The book is always better than the film, isn’t it? We have come up with examples where the opposite is true. When does the adaptation outclass the original?

As ever, there are a few provisos. 1. We didn’t include autobiographies, because there are a good few boring biographies that have made decent films (so no Raging Bull). 2. We didn’t include short stories- so no Shawshank Redemption or Total Recall/We Can Remember It For You Wholesale- because they weren’t full books. 3. Finally, there are a lot of really bad books, that made slightly better films (a lot of Stephen King/Michael Crichton in there), and really great books that were really great on screen (LA Confidential, Blade Runner, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now, Rum Punch). They were out as well. Simple rule is… film = good, book = not good.

The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola - 1972) based on the book by Mario Puzo (1969)

Puzo’s Godfather was the bones on which Coppola fleshed out his masterpiece. Puzo’s book covers the same themes as the film - family, destiny and the American Way - but only scratches the surface. Coppola’s version added colour, and made each individual character standout. This may be one occasion when the relative shallowness of the book was beneficial to the film.

The Godfather

Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock - 1960) based on the book by Robert Bloch (1959)

Robert Bloch’s pulp thriller was loosely based on the account of Ed Gein’s murders in Wisconsin, two years before the book was published. Hitchcock bought the rights to the book for just $9,000 and intended to use it to reclaim his title as the King of Suspense. As amazing as it seems now, his previous work, Vertigo, had been critically panned and failed at the box office, while other film makers - Roger Corman, Robert Siodmak, William Castle - had success with films in the same genre. Bloch’s book was entertaining but trashy, while Hitchcock’s film redefined at least three different genres, and took the technical capabilities of films to new levels (even the soundtrack and the credits are revolutionary). At the time of the films’ release, Hitchcock was so keen to keep the film’s ending secret that he was alleged to have bought all copies of Bloch’s book he could find.

Psycho titles

Jurassic Park (Steven Speilberg - 1993) based on the book by Michael Crichton (1990)

As with Carrie, Crichton’s Jurassic Park wasn’t “bad”, it just wasn’t very good. Speilberg condensed it, and improved the characterisation and pacing considerably.

That Scene, in Jurassic Park

The French Connection (William Friedkin - 1971) based on the book by Robin Moore (1969)

Moore’s factual account of the French Connection drug trafficing features some interesting anecdotes, but is ultimately a fairly dry account by standards of other crime writers. Friedkin’s star was in the ascendency, and his dramaticised version of events were far more entertaining. The film also includes one of the most exciting car chases in cinema. The book doesn’t.

The Chase in The French Connection

Shoot the Pianist (Francois Truffaut - 1960) based on the book “Down There” by David Goodis (1956)

Truffaut’s Shoot the Pianist is just one of his many masterpieces, and as good an example of French New Wave as you are likely to find. It is surprising to learn that the film is actually based on an American Noir (rather than French Noir!) book by David Goodis. Several of Goodis’ works are well worth reading- especially Dark Passage- but this isn’t one of them.

Classic French Noir

Carrie (Brian De Palma - 1976) based on the book by Stephen King (1974)

It might be a little harsh to put Stephen King’s fourth novel on this list, as it isn’t a bad book. It isn’t an especially good book either, and King has certainly written better. Brian De Palma took quite a few liberties with characters and storyline when he remade the book for the screen, most notably in his far improved ending, which would not have been possible to achieve in print. The end result is a much more tense, and far more slick result.

Carrie

Jaws (Steven Speilberg - 1975) based on the book by Peter Benchley (1974)

Speilberg invented the summer blockbuster with Jaws, although it was based on a considerably less famous book. Benchley’s book had to be re-written by publishers on submission, and even Speilberg would claim that the characters were so dislikeable that he wanted the shark to win. Speilberg’s version was frought with problems- not least the mechanical shark that he wanted to use. Eventually he hit upon the solution that would make the film such a success- it’s not what you see that scares you, it’s what you can’t see… The film made almost half a billion dollars worldwide, and was the blueprint for every summer release from then on.

Jaws

Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick - 1964) based on “Red Alert” by Peter George (1958)

Red Alert was a paranoid thriller which warned of the ease of nuclear holocaust with a stony coldness. When Kubrick remade the book for the screen, he decided to make it as an absurd black comedy. The real genius of this was that he actually succeeded in making the Anti-Nuclear message even more powerful than it had been on the page.

