Best Adapted Screenplay: 1988

VALMONT: Why not? To seduce a woman famous for strict morals, religious ferver and the happiness of her marriage: what could possibly be more prestigious? (Scene 1)

My Top 10

1. Dangerous Liaisons
2. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
3. The Unbearable Lightness of Being
4. The Accidental Tourist
5. Little Dorrit
6. Babette’s Feast
7. Eight Men Out
8. A Cry in the Dark
9. Dead Ringers
10. A Handful of Dust

note:  Overall, a strong winner, but not a great Top 5 or Top 10.  The Top 5 won’t be this weak again until 1995.  Of course, as is often the case, balanced out by a phenomenal group of original scripts, the second best to-date (A Fish Called Wanda, Running on Empty, Bull Durham, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Wings of Desire).

note:  I checked 1987 and there were 10 films on the list at the bottom with a number in the title; in this year, it’s 14.  From here on, sequels will really become a massive part of this project, ironic in that the #1 film at the box office in this year (Rain Man) is original and has never had a sequel, something only Titanic and Avatar (so far) can say since then.

Consensus Nominees:

1. Dangerous Liaisons  (240 pts)
2. The Unbearable Lightness of Being  (160 pts)
3. The Accidental Tourist  (120 pts)
4. Gorillas in the Mist  (80 pts)
5. Little Dorrit  (80 pts)
6. Who Framed Roger Rabbit  (80 pts)

Oscar Nominees  (Best Screenplay – Based on Material from Another Medium):

• Dangerous Liaisons
• The Accidental Tourist
• Gorillas in the Mist
• Little Dorrit
• The Unbearable Lightness of Being

WGA:

• Dangerous Liaisons
• The Accidental Tourist
• Gorillas in the Mist
• The Unbearable Lightness of Being
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Golden Globe:

• A Cry in the Dark

Nominees that are Original:  Running on Empty, Mississippi Burning, Rain Man, Working Girl

BAFTA:

• The Unbearable Lightness of Being
• Dangerous Liaisons  (1990)
• Babette’s Feast
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit
• The Accidental Tourist  (1990)

My Top 10

Dangerous Liaisons

The Film:

In 1988, Dangerous Liaisons would earn a Best Picture nomination and would win Adapted Screenplay but would have its Picture chances killed at the Oscars by failing to earn a Best Director nomination for Stephen Frears which is unfortunate since it was the best of the nominees.  A longer review of the film can be found here.

The Source:

Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos  (1782)

An interesting book but perhaps too subtle, even for me.  Yes, it has a good deal of eroticism in the concept but not in the content and it only got banned because of what it suggested not because of what it actually said.  Because it is an epistolary novel, it has the difficulty of conveying everything through letters, letters which will only convey what the character wants conveyed.  But for all of that, de Laclos does a magnificent job of creating his characters which is why the story has been devoured and adapted through the last two centuries.

Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Christopher Hampton  (1985)

Hampton would brilliantly adapt the novel into a play in 1985 that starred Alan Rickman, Lindsey Duncan and Juliet Stevenson (damn, I wish I could have seen a version of that – that must have been magnificent, especially Rickman), taking all of the hints and suggestions in the novel, all the descriptions of what had happened and turning it into actual dialogue and action (more dialogue than anything else).

The Adaptation:

Hampton did not simply put his play up on-screen.  The play was broken into just 18 scenes.  The film takes much more from the novel, finding many small, bridging scenes between the original Hampton scenes.  What’s more, of course, the film opens things up, adding a lot more locations, allowing it to feel nothing like a filmed play which is to the credit of both Hampton as the screenwriter (adding in all the small scenes) and Frears for the way in which he filmed it.

One notable thing is that all three things have different endings.  In the original novel, after the death of Valmont, Merteuil gets the pox (which destroys her looks) and flees to the country.  In the play, she is still advising Cecile’s mother although we have seen Valmont give the letters to Danceny so there is the likelihood of her downfall (and it does show a silhouette of the guillotine in the background, reflecting the changing times).  In the film, of course, she goes to the opera and is widely booed and the last thing we see if her wiping off her makeup at home, alone.  All three of them work towards the same ending but in very different ways.  Ironically, Valmont, the 1989 film version (which doesn’t use Hampton’s play) has a fourth ending.

The Credits:

Directed by Stephen Frears.  Based on the play by Christopher Hampton.  Adapted from the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos.  Screenplay by Christopher Hampton.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

The Film:

I have already written about this film because it’s the best film of the year.  In fact, it easily wins that, with a two point gap before any other film (such a gap is only in 1/3 of all the years).  It also happened to be the only film I saw in the theaters in 1988 (I would see Rain Man but not until February of 1989).  It is brilliantly inventive with a fantastic story (that comes more from Chinatown than the original novel – see below) and a brilliant performance from Bob Hoskins that must have been extremely difficult, especially in the days before bluescreen acting was a common thing.  What’s more, it’s a film that continues to be brilliant every time I watch it, never failing to make me laugh.

The Source:

Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary Wolf  (1981)

This is, quite frankly, not a very good book.  It does have a very clever idea at the heart of it – that toons are alive and that they exist with us (though those toons speak in actual word balloons and they get photographed for comic strips rather than star in films).  But it’s a rather seedy novel and it seems to be more of an inspiration for the horrible The Happytime Murders rather than this one.  It involves the death of a comic strip mogul, presumably killed by Roger Rabbit and then Roger is killed, presumably by the wife who left him.  It gets a lot more complicated than that and seems to be a pale shadow of The Maltese Falcon in a lot of ways and it doesn’t end happily for almost anyone.

Here’s a good measure of the worth of the book.  In 1994, a little known book became a hit film and it was reprinted with a movie cover and it became a huge seller even though the book wasn’t actually very good and had some big differences from the film.  So why didn’t this book become like Forrest Gump?  Well, partially, I am sure, because it really isn’t a good book at all.  It’s really pretty bad.  But also, it has much more adult material and I am sure Disney didn’t really want to lend a movie cover to it.

The Adaptation:

The filmmakers took the original idea (that toons exist in our world) and the character of Eddie Valiant trying to solve a murder that Roger is being framed for (though in the book, Roger actually did commit the murder – don’t blame me for spoiling a 38 year old book that was the basis for a film made 31 years ago).  Almost nothing else in the book is the same (it’s the present in the book, Jessica doesn’t really love Roger in the book and once starred in essentially a Tijuana Bible, the crimes are different, the results are different).  The plot actually comes from a discarded idea that would have been the third part of a Chinatown trilogy (how the freeways came to L.A.) and brilliantly merges it with the toon idea.  Plus, because they were with Disney they could use a lot of actual toons (and convince Warner Bros to lend theirs as well, which means I got to see my dream team-up of Donald and Daffy).

