile
Lyle eating desert with his family in Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile (2022) – Sony Pictures Releasing
In hindsight, “Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile” feels like a weird, studio-controlled fever dream. Bernard Waber’s 1965 children’s book was reimagined and heavily expanded for the big screen as a musical full of insipid songs penned by Pasek and Paul. To boot, the titular critter now could only speak while singing (via the voice of Shawn Mendes, of all people). It was all such a strange direction to take a film adaptation of “Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile,” but unfortunately, any “strange” notions were also ones that studio executives could be comfortable with. With the same songwriting duo behind “La La Land” and “The Greatest Showman,” this was clearly attempting to mimic the success of other live-action musical hits.
The genericness extended to Lyle himself, who was brought to life through “realistic” CGI and character design work. Waber’s original text visualized Lyle and all other characters with endearingly scraggly illustrations that looked like a child could’ve drawn them. Lyle looked adorable in these confines, whereas in this film, he looked too realistic and looming for his own good. Not even committed performances from Constance Wu and especially Javier Bardem could liven this film, which didn’t have the decency to at least provide memorable tunes.
Instead, Pasek and Paul’s soundtrack mostly runs one original track (“Take a Look at Us Now”) into the ground. “Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile” ran far astray from its source material just to deliver a hodgepodge of better family movies.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Allan Quatermain consulting with his allies in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) – 20th Century Fox
Few blockbusters have had such an adverse effect on those connected to it as 2003’s “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” A very loose retelling of Alan Moore’s graphic novel of the same name, the movie was headlined by Sean Connery, who was so frustrated with the production that he made “Gentlemen” his final live-action acting role. Meanwhile, the film cemented Moore’s contempt for any adaptations of his work, a resentment that has festered for subsequent productions like “V for Vendetta” and the various incarnations of “Watchmen.”
Even if you weren’t on the “Extraordinary Gentlemen” set or watching your creative vision be torn to shreds, it’s easy to be repulsed by this generic blockbuster. Sean Connery’s final live-action role failed at delivering even remotely memorable spectacle. Most of this feature was a mish-mash of indistinguishable skirmishes laced with CGI that already looked subpar back in 2003. Few characters registered as believable or compelling, particularly the plucky reimagining of Tom Sawyer (Shane West) created for this adaptation.
Not even the smaller details, like a ho-hum score by Trevor Jones, can dilute how forgettable and phoned-in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” is. Any of the artistry and specificity that made this property worth adapting in the first place is absolutely M.I.A within this blockbuster.
Dolittle
Dr. Dolittle and his animals witnessing a watery entrance opening up in Dolittle (2020) – Universal Pictures
Robert Downey Jr.’s best and worst movies reflect both his immense talent and questionable non-Marvel work over the last 20 years. Remember “The Judge,” a movie that featured Downey Jr. navigating an incest-heavy subplot? Similarly, for his first post-“Avengers: Endgame” part, Downey Jr. attached himself to playing the titular lead of “Dolittle.” The most recent cinematic adaptation of Hugh Lofting’s “Doctor Dolittle” books, this incredibly costly enterprise surrounded Downey Jr. with an avalanche of CG animal co-stars, all voiced by celebrity actors.
“Dolittle” crammed every scene with wacky talking critters, sitcom-level quips, and hyperactive mayhem. To call this a busy movie is an understatement. To call it remotely enjoyable is an even bigger overstatement. “Dolittle” is deeply flawed from the start, when it gives Downey Jr.’s Doctor Dolittle a dead wife to spur him into reclusiveness. Save for John Cena’s polar bear quipping about his father, none of the animals are entertaining despite their incessant noisiness. The broad swings at comedy (like an extended climactic flatulent joke involving a dragon) are cringeworthy, not side-splitting.
It’s bizarre to see an actor of Robert Downey Jr.’s stature stranded in the middle of this chaos. Contemplating what brought him to star in “Dolittle” is far more entertaining than sitting through the terrible movie itself.
Emilia Pérez
Rita Mora Castro performing a musical number in Emilia Pérez (2024) – Netflix
Before becoming the de facto “villain” of the 2024-2025 award season, “Emilia Pérez” started life as two separate pieces of source material. The first was an opera libretto of the same name that the film’s writer/director Jacques Audiard previously penned. However, it was also rooted in a passage from the 2018 Boris Razon book “Écoute.” From these disparate pieces came this 2024 musical following the titular drug lord (Karla Sofía Gascón) transitioning to become a woman. When she attempts to return and make good in her old stomping grounds in Mexico, chaos unfolds, much of it involving Pérez’s pal and lawyer Rita Mora Castro (Zoe Saldaña).