Dr Strangelove

Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton - 1964) based on the book by Ian Fleming (1959)

This might seem like sacrilege, but the Ian Fleming book of Goldfinger isn’t very good. Casino Royale, now that is a good Bond book, but Goldfinger seems to be responsible for all the “Austin Powers” bits in Flemings’ work. Lesbian gangs? Check. Lesbian circus performers? Check. Amazonian lesbian acrobats? Check. The film leaves out all of the parts that would push it into parody, and it is still the Best Bond. Bond’s scenes with Pussy Galore are still ridiculous, but they are fun.

Goldfinger

Big Fish (Tim Burton - 2003) based on the book by Daniel Wallace (1999)

Again, this might be unfair, as Daniel Wallace’s book isn’t bad. It isn’t anywhere near as good as the film version by Tim Burton. Burton managed to mix his trademark love of the strange with a genuinely affectionate story about family. While the book was about detective work, and finding out who Edward Bloom’s father really was through the tall tales he told, the film took far more joy in each of the stories it told.

Big Fish

Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoeven - 1997) based on the book by Robert Heinlein (1959)

Heinlein’s book was heavily criticised for its glamourisation of war, its pro-military stance and even the possibility that it was sympathetic to fascism. Paul Verhoeven used all of these criticisms as the basis of his version when he created it in 1997 as an attack on human “Manifest Destiny”. Verhoeven’s version of Earth is obviously fascist, and the film makes a point of overtly “glamouring” the military, but with the same form of self mocking, tongue in cheek that he managed in Total Recall and Robocop. Rather than being a book about how war was necessary, it became a critique of any form of sabre rattling.

Starship Troopers

So, what have we learned from this? The lesson is that if you want to make a great film out of a bad book, you will need to hire the services of one of the finest directors ever. Or Paul Verhoeven.

Anything we have missed? Let us know…

There have been plenty of lists on the scariest characters in cinema history. The Alien is scary, the cave dwelling things in The Descent are nasty, and Pennywise (in IT) was really scary until the weird (spoiler) spider ending. But what if we only include actual people? Which actors turn in the most chilling performances? Who are the people of cinemaland that really scare us? The ones that you feel uncomfortable as soon as they are on screen…

We decided to put a list of the characters that really darken the screen. There were a few rules- 1. They had to be fictional characters, 2. They had to be 100% human people, and 3. You had to actually be scared of them - no characters you secretly like (so that rules out scary heroes and Hannibal Lecter).

Some spoiler warnings ahead. So don’t read them if you haven’t seen the film (and definitely don’t open the videos!). And don’t watch them if you are squeamish or don’t want any bad language.

Dennis Hopper (as Frank Booth) - Blue Velvet (1986)

Few people do scary quite like David Lynch, and although Bob (Twin Peaks) and The Mystery Man (Lost Highway) might have made this list, it is Dennis Hopper’s Frank that is arguably the nastiest of them all. Frank is a gangster, who’s interests include murder, torture, rape, drug dealing, sadomasochism and Roy Orbison. Hopper has played some dark characters in his time, but none are quite as evil as Frank.

Frank Booth

Javier Bardem (as Anton Chigurh) - No Country for Old Men (2007)

Bardem won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of the relentless hitman, Anton Chigurh, in the Coen Brothers most recent thriller. Chigurh has an (almost?) unflinching lack of emotion, and every time he is on screen bad things happen. The Coen’s have had their “Devil” characters before, notably in Barton Fink, Fargo and The Hudsucker Proxy. It is an incredible performance from Bardem, but one which you don’t necessarily want to see any more of - the highest kind of accolade.

Anton Chigurh

Christopher Walken (as The Man With The Plan)/ Steve Buscemi (as Mr Shhhh)  - Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead (1995)

This might count as cheating, as it is a 2 for 1, but they are essentially the same villain. This might not be the best film on the list, but Walken is absolutely terrifying in it. He has played plenty of bad  guys in his time, but most of them fall foul of our Rule 3 (especially his turn in True Romance). The Man With the Plan is concise, sinister and completely cold hearted. Buscemi’s Mr Shhh is the actions to Walken’s words.

The Man With The Plan

Robert Helpmann (as The Childcatcher) - Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

How many nightmares was this responsible for?