The Credits:

Directed by Robert Zemeckis.  Screenplay by Jeffrey Price & Peter S. Seaman.  Based on the Book “Who Censored Roger Rabbit?” by Gary K. Wolf.
note:  Only the title is in the opening credits.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

The Film:

I have already reviewed this film when I wrote about the novel (see below).  But I would have reviewed it anyway because it is one of my Top 5 for the year.  It’s a brilliant film, probably the best of Kaufman’s career but it is a bit hard to decide on whether I should classify it as a Drama or a Comedy (it is currently listed as a Drama).  That’s because one of the things the film does so well is balance the drama of relationships and political strife in a country on the edge with the comedy of a man torn between a woman and a lifestyle, torn between a mistress and a wife, torn between the lightness of being and the darkness of everything else.  Made in English with an Irish lead, a French co-star and a Swedish co-star, directed by an American, based on a novel by a Czech with the greatest cinematographer of all-time from Sweden and it all works together brilliantly.

The Source:

Nesnesitelná lehkost bytí by Milan Kundera (1984)

A brilliant book, one which was recommended to every customer who walked into our Borders store by a co-worker of mine.  Written in Czech but published first in French and then in English before it was published in Czech.  If you have never read it, you absolutely must.  I ranked it at #76 all-time (which definitely is too low according to some) and that’s where you can find a full review of both the book and the film.

The Adaptation:

It’s an interesting film because the film gives you not only the story and the characters but also a considerable amount of the spirit and the philosophy of the book, yet there is far more to the book.  Anything you could possibly put into a film version is in the film (though there are some story cuts – mostly about the events the precede the opening of the book) and a few changes (the way Tomas notices Teresa a bit before they actually meet) but most of what we see on screen is straight from the book.  The book has more, of course, because of Kundera’s style, which is hard to define but really should have won him the Nobel Prize by now (he’s one of the four people from my 2010 list who is still alive).

The Credits:

Directed by Philip Kaufman.  Based on the novel by Milan Kundera.  Screenplay by Jean-Claude Carriere & Philip Kaufman.

The Accidental Tourist

The Film:

I used my original review of this film to note how it’s hard to decide who you are going to trust if you are going to read a review of a film.  My own policy is to basically never read reviews of films I know I am going to see until after I have seen them, but for many people, it’s what convinces them to see a film.  This is, in my opinion, a great film, a low **** film with brilliant acting that tells a bittersweet funny story about a man who slowly comes back to life.  I don’t think it belonged in the Best Picture finalists but it definitely belonged in the race and it’s a much better choice than one of the nominees from that year and many nominees from the era.

The Source:

The Accidental Tourist by Anne Tyler  (1985)

Some couples stay together for the kids.  Other couples fall apart when their kid dies.  For Sarah, she can’t understand why Mason doesn’t grieve in the way she thinks he should (whether or not he is grieving at all is a legitimate question but Tyler herself, in the newer edition with an author’s Q&A in the back adamantly assures the readers that he is grieving in his own way, in fact the only way he knows how and I would argue that the text supports this – that she does a good job of creating this character and if the reader doesn’t grasp that, that’s on the reader not on her) so she leaves him.  Ironically, not grieving in the way people expect is the theme of another film reviewed below.

What happens after that is a sort-of comedy of manners or perhaps of errors.  What it also is, is a journey of Macon back into life.  After he must switch dog boarders (his dog bit someone) he meets a very strange woman who entrances him and after he breaks his leg (thanks to the dog) he returns to the comfort of his family.  The combination of these things makes for a very good novel from Tyler, a winner of the National Book Critics Circle and a finalist for the Pulitzer.

Tyler herself would win the Pulitzer three years later for Breathing Lessons and that book was the reason that it took me so long to read this one (not until 2000 or so, over a decade after having seen the film originally).  I knew a guy in my dorm that I loathed whose writing (which he submitted to the literary magazine) was explicitly derived from Breathing Lessons and it turned me off so much to Tyler (without having read her) that it would be years before I could bring myself to try her (which is a shame because Breathing Lessons, while not as good as The Accidental Tourist in my opinion, is still a good book).

The Adaptation:

A fairly straight forward adaptation of the novel (except for the opening – the book opens while Sarah and Macon drive him a rainstorm and she tells him she wants the divorce while the films opens more gradually) in which the vast majority of the film and the dialogue come straight from the page.

The Credits:

Directed by Lawrence Kasdan.  Based on the book by Anne Tyler.  Screenplay by Frank Galati and Lawrence Kasdan.

Little Dorrit

The Film:

I saw this film probably 25 years ago now or possibly even longer ago.  Even when it was first released and earned its Oscar nominations, I was interested in it because I was just becoming seriously interested in film and because one of the Oscar nominations was for Alec Guinness!  Obi-Wan Kenobi was still getting nominated!  So, I found it on video at my local library at some point when I lived in Oregon and sat through all six hours of it and thought it was fairly good.  It had good costumes and sets but the main attraction was Guinness even if it did have Derek Jacobi (who I already liked) or Joan Greenwood (who, I wouldn’t realize who she was until years later) but I had never read the book (and wouldn’t for years, though I think I read it at least once before my year of Dickens (see below).

Unfortunately, in the time since then, this film has become just about completely unavailable.  It was released on a Region 2 DVD over a decade ago now but I don’t think it’s ever been released on DVD in the States and libraries have been purging all their videocassettes and I just can’t get it.  It doesn’t even seem to be available online anywhere either.  So, I will hope that at some point, the film will become available again, but if not, I can’t really run a review based on vague memories of watching it when I was still a teenager.

The Source:

Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens  (1857)

In my Year of Reading Dickens, I ranked this as the #7 novel which is actually pretty good.  I felt that it did some of the same things that Hard Times had done but I felt Dickens had a more sure story-telling hand in this one.  Perhaps because it had been made into a film with Guinness and Jacobi, I could also visualize those actors in their characters and that helped.  Given that I did write that small bit on it (a decade ago now, holy crap) and can’t review the film anyway, I’m not going to invest the time to read an 800 page Dickens novel for this project when I’m trying to do so many other things.  If I can ever find the film again, I’ll read the book again.

The Adaptation:

Obviously, there’s not much I can add here.

The Credits:

Director: Christine Edzard.  Written by Charles Dickens (novel) and Christine Edzard.
note:  Credits taken from the IMDb.

Babette’s Feast

The Film:

Two elderly women live alone.  They follow in their father’s legacy, living in an austere sect that he had guided in a small fishing village on the coast of Jutland.  They have grown old and the group has grown small.  They think back upon their lives and upon lost changes for love, of a young, dashing soldier for one of them and of a celebrated French music teacher for the other.  But they kept to their faith and their father.

Now, after all this time, the music teacher writes, asking them to take in Babette, who has fled Paris and its revolution.  Without asking any pay, she becomes a housekeeper for them, content to live quietly with them, far away from the life she had known.  For 12 years, this is how the three women exist until they reach the 100th anniversary of their father’s birth.  At this same time, Babette wins 10,000 francs in a lottery that she has been renewing each year.  She wants to do something nice for the women and to provide a good French dinner for the anniversary.