“Emilia Pérez’s” conceptual audaciousness would be more admirable if any of it was actually entertaining. Instead, Audiard appears wary of committing to full-out insanity, as seen by the terrible musical numbers usually amounting to lightly harmonized dialogue. The depictions of Mexico City and trans people, meanwhile, wallow in familiar archetypes and iconography. Even the performances fail to register, save for Saldaña at least being fully alive for whatever the script throws at her.
While other unorthodox 2020s musicals like “The Testament of Ann Lee” and “Better Man” embraced traits that left the expected far behind, “Emilia Pérez” is a monotonously derivative affair. It would’ve been better leaving this misguided enterprise in its various original mediums.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
General Thade choking Captain Leo in Planet of the Apes (2001) – 20th Century Fox
Once, Tim Burton’s directorial efforts were so unexpected that something like “Batman Returns” traumatized family audiences. His works, like “Ed Wood” and “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure,” explored societal underdogs that few other American filmmakers would linger on. Unfortunately, once the 21st century rolled around, Burton lost some of his creative chutzpah. The occasional gem like “Big Fish” or “Sweeney Todd” would still emerge, but for the most part, Burton was content to crank out vaguely “kooky” remakes of old movies.
The ultimate signal that Burton had traded his transgressive impulses for corporate-approved familiarity was his “Planet of the Apes” remake. Pierre Boulle’s 1963 book “Planet of the Apes” has spawned many films over the years. When ranking those “Planet of the Apes” movies from worst to best, though, Burton’s “Apes” would have to be towards the bottom. There’s no fun, adventure, or tension to be found in this flat enterprise. The dreary script leaves no room for personality, and Mark Wahlberg’s lead performance is similarly devoid of distinctiveness.
Only the outstanding makeup work and Paul Giamatti’s supporting turn stand out in this woe begotten mess. Otherwise, it is a soulless slog merely reminding viewers of vastly superior “Planet of the Apes” movies. Considering what Burton used to accomplish as a filmmaker, this “Apes” installment is especially egregious.
Pinocchio (2022)
Geppetto bidding farewell to Pinocchio in Pinocchio (2022) – Disney+
Disney’s love for remaking its animated films into live-action motion pictures is so fervent that it couldn’t be contained to the theaters. “Lady and the Tramp,” “Peter Pan & Wendy,” and a handful of other live-action remakes of pre-1960 titles debuted on Disney+. Part of this crop was a new take on “Pinocchio,” that classic Disney film based on Carlo Collodi’s 1883 children’s text. Writer/director Robert Zemeckis (who penned the script with Chris Weitz) delivered a “Pinocchio” that hit many of the familiar beats of its 1940 predecessor, but now with way less energy and visual verve.
The original “Pinocchio” was a triumph of hand-drawn animation and terrific songwriting. This new “Pinocchio” added bathroom humor, drab lighting, and anachronistic references to Chris Pine. Simultaneously, it sucked out all the glorious imagery and sense of tangible danger. This little wooden boy’s world was now a CG-laden nightmare realm full of off-putting creatures (including the new vision of Jiminy Cricket). Even the usually reliable composer Alan Silvestri delivered a half-hearted score.
Somehow, Tom Hanks got roped into playing Geppetto in this mess. While far from bad, he’s also nowhere near good enough to elevate “Pinocchio” to the level of “watchable.” Whether you’re a fan of the original “Pinocchio” story, the 1940 cartoon, or better Zemeckis movies, 2022’s “Pinocchio” will gravely disappoint you.
Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is Jon Galt?
Dagny Taggart having a conversation in Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is Jon Galt? (2014) – Atlas Distribution Company
The best movie trilogies are iconic creations representing creative effort and love. In sharp contrast, though, is the trio of motion pictures made out of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” novels. These movies began releasing in 2011 and wrapped with “Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is Jon Galt?” in 2014. This follow-up only came to fruition after a Kickstarter campaign, a microcosm of just how ramshackle and low-budget this “Atlas Shrugged” installment was. Eventually amassing a $5 million budget, “Atlas Shrugged Part III” was an inept slog of a movie.
Total incompetence plagued this production, particularly in its limp visual sensibilities. The woefully lifeless performances didn’t help either. It had taken decades for a new major film adaptation of “Atlas Shrugged” to come to movie theaters and all that waiting culminated in a subpar trilogy. Everything about “Atlas Shrugged Part III” was a massive misfire, which at least made it a fitting end for such a boondoggle of a multi-movie enterprise.