Childcatcher

Eihi Shiina (as Asami Yamazaki) - Audition (1999)

Glenn Close pretty much rewrote the script when it came to The Femme Fatale, with her part in Fatal Attraction. Shiina took the woman (not so) scorned in a far, far darker direction. There are scenes in this film that are literally and metaphorically torture. And some of it made Rob Zombie sick. A seriously disturbing piece of acting, in a seriously disturbing film.

Asami

Robert Michum (as Harry Powell) - The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Michum could easily be in this list twice, as his performance in the 1962 version of Cape Fear is almost as disturbing. It was as “Preacher”, Harry Powell that Michum was his most sinister. It was this performance that brought the iconic “LOVE” and “HATE” tattoos into popular culture.

Powell

Morgan Woodward (as Boss Godfrey) - Cool Hand Luke (1967)

Boss Godfrey was the sinister Chain Gang guard, that always wore glasses and didn’t seem entirely human. It’s all in the sunglasses. They don’t cover his eyes, they are his eyes. He was seen as being so much like The Devil himself, that he would be an obvious influence on the Coen Brothers’ Sheriff Cooley, in O Brother, Where Art Thou. Not entirely human.

Boss Godfrey

Peter Lorre (Hans Beckhert) - M (1931)

Lorre’s depiction of Child Murderer Beckhert is frightening now, and it is 77 years since the film was made. Fritz Lang’s decision to cast a comic actor (Lorre), coupled with his pioneering mastery of leitmotif and the tracking shot made this film as uncomfortable now as it was then. The role was a defining one for Lorre, who would go on to repeat his creepy performance in films like The Man Who Knew Too Much and The Maltese Falcon.

Beckhert in M

Sergi Lopez (Captain Vidal) - Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)

As with M, Guillermo Del Toro made a brave decision in casting a comedic actor for as Captain Vidal. Vidal is a psychopathic Captain of Franco’s fascist army. He hunts down guerrillas, and is not adverse to torture or brutal murder. He shows a complete lack of compassion for his wife and a hatred for her daughter. There is one scene in particular… the one with the rabbit hunters…

Captain Vidal

Gary Oldman (Norman Stanfield) - Leon (1994)

Not many people can play a psycho quite like Gary Oldman. And he has certainly had plenty of practice. Stansfield is a classical music enthusiast, and deranged police officer, who was responsible for the deaths of Mathilda’s (Natalie Portman) family. There are several scenes in the film that underline just how unhinged Stanfield is, not least when he starts sniffing people. Oldman managed to create a character that is both entertaining to watch, and downright frightening.

Norman Stanfield

Louise Fletcher (Nurse Ratched) - One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (1975)

Ratched rules the Oregon State mental hospital with an iron fist. She is happy to lobotomize patients for disruptive behavior, humiliate them whenever possible and deprive them of food. Fletcher won an Academy Award for her role as Ratched, completing a Grand Slam of Oscars for the film. A frightening version of corrupted power.

Nurse Ratched

Anyone we have missed out? Let us know.

First of all, in the interest of making sure I don’t get accused of any favouritism, I would would like to point out that I do not support Manchester United. I admire the way they play, but I don’t really like them. If you are a United fan, good luck to you- let’s agree to disagree. And while I am at it, I will also admit that up until fairly recently (about two years ago) I loved everything that Real Madrid stood for. If you go to the Bernabeu, you can’t help it. I know all about their dubious history, I know about the meddling from Franco that meant Di Stefano signed for them and not Barcelona. I know about the “financial favours” they got when they sold their training ground. For me, it was about the football.

Every year there is a transfer saga that drags on and on, and this year it has been that of Cristiano Ronaldo. Although the man himself has said very little, we have heard from his mother, his sister and various friends that he definitely wants to play for Real Madrid. Only that he definitely wants to stay at Manchester United. For obvious reasons- 42 of them last year- United don’t want to sell. Madrid, and especially club president Ramon Calderon, have been accused of underhanded behavior in their attempts to sign the Portuguese winger- a pursuit that has been going on for at least the past two years. It has been enough of a news story for luminaries such as Sepp Blatter, David Beckham and Pele to add their voices to the debate. Everyone in football seems to have an opinion. Some - like Beckham (suggesting he go to Madrid) and Pele (suggesting he honour his contract) have provided harmless sound-bites. Others, like that of Sepp Blatter- who suggested that if the player is kept in his contract he is a “slave”- are far more harmful. It seems like everyone has given their opinion on this transfer except the player himself. What are the repurcussions? Has he damaged his reputation? Why would he want to move? Is it ethical? It might just be the most contentious transfer saga (if any deal actually happens) ever.