This all seems like a simple story and it was, for the most part, in the original short story by Isak Dinesen, published when she herself was in her seventies.  It is a film without much action, but with some delectable looking food.  In fact, when I first saw this film, in a Film and Lit class in college where we had class in the morning, I actually told my professor it was reprehensible of him to show us this film and then allow us to go back to the dining hall and eat the crappy food there.  Because we don’t just see the food and the loving dedication that Babette pours into it (we learn that she was the chef in a high scale Paris restaurant) but, in a bit that allows for the past to find some closure, the soldier returns to visit his lost love and takes part in the dinner.  As the only one not of the sect, he is used to such fine food and spends much of the meal explaining how fantastic it is, commenting on the various dishes.

This is a film for people who like to watch films.  Very little happens and not even a lot is said.  But the film moves slowly, presents characters who are fully formed and in the end, we get a good experience.  It is well directed and well acted and is very beautiful to look at.  It won Best Foreign Film over Au Revoir, Les Enfants perhaps because it was so much simpler and could just be experienced without the pain of thinking of the past.  In this film, the past is something to inform us, not to condemn us.

The Source:

“Babette’s Feast” by Isak Dinesen  (1958)

I had always assumed that Dinesen, who was Danish, wrote in Danish but apparently she did much of her writing in English.  This story was published in Anecdotes of Destiny, the final short story collection to see print before her death.  It is a nice story, the story of two women who live in an austere sect because their father had founded it and the housekeeper who comes to them from Paris and the feast that is prepared to celebrate the 100th anniversary of their father’s birth.

There is one detail that seems out of place in the book and is certainly ignored in the film.  In the book, it explicitly says that the soldier who loved one of the girls when they were both young, returns thirty-one years later.  That would make the women only 49 and 48 and that seems far too young.

The Adaptation:

The time is changed.  In the film it’s been 49 years since the soldier was in the town which works much better.  But other than that (and that the location has been moved from Norway to Jutland) almost everything in the film comes straight from the book.  It is true that in the original story, the elderly soldier doesn’t say aloud all his thoughts on the food but he did think them and it would have been hard to express his thoughts without verbalization.  Besides, it provides a contrast to the rest of the rather silent meal in which no one discusses what they are eating.  This film was notable for being the first adaptation of a Dinesen work to be filmed in Denmark in Danish, rather remarkable given how important a Danish writer she is (though, true, she mostly wrote in English and then translated her work into Danish).

The Credits:

En film af Gabriel Axel.  Drejebog efter Karen Blixen’s novelle: Gabriel Axel
note:  The writing credits are only in the end credits.

Eight Men Out

The Film:

Why we do things matters.  Even when something very wrong has been done, something that’s not only a crime but just an awful thing to do to the people you know that are counting on you, the reason matters.  It might not excuse it, but it helps you to understand it.

For the vast majority of people who watch professional sports today, it’s hard to imagine how different the world used to be.  Today, a player can make more every time he comes to bat than I make in an entire year and he’ll do it 700 times.  This is not even a relatively recent development anymore, but it was something that came about just after I was born, at a time when professional baseball had already been around for a century.  For a long time, players were treated as indentured servants (not like slaves, no matter what anything might say, since they were paid), unable to choose who to play for, barely having any say in how much they were paid and often being lied to by management.  Thus we have the 1919 Chicago White Sox.  They were a great team, lead by two of the greatest players in baseball history up to that point, both in their prime and one of the best pitchers in baseball.  But they were in the throes of a cheap owner who routinely screwed his players, paying them less than almost any other team in baseball in spite of them being the best.  So the players, with a chance for some real money, decided to do something about it.  It was wrong and they knew it.  Some of them were bothered by that and they are the most interesting.  What’s more, there was a wide range of personalities involved and it leads to a wide array of emotions to choose from when watching their story unfold.  What’s more, John Sayles not only does a good job of making the story clear, of letting you know why the players are doing what they are doing and what the potential windfall is, but also allowing you to realize which players have which reasons for doing what they do.

There were eight players involved in the Black Sox scandal but they kind of fall into three groups.  In the first group are those players who were all in, who wanted their money and didn’t seem that bothered by what was going on, including the ringleader, Chick Gandil (Michael Rooker) and the reckless Happy Felsch (Charlie Sheen).  In the second group are the two pitchers, who were key to the whole plan to work.  Both of them, star pitcher Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn giving the most conflicted of the performances) and Lefty Williams (James Read) did it for the money because of their own issues (which the film does a good job of making clear) but really wanted to win.  Then there are poor Shoeless Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), too dumb to really know what to do, the illiterate outfielder who was one of the best in the history of the game who went along with what he was told to do but didn’t seem to ever stop trying, even if he took money and Buck Weaver, the star third baseman (John Cusack) who didn’t take money, didn’t give up on the field and was still thrown out of the game arbitrarily by the new commissioner who refused to even listen to him and who still hasn’t been reinstated.

It helps to be a baseball fan to understand the story that Sayles tells (with himself in a very good supporting role as famous sportswriters Ring Lardner) but it’s not necessary.  Sayles does a great job making clear who all the people are, what they are doing and why they are doing it.  And the why really is important.  Like I said, when people do bad things, it doesn’t excuse them and it doesn’t mean those things should go unpunished.  But it sure helps to have an idea of why they did them and this film does a great job with that.

The Source:

Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series by Eliot Asinof  (1963)

This is a very good book that took Asinof a while to write because no one wanted to talk about it.  What’s more, he had to get it done because the people involved with it were already dying (Jackson and Weaver had already been dead for several years).  It’s a first-rate storytelling of what the background was prior to the series, how the fix was conceived, arranged and then brought about and then the aftermath, as it happened over the course of a year (many people forget that the eight members of the Black Sox played almost the entire 1920 season before they were banned from baseball), the trial itself and then the banning.  One of the better narrative books on baseball.

The Adaptation:

Much of what we get on screen is straight from the book.  There are a few things that are compressed (some of the early bits about how Comiskey, the White Sox owner, was such a cheapskate are compressed from earlier seasons) but the game details are extremely accurate as are bits from the trial (which are from the transcripts, which were also used in the book).  The final scene, of Buck Weaver watching Joe Jackson play, is fictional but Jackson did play under pseudonyms for several semi-pro teams over the years because it was the only thing he really knew how to do.

The Credits:

Written for the Screen and Directed by John Sayles.  Based on the book by Eliot Asinof,

A Cry in the Dark

The Film:

People believe what they want to believe and everything else be damned.  That has become even more apparent in the United States over the last couple of years (I am writing this in mid 2018) but A Cry in the Dark, a film made in 1988 about events that occurred over the years 1980 to 1985 makes the point just as well.  What’s more, it’s not a film that was made or takes place in the United States, but instead in Australia and shows how people will believe any idiotic thing for any idiotic reason and will refuse to change.

