This may not be the greatest movie ever (its four Oscars came on the technical side) but at least it did not butcher one of my favorite books. Both were enjoyable, for different reasons. Tom Wolfe's writing style, which I and most reporters in America tried (and failed) to mimic, made this a great read. The movie's high-altitude scenes, meanwhile, added a dimension that was hard for me to visualize in the reading.

It's nearly impossible for adaptaions to capture the spare emotions contained in a book (ditto for plays, which may explain why Rent is so much better on stage than on screen). The best adaptations aren't overly ambitious, yet add some new visual element. As Jenn said in response to Nancy's post, the Harry Potter movies were faithful to Rowling's books and were visually compelling. Still that's no guarantee for success.  Let's not forget the worst adaptation ever (OK, Aaron and Nancy, I haven't seen Hitchhiker): Frank Herbert's Dune, which became a comatose movie by David Lynch.