Much has been made of the fact that Ronaldo has “publicly flirted” with Real Madrid, and that it might have damaged his reputation somewhat. Manchester United have accused Calderon and Madrid of deliberately trying to unsettle their player. There is certainly a large element of truth in this, as Calderon has had Los Merengues propaganda wing- the sports paper Marca- printing Ronaldo stories on an almost daily basis. United went as far as contacting FIFA over an “improper approach” for Ronaldo. What may have worked in Madrid’s favour is that FIFA takes a dim view of transfers being done without the knowledge of the “selling” club. Calderon’s approach has been brazen and unapologetic. To United, it may seem like Real are trying to tap their player, but to Calderon they are simply publicly declaring their admiration for another player. Both practises are equally unethical- a public or a private coveting is still a coveting- but one is legal.

This should be something Manchester United are perfectly well aware of. They may have complained over Madrid’s handling of the Ronaldo affair, but the “Sale By Media” isn’t an unfamiliar tactic at Old Trafford. At the same time as the club must deal with speculation on Ronaldo, they are happy to let speculation turn the relevant wheels, so they can secure Dimitar Berbatov from Spurs, despite refusing to meet Spurs’ asking price. Similar things happened when United signed Owen Hargreaves. Indeed, when Ferguson first moved to United, he was alleged to have tapped Aberdeen goalkeeper Jim Leighton up, to follow him. United should know as well as anyone, that when certain clubs come calling, there is little you can do to persuade your players to stay.

There are two far more pressing concerns about the whole saga. The first point concerns Ronaldo himself. If he genuinely wants to play for Real Madrid, then he will probably get his wish. The question is- why? Why would a player who is likely to get the World Player of the Year award, and who has just had a record breaking season at the European and Premiership Champions, want to move to a Madrid side who are only a year into their latest rebuilding process? Madrid are certainly the most glamourous side in the world, but they were well beaten in last years’ Champions League by a Roma side that Manchester United had put seven past a year previously. Granted, they have won the past two La Liga seasons, but they lost 7 games in 2007/08, more than anyone in the English Top 4. Their recent success has as much to do with Barcelona imploding, than any renaissance. Manchester United have the best manager in the world in Alex Ferguson. He brings 22 years of stability, and a knowledge of how Manchester United and Cristiano Ronaldo should play to get the best results. In the same 22 years, Real Madrid have had an incredible 21 different managers. Ferguson’s tactics allow Ronaldo the space and time he thrives on. He has effectively re-invented the forward line by having two hard working “strikers” in Rooney and Tevez, so that Ronaldo can feed off the chances they create. Would any other manager in the world be able to get the same results? While Ronaldo’s record at International level is exceptional (21 goals in 58 games), it is a long way short of his record for United. Mediocre sides like Serbia and Finland managed to isolate Ronaldo if he was left to play as “just” a winger (albeit a great one). Would Real Madrid change their famously rigid formation to accomodate a special player? They didn’t do it for Zidane…

Finally, and most seriously, there are the comments of Sepp Blatter. As anyone who has read my views on the man before will know, I am not a fan. His latest comments suggest that if United keep Ronaldo, when he wants to go to Madrid, then he will effectively be a “slave” (his words). Aside from the fact that, as UEFA pointed out, most slaves don’t earn £6m per year or spend £10,000 in nightclubs while shunning Paris Hilton, Blatter seems to be contradicting himself. He has always had a problem with English clubs wealth and the accompanying success, and Manchester United are the easiest target to pick on. You only need to go back as far as February, for a slightly more low profile case, when Blatter fielded an entirely different opinion. When a court of arbitration ruled that Andy Webster was allowed to walk away from his contract, Blatter decreed

“Because of this unfortunate decision, the principle of contractual stability, as agreed in 2001 with the European Commission as part of the new transfer regulations and which restored order to the transfer system, has been deemed less important than the short-term interests of the player involved”.