Did this case make any kind of cultural landfall in the United States?  It was one of Australia’s most famous trials, likely the most famous in the country that decade but until movie screens (and then award shows) starting showing Meryl Streep streaking out of the tent crying “the dingo’s got my baby” did anyone in this country know anything about it?  Did they even know what the hell a dingo was?  In fact, did the Australians really have an idea of what a dingo was really like and wasn’t that part of the problem?

A family goes camping at Ayers Rock (yes, it’s Uluru now and should have always been, but it was Ayers Rock then) and during the night, their infant is stolen out of their tent by a dingo.  It’s a tragedy and the family is crushed, but things take a darker turn when, after being vindicated in an inquest, a new look at the events suddenly turns the country against the couple, especially the mother.  The mother, now famous in Australia, is Lindy Chamberlain and Meryl Streep’s fantastic performance is just like the news footage shows: a woman who internalizes her emotions and doesn’t meet the public’s idea of what a grieving mother should be like.  She is also a member of a church that is little known and little understood (7th Day Adventist) and suddenly she finds herself on trial yet again, having already been convicted by the opinions of her own country.

This film solidly depicts the insane events that lead to the conviction of Lindy and her husband (the always dependable Sam Neill) before eventually finding its way to her vindication as well.  What’s more, it follows the court of public opinion and we see hosts who complain that they won’t have another dinner party ruined over this trial or people who see if they can carry nine pounds in their mouth and claiming the dogs could never do so (when you think dingo, don’t think dog, think wolf).

It is a measure of the way that people think about things that there is an item of “trivia” on the IMDb that states “Meryl Streep has never revealed publicly her opinion on whether or not Lindy Chamberlain was innocent.”  Given that there’s no way that Streep would have taken the role if she thought Chamberlain was guilty, let alone that there’s no evidence or even thought process that could logically lead you to think that Chamberlain ever would have done such a thing.  But people believe what they want to believe.

The Source:

Evil Angels: The Case of Lindy Chamberlain by John Bryson  (1985)

John Bryson was a lawyer and writer in Australia who was fascinated by the Chamberlain case from the start and began to write about when it still didn’t have much of a conclusion.  Eventually, Lindy would go to jail and then the government would reverse course when a jacket that was long claimed but never found was suddenly recovered due to a random accident of chance.  As a book it starts to drag partially because it’s well over 500 pages and doesn’t need to be and partially because there’s so little to the case and you get worn down by the insane idea that anyone would have ever thought to believe she was guilty in the first place.  I would say that this is an indictment of Australia and their ability to so easily believe ridiculous things in their ignorance of Lindy Chamberlain’s religion but the country I currently live in is currently “lead” by a man who routinely believes such idiotic things, presents them as facts and then demands apologies for anyone who point out that he’s the biggest fucking idiot who ever lived, so Australia, please hold our beer while we do something stupid.  Bloody hell, what Australia did to Chamberlain is nothing compared to what that despicable piece of shit did to the Central Park Five, publicly proclaiming (in a newspaper ad that he paid money for) that they should get the death penalty.

All in all, actually one of the most depressing books I have ever read, though it would have been more so had Lindy not been released before the book was published.  And if all of that doesn’t make you understand why I’m not watching Ava DuVernay’s new series and am thankful it’s not a feature film I don’t know what to say.

The Adaptation:

Most of what we get on screen comes from the book (although not the person running up Ayers Rock) although a lot of stuff was compressed for the film because getting everything in the book into the film would have resulted in a ridiculously long film.  Even a lot of the scenes with other people commenting on the case come straight from the book, though the one with the hostess complaining that she’s not going to have another dinner party ruined.

The Credits:

Director: Fred Schepisi.  Based on Evil Angels by John Bryson.  Screenplay: Robert Caswell, Fred Schepisi.

Dead Ringers

The Film:

The Mantle twins are creepy even when they’re young.  They decide that things are different under water and so, at the age of maybe ten or so, they go up to a neighbor girl and ask her if she’ll have sex with them in their bathtub.  They don’t get less creepy as time goes by but they get good at hiding it.  They become gynecologists and have a clinic together that specializes in fertility problems for women (but not men – they are adamant that they don’t do anything about it when the men in the relationships are the problem).  But what many of the women don’t realize is that Elliot, the more headstrong and confident of the two often seduces the women (well, actually they know that part – they’re the ones being seduced) and then passes off the women to his twin, Beverly.

When things start to change for the men is when actress Claire Niveau comes to the clinic.  As she struggles to cope with a strange birth defect that has left her unable to have children, she falls into a relationship with Beverly.  What’s more, Beverly comes to love her and it starts to draw a line between him and his twin (“You haven’t fucked Claire Niveau until you’ve told me about it,” Elliot says with Beverly replying “Then I haven’t fucked Claire Niveau.”).  Claire tries to push Beverly to be closer to a brother that she believes he is distanced from until the moment where she learns (from someone else) that the two are identical twins.  Confronting them at lunch, certain that both of them have slept with her, Elliot explains that he was with her first and found her uninteresting so he passed her off.

This is the start of the real downfall for the twins.  Beverly starts to descend into madness, with strange visions of bizarre women and he starts to have a set of very disturbing looking tools made for him to work on them.  Drugs start to come into their lives and they can’t keep from spiraling downward.

The twins are played, quite brilliantly, by Jeremy Irons.  It’s interesting to remember that by this time, Irons had already made The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Moonlighting, Betrayal and The Mission, was widely regarded as one of the best actors around (helped certainly by Brideshead Revisited, which, of course, was for television) and still hadn’t earned an Oscar nomination (and he still wouldn’t for two more years when he would win).  Claire is played by Genevieve Bujold in her best performance in almost 20 years as she struggles to understand what she has become involved with.

How to really describe Dead Ringers?  It’s a Horror film, one in which the horrible things are what these men end up doing, not just to other people, but to themselves.  It’s about people who can not separate from each other and when they attempt to do so, even more horrific things occur.  By the time he directed this film, David Cronenberg had already been working for almost 20 years but this was the first film that really showed how good he could be, that mapped out the path that would lead to films like Existenz, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises.

The Source:

Twins: a novel by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland  (1977)

I don’t know why Bari Wood, who had already published a well-received novel would team up with someone else (about whom there is a lot less information) to write a novel, let alone write a novel that was based so clearly on real life events (the lives of Stewart and Cyril Marcus, even though the book itself says nothing about it – but the deaths of the brothers, alluded to in the beginning of the novel and described quite thoroughly at the end are pretty much exactly how those twin gynecologists died in real life in 1975 – if you are interested in their real lives and it’s pretty gruesome, you can read a piece in the book The Secret Parts of Fortune by Ron Rosenbaum).  This book is not really all that good, just a novelization of actual events, something which I have discussed before (1959 – Compulsion) that I am not a fan of.  Just write an original book or write non-fiction about the case.