A trilogy can be the perfect format for expanding your cinematic vision beyond just one motion picture. Such ambitions, though, can go horribly awry. Just look at the lengthy saga that concluded with the miserable “Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is Jon Galt?”
The Snowman
Harry Hole looking confused in the snow in The Snowman (2017) – Universal Pictures
At least “The Snowman” had the decency to deliver an all-time great poster. That scraggly image, of a snowman doodle and ramshackle text, was amazing. Too bad the final film, a Tom Alfredson-directed adaptation of the 2007 Jo Nesbø novel of the same name, is an absolute wreck. Michael Fassbender stars here as Harry Hole, a detective hunting down a serial killer whose brutal slayings are often accompanied by snowmen. Treachery and double-crosses await Hole, but only boredom awaits the audience.
Alfredson himself lamented that “The Snowman” didn’t have the shooting schedule to properly film its script. That shortcoming is glaringly apparent in the final product. There’s no personality to Hole nor is there much tension in the mystery he’s solving. Everything is kept so vague and uninvolving that grabbing a snooze begins to sound appealing. This is also one of Fassbender’s most wooden, phoned-in performances. An actor famous for his ability to realize transfixing intensity, Fassbender here radiates a bored aura that doesn’t help the proceedings.
There’s a handful of amusingly bad moments in “The Snowman,” like a climactic bit where, in a wide image, Harry Hole gets shot on a frozen lake by an off-screen assassin. Mostly, though, this is a mess nowhere near living up to its poster.
I, Frankenstein
Adam Frankenstein prepared for a grisly battle in I, Frankenstein (2014) – Lionsgate
2014’s “I, Frankenstein” wasn’t just a bad take on the original Mary Shelley “Frankenstein” book. It was also technically based on Kevin Grevioux’s “I, Frankenstein” graphic novel. These wildly different pieces of source material combined to produce this action feature, which followed Adam Frankenstein (Aaron Eckhart), that famous monster Dr. Frankenstein brought to life centuries earlier, becoming embroiled in a modern war between gargoyles and demons. This high-concept story was realized by writer/director Stuart Beattie in an incredibly morose fashion. Any campy zest that this premise would’ve produced was totally absent.
What’s especially strange about “I, Frankenstein” is its lack of a pulse or imagination. Given the many prior big screen versions of Frankenstein’s monster, one would imagine that the creative team would be tireless in making “I, Frankenstein” unique from its predecessors. Instead, Beattie sleepwalks through disposable action and lifeless performances. This project isn’t so much overshadowed by other, superior “Frankenstein” movies as it is swallowed whole by them.
Eckhart especially is no Boris Karloff, Christopher Lee, or Jacob Elordi in playing an unforgettable Frankenstein’s creature. He’s utterly devoid of personality or charisma, especially whenever fighting bad guys. Even with countless pre-existing texts to draw from, “I, Frankenstein” is an empty, lifeless affair.
Artemis Fowl
Artemis Fowl wearing his shades in Artemis Fowl (2020) – Disney+
Few movie adaptations of a book have so thoroughly misunderstood their lead character like “Artemis Fowl.” This Kenneth Branagh directorial effort was savaged by fans of the original “Fowl” books when it hit Disney+ in 2020. The initial version of Artemis, a nefarious kidnapper and schemer, was now a plucky, traditional hero that wouldn’t ruffle the feathers of mainstream moviegoers. All the charm and distinctiveness of the books was gone, replaced by fantasy nonsense that often left the source material dangling in the wind.
To be clear, though, “Artemis Fowl” was not uniquely bad just because it didn’t slavishly adhere to the books. This was a terrible production no matter your pre-existing knowledge. Josh Gad as dwarf Mulch Diggums, for instance, was a miscalculated disaster that produced some of the most awful CG-smeared imagery in history. The writing, meanwhile, wasn’t anything to write home about, ditto the visual effects work. Even the eye roll-worthy ending that strained heavily to tee up sequels was grating. Any of the filmmaking chops Branagh exhibited in his other movies was M.I.A on “Artemis Fowl.”
The original “Artemis Fowl” book was beloved enough to spawn seven sequels, plus a separate trilogy set in the same universe. Such a loyal following was not in the cards for Disney’s “Artemis Fowl,” an exceedingly crummy movie that left viewers underwhelmed.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to our free newsletter for the biggest movie and TV news delivered straight to your inbox. You can also add us as a preferred search source on Google.
Read the original article on Looper.