So, allowing a player to move when they want is “unfortunate”, but keeping them is “slavery? It is hardly surprising that these comments come from a man who has advocated “tighter shorts for womens football”, the golden/silver goal rule (abolished), no appeals for red cards, an offside rule nobody understands and effectively banning high altitude countries from their own capitals. The most damaging, and shortsighted of all, was the fact he used the word “slave”. Slavery is an unfortunate part of football. There have been various accounts of human trafficing, where players from Ghana and Cameroon were taken to Europe to play football, only to be abandoned. As recently as last year there were reports of 15 young Africans shipwrecked in the Canary Islands, after they were told they would get trials with Real Madrid or Marseille. Similar situations occur in South America, where players are “owned” by corporations, or agents. They have little say in where they play. No disrespect to West Ham fans, but Tevez and Mascherano cannot have expected to be West Ham players when they first went to Europe. Clubs all over Europe are desperate to uncover the next Essien, Weah, Drogba, Milla, Yekini or Eto’o and so they set up feeder clubs in these countries. It is here where the line between slavery and football is most blurred. The players might be better looked after, and they might actually have a chance of “making it”, but it is effectively a form of sport “strip mining”. What Blatter (and Ronaldo) need to realise, is that they are in incredibly privelidged positions, and they should think more carefully about their responsibilties.

Texperts CEO Sarah McVittie is the featured speaker at the Great Eastern Investment Forum Breakfast Briefing, which will be held at the The Trinity Centre in the Cambridge Science Park on Wednesday 14th May 2008.

The Great Eastern Investment Forum (GEIF) is a leading UK business angel network located in Cambridge which exists to introduce ambitious, innovative companies seeking funding to business angels and other early-stage funders seeking quality investment opportunities. Sarah will be discussing  her experience in the Cambridge  high-tech sector and how she secured backing for Texperts as a start-up.

In his first blog for us, Dominic F recounts how he and his fellow Texperts experienced the Grand National weekend…

Saturday April 5th 2008 saw the 165th running of the Grand National, arguably the most famous horse race in the world. Working the few days before the race and the afternoon building up to it, I saw quite a few requests for tips in the queue and, where I could, I dealt with them myself and provided the nag-knowledge-needy public with my own tips (properly sourced of course!) – large priced value bet Black Apalachi (best price 66/1) and the eventual winner Comply Or Die (best price 12/1). I hope that Texperts made some punters a few quid!

Bragging aside, the real reason for this blog entry is an excuse to talk facts, statistics and trivia. Knowledge is power. We should have ALL worked out that Comply Or Die would win the race, because of recent trends:

The last time a horse won with odds longer than 33/1 was in 1995 (Royal Athlete, 40/1) and it has only happened three times in the last 40 years. So we’d have been fairly safe eliminating all horses priced at greater than 33/1 on the morning of the race, leaving us with half the field, right off the bat.

The most significant factor in picking a winner is weight. In the last half century, only the great Red Rum has won carrying more than 11st 5lbs. In the last 25 years, only Hedgehunter has been victorious carrying more than 11st and that was only 11st 1lb. Experts absolutely insist that the ideal weight range for a National winner is 10st – 11st. We could have further narrowed the field to 10 potential winners then, by ruling out Butler’s Cabin, Simon, Turko, L’Ami, Vodka Bleu, Mr Pointment, Hedgehunter, Chelsea Harbour, Slim Pickings and Snowy Morning.

Every winner of the race since Gay Trip in 1970 has previously won over three miles or further, so we could also have discounted King John’s Castle, leaving us with nine.

Age is an important statistic in choosing a winner, no seven year old has won the race since 1940 and only three eight year olds have won the race in the last three decades. In addition, only two teenagers have ever won the race and only ten 12 year olds have succeeded. We could have happily ruled out Philson Run, Mon Mome and Cloudy Lane with this information, reducing the field to six.

Contrary to popular belief, the race has not been such a punting lottery in recent years – 13 of the last 17 winners were in amongst the eight shortest priced nags in the market. Using this statistic, we could have slashed the field to just Comply Or Die and Bewleys Berry.

For those that like to pick horses simply on the colour of the jockey’s silks, green is the way forward - half of the winning jockeys in the ten years leading up to the 2008 race have been wearing green. That ruled out the cream and black colours of Dennis O’Regan on board Bewleys Berry, leaving us with the obvious victor – Comply Or Die. Seemingly, quite a few punters had come to the same conclusion as the night before the race, you could get 12/1 about Timmy Murphy piloting the winner but a huge market move saw his mount backed into 7/1 joint favouritism.

So for the 2009 Grand National, keep these facts in mind, and remember - knowledge is (horse) power!