The Adaptation:

Cronenberg really only uses the book as a blueprint (as the book Cronenberg by Cronenberg makes clear, he also made copies of a number of articles about the real twins – he doesn’t specify the Rosenbaum article but it’s likely).  Aside from changing the names of the twins and changing their location from New York to Toronto (Cronenberg is himself Canadian and this film is notable for winning 10 Genies), he changed considerable portions of the story (Claire, who is not named that in the novel, is not an actress and she and the twin she is with are actually married for a long time and she leaves him for another doctor) and the whole stuff with the monstrous women and the weird instruments are only from the film.  Even the end is different as both twins die in the book (the discovery of their deaths is the start of the novel and then it goes back and tells the story) just as they did in real life while in the film only one of them dies and it’s in a much different manner than in the original novel.  The film may be creepy as all hell but it’s a far greater artistic achievement.

In Cronenberg by Cronenberg you can follow the long history of the film through the course of a decade including multiple versions of the script and how it hewed to the original story, to the novel (which really they just bought the rights to because it existed) and then in its own direction.  But this is really Cronenberg’s story more than the real story or the novel.

The Credits:

Directed by David Cronenberg.  Written by David Cronenberg and Norman Snider.  Based on the book “Twins” by Bari Wood and Jack Geasland.

A Handful of Dust

The Film:

Is it that Evelyn Waugh’s novels have resisted being adapted to the screen or that people just aren’t that interested in making films out of his fantastic work?  By the time this film was made, Waugh had been dead for over 20 years but the only film versions of his novels had both been back in the 60’s and there have only been two more adaptations since this film even though it was made over 30 years ago.  Or is it because they are so very British that people know that they won’t really translate overseas?  Either way, every now and then we get a film like this (or like Bright Young Things, the next Waugh adaptation in 2003) that reminds us that Waugh can translate to the screen after all.

Perhaps one of the things that hold Waugh way from film is what to think of his films.  Are we watching a Comedy that is satirizing the upper class or a Drama about what happens when these people can’t keep control of their lives.  There is certainly enough tragedy in this film which encompasses the death of a child, a divorce (or at least an attempt at one), a love affair that ends badly because of a lack of money and a man who is trapped in the wilderness for what would seem to be the rest of his life.

However, looking at it another way, all of those same events except the death of the child, looked through a prism, can be a dark comedy about what happens when you have just enough money to not have to work but not enough that the rest of the world doesn’t intervene.

We’ve got poor Tony Bast, who so loves his old estate, the family home that was left to him, the kind of home that has a name (so common in Britain it would seem when you read novelists of this period like Waugh and Forster).  Tony’s beautiful young wife, Brenda, has started an affair with Mr. Beaver, who doesn’t belong in their class because he doesn’t have that kind of money and his mother can’t give him anymore which is why she’s pushing him to marry rich and if Brenda can get a good divorce then he can.  We’ve got a quite talented cast at work as well with James Wilby as Tony, Kristin Scott Thomas as Brenda, Rupert Graves as Beaver and Judi Dench as his mother with Anjelica Huston and Stephen Fry thrown in for good measure (the scene with Fry is quite tragic and quite funny all at the same time, the same way much of the film is and also ironic since Fry would direct Bright Young Things).

All of this will end up with Tony fleeing to Brazil to try and get away from what has happened only to find himself the last survivor of his expedition and held captive to the desires of an elderly man who just wants to have Dickens read to him.  That small role is played with brilliance by Alec Guinness (who, of course, starred in a Dickens adaptation this same year listed up above) and it’s the scene that either brings the depths of the tragedy of the heights of the comedy.

It might be hard to take this film, to be reminded of the idle rich or those who would want to be part of the idle rich.  But the film is well written with a very good cast and it looks quite good (it earned an Oscar nomination for its costumes).  It is a good summation of the kind of line that Waugh would balance between tragedy and comedy.

The Source:

A Handful of Dust by Evelyn Waugh  (1988)

I don’t know that I had ever read Evelyn Waugh before he appeared on the Modern Library list with not only this book but also both Scoop and Brideshead Revisited, though its possible I had read the latter.  But the quality of those books made me seek out more.  I remember that I had already seen the film by the time I first read the book because when I got late in the book I suddenly remembered, hey, this is the film where Alec Guinness demands to have Dickens read to him and holds a man captive in the Brazilian jungle.  It’s not the kind of scene you forget once you’ve seen it because it’s so wonderfully bizarre.

I have no hesitation in naming Scoop as my favorite of the Waugh novels but I’m hard pressed to decide between that novel, this one or Brideshead as his best book (all three are in my second 100).  It’s a great novel that really brings the characters so much to life that it’s not hard to understand any of them even when you might find yourself repulsed by any of them as well.  The question about tragedy and comedy isn’t just that you can’t decide which it is, but also which one you want it to be.

The Adaptation:

This is a first-rate faithful adaptation.  It keeps all of the major characters and their dialogue and a number of the minors ones.  It does cut some of them for time considerations.  But it’s incredibly faithful to the original, right down to the bizarre tragicomic ending.

The Credits:

Directed by Charles Sturridge.  Based on the novel by Evelyn Waugh.  Screenplay by Tim Sullivan, Derek Granger and Charles Sturridge.

Consensus Nominee

Gorillas in the Mist

The Film:

For most people, there comes a time when you decide that the risks outweigh the potential good, that there are lines you have to worry about crossing.  Some people are not like that and they end up as the subjects of films, people like Veronica Guerin, Karen Silkwood and Dian Fossey.  There are levels to such behavior of course, and there are differences in what is going on in their lives that brings up their own deaths.

Fossey, as seen in this film in a magnificent performance from Sigourney Weaver, became interested in working with gorillas in the wild in Africa (in different circumstances than are shown in the film) and once she got there, she wanted to do nothing else in life.  She would have a close relationship with National Geographic photographer Bob Campbell (played solidly by Bryan Brown) but even love (or sex) wasn’t enough to pull her away from her work.  Over the years, no human relationship or interaction would mean more to her than what she would learn working with her gorillas and she loved them beyond reason.  When poachers began to be a serious problem, she fought them with every means at her disposal (including some that are at least partially fictional but are effective when presented on film).  When they murdered her favorite gorilla, she would strike back by burning buildings, storming into restaurants and threatening anyone who would get between her and her work.  Is it any wonder, with no sense of safety for herself, that she would end up being murdered?

The film is solid, with good sound, really good cinematography and a fantastic performance from Weaver in the lead role.  It shows us a woman who was just not going to back down, who had found what she loved in life and was going to protect it at all costs.  We can understand why she acts the way she does and are probably not really surprised when it ends with her death.

