h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

if done well, a film can have the ability to help you see some different aspects of the story that may not have been so obvious in the book. e.g. dangerous liaisons - it does play around with some things (like merteuil and valmont actually meeting face to face, which they don't do in the book) but it's generally fairly close, and the use of symbolism (particuarly costumes & mirrors) helps to highlight aspects of the characters that aren't so clearly stated in the book - and the way the film does this is quite subtle too (even though, in many ways, the film as a whole lacks subtlety).

likewise, the symbolism (particularly the use of film) in orlando the film adds a great deal to the story. i have to admit i love the in jokes in the casting! and i think the way the ending has been brought up to date, with the voice over reflecting the one at the start and so on, is great - for me it really helped me see much more clearly the journey that orlando had taken. the subheadings are great too. which reminds me of the chapter headings in room with a view - another book that was translated well to the screen.

i think the key thing is not to try to literally just show exactly what happens in the book, page by page. the media are far too different for that to work. successful adaptations happen when the screenplay writer and the director understand the story and the characters and portray them on screen in a way that makes for a good film, while also drawing out themes or ideas from the book that may not be particularly obvious to a casual reader but which are crucial to understanding what's going on. not many people can do it well. i know everybody else will go on about lotr, but i think that peter & fran jackson and the rest of their team have done a fantastic job.

For some reason, Polanski's "Macbeth" (1971) comes to mind. From the review at Amazon:

" ... the main thrust of the film belongs to Polanski's and noted British playwright and critic Kenneth Tynan's take on the play: extremely violent, nihilistic, and visceral; this is down-in-the-dirt, no-holds-barred Shakespeare, not fussy costume drama. Pay close attention to the end, a silent coda that puts a chilling twist on all the action that has come beforehand ..."

I recall very little dialogue was used. Although Shakespeare was the master of words, I think he might have approved.