But it’s not just Weaver.  It’s the gorillas.  Some of them are real gorillas.  Some of them are the work of Rick Baker.  Some of them are chimps that are disguised to look like gorillas.  But whatever we’re seeing, we always believe it.  The film gives us a vision of a woman who was dedicated beyond all reason.  It’s not a great film but it’s definitely one well worth seeing.

The Source:

Gorillas in the Mist by Dian Fossey  (1983)

This is kind of a difficult book to get into unless you are really interested in gorillas.  The book skips around in time and Fossey only cared about her gorillas and writes very little about what was going on with her.  But, as a record of her time with the gorillas, it is an indisputable classic of its kind and certainly the inspiration for many people who went into zoology.

The Adaptation:

The book provides the title but is it really the source for the film?  The film credits themselves just list “the work by Dian Fossey” which would seem to imply this book but perhaps not.  There is a bit from this book that ends up in the film but since Fossey’s book focused on the gorillas and not her life and since even what ended up on the screen was changed, almost nothing that’s in the film actually comes from this book.

The actual Fossey book mentions very little about Bob Campbell, the photographer that she had an affair with while he was there photographing gorillas.  She mentions that he came and took photographs and very little else.  Most of the story about their affair came from an article by Harold T.P. Hayes (which was then incorporated into his posthumous book The Dark Romance of Dian Fossey, though that book came out the year after the film) and even then, the film just takes the basic ideas from the book and not any actual scenes.  That book, I suppose, would be useful for someone who really wanted to know more about Fossey’s life, especially the more scandalous parts, because that’s what it’s all about.  Personally, I found it uninteresting since Fossey really cared about her work and that was what she wanted people to know and what she deserved to be remembered for.  But the filmmakers clearly felt they needed something a bit more juicy to hang her personality around as well.

The Credits:

Directed by Michael Apted.  Based on the work by Dian Fossey and the article by Harold T.P. Hayes.  Screenplay by Anna Hamilton Phelan.  Story by Anna Hamilton Phelan And Tab Murphy.

Other Screenplays on My List Outside My Top 10

(in descending order of how I rank the script)

• Die Hard  –  One of the all-time great Action films but it’s more about the direction and Alan Rickman’s performance. than the script (in spite of a few memorable lines like “Yippe-kay-aye motherfucker”).  Based on the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp.  The rare **** film that doesn’t make the Top 10 (and isn’t reviewed because it earned no nominations for the script either) but that will start to become more common after this point.
• The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!  –  Adapted because it uses the characters from the show Police Squad.  Not often that a television show that only lasts six episodes gets made into a film, let alone one that spawns two sequels.  High *** but higher on this list because it is so damn funny even if the sequels haven’t aged nearly as well.
• Red Sorghum  –  Zhang Yimou does a solid job (high ***.5) with his first film and begins his great collaboration with Gong Li.  Based on the novel by Mo Yan who would (much later) win the Nobel Prize.
• The Last Temptation of Christ  –  Even higher ***.5, a really strong Scorsese film (especially his direction and Peter Gabriel’s score).  I have never taken to the book and found it horribly dense but I don’t like Kazantzakis’ Zorba either.
• The Milagro Beanfield War  –  Eight years after winning the Oscar for his directorial debut, Robert Redford finally makes a second film with great cinematography and a great Oscar-winning score though the film itself is a 75, my very highest *** without making my Picture list.  Based on the novel by John Nichols.

Other Adaptations

(in descending order of how good the film is)

• Cobra Verde  –  The direction from Werner Herzog and the acting of Klaus Kinski are the strengths of this low ***.5 film rather than the script which is based on the novel The Viceroy of Ouidah by Bruce Chatwin.
• A Short Film About Love  –  Early Polish drama from Kieslowski that’s an expansion of the sixth part of his Dekalog television series.  High ***.
• Dirty Rotten Scoundrels  –  Remake of a 1964 film (Bedtime Story) that I haven’t yet seen and recently remade into The Hustle.  Fun film with good performances from Michael Caine and Steve Martin.  During the filming, Eric Idle visited Caine on set and David Bowie showed up with his enormous yacht and Caine turned to Idle and said “Eric, we are in the wrong business.” (approximate anecdote remembered from Idle’s recent memoir)
• 38: Vienna Before the Fall  –  The 1987 Austrian submission to the Oscars, it was nominated for Best Foreign Film.  Based on a novel by Friedrich Torberg.
• Commissar  –  A 1967 Soviet film about the Russian Civil War finally getting a U.S. release.  Based on a story by Vasily Grossman.
• Madame Sousatzka  –  I mainly remember this as the performance that Shirley MacLaine won the Globe for (in a three way tie) making her the only Globe – Drama winner in history to fail to earn an Oscar nom but it’s a solid film from John Schlesinger (written by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala in a rare script by her not written for Merchant-Ivory) based on a novel by Bernice Rubens.
• The Summer of Aviya  –  Starring, written by and produced by Gila Almagor based on her own autobiographical novel, this was Israel’s submission for Best Foreign Film.
• Crossing Delancey  –  Charming Romantic Comedy from director Joan Micklin Silver (her first feature in nearly a decade) starring Amy Irving.  Based on the play by Susan Sandler.
• Torch Song Trilogy  –  Because it’s based on a hit play set in New York City and stars Matthew Broderick my brain always wants to think this is a Neil Simon adaptation which isn’t fair to Harvey Fierstein since this was the play that made him known and he is still the only person in history to win the Tony for both writing and starring in the same play.  The length of the play was cut in half for the film version.
• Talk Radio  –  Oliver Stone directs Eric Bogosian in an adaptation of Bogosian’s play based on the real murder of a radio show host in Denver.
• The Cat Who Walked by Herself  –  Kipling’s short story gets turned into a Soviet animated film.
• Without a Clue  –  Amusing concept (that Holmes was a front for Watson with a drunk actor “playing” Holmes) that makes use of Doyle’s characters.  Ben Kingsley is a good Watson and Michael Caine is fun as a bumbling actor then a Holmes that is faking it.
• White Mischief  –  We’re down to mid *** with this film from future Oscar nominee Michael Radford based on a novel by James Fox about a real murder trial in Kenya in 1941.
• The Dressmaker  –  British Drama based on the novel by Beryl Bainbridge.  For a long time this was a BAFTA nominee (Costume Design) that eluded me.
• Violence at Noon  –  In spite of a Criterion DVD release (in the Eclipse Box Set Oshima’s Outlaw Sixties) this film doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page.  Solid 1966 film from Nagisa Oshima that finally played in the States.  Based on the novel by Taijun Takeda.
• King of the Children  –  Chinese Drama based on the novella by Ah Cheng.
• The Revolving Doors  –  Canadian Oscar submission based on the novel by Jacques Savoie.
• Switching Channels  –  This fourth film version of The Front Page which keeps the gender reversal from His Girl Friday and adds in a change to television news didn’t do well but I have always enjoyed it, perhaps because I saw it before I saw any other version.  Partially it’s because I think the three leads (Burt Reynolds, Kathleen Turner, Christopher Reeve) fit in well to their roles.  I’m kind of resistant to re-watching it for fear it will drop several points.
• The Serpent and the Rainbow  –  The non-fiction book by Wade Davis is fascinating and the movie is at least effective with suitable Horror from director Wes Craven.
• They Live  –  Another film that’s effective because the director (John Carpenter, in this case) knows how to create atmosphere.  Based on a short story by Ray Nelson this Sci-Fi film about aliens having already taken over is compelling.  It has an odd cast of Roddy Piper (yes, the wrestler) and Meg Foster (or “that chick who looks like Kirstie Alley”).  Most famous because of Piper’s line: “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I’m all out of bubblegum.” which prompted my favorite tweet, “I’m just here to give love and quote Air Supply and I’m all out of love.”
• A Month in the Country  –  Colin Firth and Kenneth Branagh, both quite young, star in this adaptation of the novel by J. L. Carr about men recovering after the Great War.
• The Dagger of Kamui  –  An Anime film from Rintaro based on the novel series that was popular in Japan.  We’re down to low ***.
• Mélo  –  Alain Resnais’ 1986 French Drama is based on a play by Henri Bernstein.
• Life is a Dream  –  Raúl Ruiz, the well-known Chilean director goes to France to direct this film based somewhat on the 17th Century play.
• Oliver & Company  –  In a year where the Academy only nominated three songs I still find it odd that they didn’t bother with Huey Lewis’ nice opening number “Once Upon a Time in New York City” or Billy Joel’s joyous “Why Should I Worry”.  I ranked this at #39 of Disney’s first 50 animated films.  Derived from Oliver Twist, of course, though with animals.
• When the Wind Blows  –  Kind of strange British animated film based on the graphic novel by Raymond Briggs.
• Bright Lights, Big City  –  Michael J. Fox sheds his straight-laced image as a cocaine addled fact-checker in the adaptation of Jay McInerney’s novel.
• Funny Farm  –  Surprised to realize this was adapted because it just felt like an original script written for Chevy Chase.  But it’s actually based on a novel by Jay Cronley who will also have film versions of novels in each of the next two years.
• Cocoon: The Return  –  Let the sequel mania begin with at least 18 more by the end of the list.  Not bad and I would say that at low *** it’s about as good as you can expect from a film with Steve Guttenberg (the original was much better than you would expect from a film with Steve Guttenberg).
• Mr. North  –  A Huston family affair.  Co-written and produced by John before he died, directed by Danny years before he started acting on film, starring Anjelica.  Based on Theophilus North, the last novel by Thornton Wilder.
• Daffy Duck’s Quackbusters  –  The last of the Looney Tunes clip show movies and the last film for Mel Blanc before he died.
• Return to Snowy River  –  A better title than the original Australian title (The Man from Snowy River II).  It’s got Brian Dennehy instead of Kirk Douglas and that’s a big drop-off.
• A gauche en sortant de l’ascenseur  –  Former Oscar nominee Edouard Molinaro directs this Comedy based on the play by Gerard Lauzier.
• Pelle the Conquerer  –  While I don’t want to revisit Switching Channels, I probably should revisit this film because it’s been a very long time and I might have just been too young to appreciate it.  I thought von Sydow was good but that the film (based on the novel by Martin Andersen Nexø) was just too slow.  Obviously the Oscars disagreed as it won Best Foreign Film.  We’re at **.5.
• The Beast  –  It’s not often that a War film is based on a play but that’s what we’ve got here about a Soviet tank crew in the Afghanistan invasion.  Based on the play Nanawatai by William Mastrosimone.
• Biloxi Blues  –  What do you know, it’s a Neil Simon adaptation starring Matthew Broderick.  This would have been the first time I saw Penelope Ann Miller and I was totally hooked.
• Clara’s Heart  –  Neal Patrick Harris before he became fun (even before Doogie Howser) and Whoopi Goldberg in a serious role.  Spare me.  Based on a novel by Joseph Olshan.
• Short Circuit 2  –  Usually not good when you lose the leads from the first film for the sequel but when your lead was Steve Guttenberg, not all that bad.  Mediocre sequel.  Could have been worse.  Down to mid **.5.
• The Lair of the White Worm  –  The book, by Bram Stoker, was interesting, but a big drop-off from Dracula.  The film is directed by Ken Russell, so it’s kind of a mess in spite of young Hugh Grant and Peter Capaldi.
• Light Years  –  Edited version of Gandahar, the animated René Laloux film based on Jean-Pierre Andrevon’s novel Les Hommes-machines contre Gandahar.
• Crocodile Dundee II  –  Any time this film comes on, if it’s close to the end, I watch.  The ending is really well-done with a solid score and good cinematography.  In fact, most of the Australia scenes are well done but the first half of the film is just a complete drag.
• Scrooged  –  Bill Murray in a modern take on A Christmas Carol.  I guess this was the year for Dickens.  Hard to find a consistent tone, moving between quite dark and overly sentimental.
• The Chocolate War  –  After a decent career as an actor, Keith Gordon, still in his 20’s, turns to directing with this adaptation of the novel that is a staple of middle school when it’s not being banned.  Now we’re at low **.5.
• Consuming Passions  –  Sadly this film doesn’t work which is odd since it’s based on a teleplay by Michael Palin and Terry Jones.
• Bat 21  –  War film with Gene Hackman and Danny Glover based on the non-fiction book by Michael C. Anderson about rescuing a pilot who was shot down in Vietnam.
• Sunset  –  The old oscars.org didn’t list this as adapted but apparently this Blake Edwards Comedy is based on an unpublished novel by Rod Amateu.
• Cop  –  My first year at Powells I read all of James Ellroy.  The Lloyd Hopkins books (of which this is an adaptation of the first – Blood on the Moon) are not just not very good but astoundingly bad when compared to what he would do with his L.A. Quartet.  James Woods is rather proper casting to play Hopkins though.
• Appointment with Death  –  The all-star adaptations of Agatha Christie with Ustinov as Poirot had really run out of steam.
• The Dead Pool  –  Speaking of running out of steam, here is the final Dirty Harry film.
• Pound Puppies and the Legend of the Big Paw  –  The toy line and television series gets a feature film.
• D.O.A.  –  We hit ** with this remake of the 1949 film.  You should stick with the original because this one is a dud.  After playing lovers who aren’t on-screen together in Innerspace, stars Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan actually end up getting married after starring together in this film.
• Bravestarr: The Movie  –  Unlike The Secret of the Sword, this film is an add-on to the television show after it ended its run as opposed to an edited together version of several episodes.  A bomb as a film which is what happens when you make a film from a show that ran only one season, The Naked Gun notwithstanding.
• Big Top Pee-Wee  –  I never liked Pee-Wee Herman and without Tim Burton to make it stylistic, there was nothing worthwhile for this film to do.  We’re down to mid **.
• The Blob  –  Let’s remake a Steve McQueen film and give the lead role to Kevin Dillon.  How can that go wrong?
• Patti Rocks  –  Nominated for four Indie Spirit awards including Best Picture which I can’t fathom because it’s dreadfully boring.  The film is technically a sequel to Loose Ends, a student film from UCLA from the film’s director and writer.
• A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon  –  We’re down to low ** with this terrible coming-of-age film starring River Phoenix.  Based on the novel Aren’t You Even Gonna Kiss Me Goodbye.
• Poltergeist III  –  Creepy and bad to begin with, made more so since child star Heather O’Rourke had died before the film was released.
• The Boost  –  Coming out at the time when I was first getting interested in film, this was the first film I ever saw that made me realize that a Drama trying to be good could be bad.  James Woods was known as a good actor and Sean Young was hot (and not yet nuts) but the film was just a disaster about a couple of unlikeable cocaine addicts.  Actually based on a book by Ben Stein and let’s remember that before Stein was Ferris Bueller’s monotonous Econ teacher he was a Nixon speechwriter.
• Everybody’s All-American  –  Dreary Sports Drama with Dennis Quaid and Jessica Lange based on the novel by longtime SI writer and NPR contributor Frank Deford.  Directed by future Oscar nominee Taylor Hackford.
• Beaches  –  Another one I was surprised to realize was adapted.  Sappy Drama based on the novel by Iris Rainer Dart.  Most memorable for Mayim Bailik’s performance (as a young Bette Midler) of “The Glory of Love” which is wonderful, although watching it just now, it’s clear the pianist is faking it since the keys she is playing are way too far down to produce the higher notes in the song.  Also put the phrase “over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder” in my head and it’s still there almost 30 years after I watched the film (for the only time) with Leah and Rachel Newkirk in their basement the same week we watched Heathers and Earth Girls are Easy in August of 1989.
• Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers  –  After the third film and the idea of a series of anthology films without Michael Myers didn’t pan out, they returned to him six years later and over three decades later we’re still getting films with him.
• Taffin  –  After missing out on James Bond (for the time being), Pierce Brosnan follows the conclusion of Remington Steele by starring as the Irish debt collector from Lyndon Mallett’s series of books as the filmmakers ignore the description of the character as unattractive and overweight.
• Salome’s Last Dance  –  Glenda Jackson returns to acting for Ken Russell in this adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s play Salome.
• The Prince of Pennsylvania  –  Keanu Reeves is the it guy lately thanks to the third John Wick with everyone ignoring that he still hasn’t learned how to act.  Here he is back in 1988 when he couldn’t act either.  Based on the novel by Ron Nyswaner.
• Nightfall  –  Cheap Sci-Fi film based on the Asimov novel.  We drop all the way to mid *.5 with this one.
• Cocktail  –  Yet another adaptation surprise.  Heywood Gould wrote the novel and screenplay.  Gave us the song “Kokomo” which I enjoy in spite of my brain telling me that it’s an objectively terrible song.
• Arthur 2: On the Rocks  –  Now we’re into * films.  It doesn’t help that I hate Dudley Moore and don’t find him funny and that the best thing about the first film (John Gielgud) is barely in it because he died in the first one.
• Critters 2: The Main Course  –  A bad Horror film gets a bad sequel.
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master  –  A good Horror film has almost hit rock bottom with its sequels (the fifth film will be worse).  Directed by Renny Harlin, a director so bad his best move was somehow getting Geena Davis to be married to him for five years.
• Monkey Shines  –  Just because it’s directed by George Romero doesn’t mean it can’t be complete crap.  Adapted from a novel by Michael Stewart.
• Ernest Saves Christmas  –  When I did the 20th Century Fox post I talked (in the comments field) about how I can’t see every film from a studio and then hinted that it wasn’t completely true.  So, I’m at 677 of the 712 films released by Disney which is why I have seen this stupid sequel and almost all of the remaining films are available (for a cost) on YouTube, so my plan when I get to the Disney post is to rank every Disney film ever because I will have (hopefully) seen them all.  I’m hoping that they’ll put them all on their Disney+ service when it debuts in the fall and I can avoid paying individually to watch them on YouTube.  Of my 34 films remaining, 28 are pre-Touchstone / pre-1984 Buena Vista films, two are Touchstone films (one of which, Off Beat, is bizarrely the only one of the 34 not available for a cost on YouTube) and three are mid-90’s Hollywood Pictures films.  Thankfully, my list will go down on Tuesday when TCM is showing four films from the Disney vault that are on that list.
• King Lear  –  Godard botches Shakespeare.  Low *.
• Iron Eagle II  –  Totally unnecessary sequel to a film that wasn’t all that good to begin with.  This line applies as well to almost every film remaining on the list.
• Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood  –  When they couldn’t get New Line to agree to Jason versus Freddy they basically made Jason versus Carrie.  We’ve hit the .5 films.
• Phantasm II  –  Thankfully after this film, the Phantasm films would go direct to video.
• Rambo III  –  The Iron Eagle line still qualifies if the previous film referred to is Rambo rather than First Blood.  Rambo goes to Afghanistan and blows shit up.
• Hellbound: Hellraiser II  –  Clive Barker just provides the story but mostly bails on the further tales of Pinhead.
• Police Academy 5: Assignment Miami Beach  –  Maybe I’m wrong about Guttenberg because he bailed on this franchise and it got even worse.
• Messenger of Death  –  Not a shitty sequel.  Just a shitty Charles Bronson / J. Lee Thompson vigilante film.  Based on a novel by Rex Burns.
• Caddyshack II  –  The worst film of 1988, an opinion I have had basically since I first saw it (when it first came to cable, sometime in 1989 I think) and for a long time (until 1995 when I saw Showgirls, I think), the worst film I had ever seen.  Reviewed in full in the Nighthawk Awards.

Adaptations of Notable Works I Haven’t Seen

• Burning Secret  –  “Notable” is both subjective and vague but this film from director Andrew Birkin starring Klaus Maria Brandauer and Faye Dunaway is based on a Stefan Zweig short story.
• Stars and Bars  –  Only “notable” in that F.T. seems to think I’m avoiding it and it’s one of only two Daniel Day-Lewis films I haven’t seen (Nanou is the other).  Satirical take on America from the novel by William Boyd.  Nearly impossible to find and I’ve been trying to find it for years.

The highest grossing adapted film of the year is Vice Versa (#73, $13.66 mil) which is ironic, because the highest grossing film at all that I haven’t seen from 1987 is Like Father Like Son, the previous body-switching movie but that one wasn’t adapted.