I sometimes wonder if there should be a law against making movies out of famous books. At other times, I am grateful to these movies for compelling me to read books I might otherwise have ignored. But after seeing, over the span of a week, both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, I have come to think that such movies must come with a statutory warning: "This movie might be tough to appreciate without reading the book".

Let's take The Lord of the Rings - the Fellowship of the Rings first. I had heard so much about the book from my friends and from people whose literary tastes I admire, that I was very eager to see the film. Part of the charm of the story, I was told, was the complexity of the characters and the story and the fantastic realms described. The last was very much present, with the supreme green vistas of New Zealand enhanced by amazing special effects. Mordor too was impressively dark and menacing. But the characters seemed to lack depth and, for want of a better word, distinction. I could not, for the life of me, figure out the finer differences between an elf, a human, and a hobbit. The story too seemed a simplistic good versus evil one. If there were layers of meaning, they did not stand out in the film. What was most disappointing, for a horror flick enthusiast like me, was the apparent 'un-scariness' of the various bad guys. Worse, I had seen most of them in other movies. There was the slimy creature from Aliens, something of the headless horseman from Sleepy Hollow, and a revamped King Kong, to name a few. Only those dark-robed guys on black horses held promise.

The pace of the movie was erratic, maddeningly slow at most times and fast at others. But the biggest failure of LOTR as a movie was its abrupt ending. I knew this was only the first part of a trilogy, but even then there could've been some sort of build-up to the end or a signal. Instead, we get a sudden jolt that the movie (all rambling four hours of it) is over. To sum it up, LOTR is all style and effects over substance, joining the league of the supposedly less cerebral Star Wars.

Next up was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Having read the book, I thought I would enjoy this movie more. However, apart from the chance to see whatever you read visualized on film, the film holds little promise. The characters stand out well though Harry Potter himself is dwarfed by the children who play Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. The main problem is with the abrupt shift of scenes, especially those set in the school. They are disconnected and seem irrelevant until the latter half of the movie. Moreover, like LOTR, the pace is very erratic. The biggest plus of the movie is the terrifyingly fast Quidditch match that had everyone on the edge of their seats. The climax and end also turn out fine. But a lot of Harry Potter, the movie, relies on either very quick thinking or an acquaintance with the book. In the bargain, those who watch the movie without reading the book may not catch certain small nuances like the idea of "muggles," the "sorting hat" or "Nimbus 2000". As the movie ended, I wondered if Harry Potter would become a must-see children's movie like E.T. or The Chocolate Factory. It seems unlikely. Even if it does, it will be all due to the hype and nothing else.

Looking back on both the movies, I think perhaps that there must be some fundamentally better way in which to make a great movie out of a great book. After all, Gone with the Wind and The Bridges of Madison County were excellent screen versions of the books. The trick perhaps lies in understanding the difference between what makes a book great and what makes a movie great, in pruning the descriptions, in distilling the essence, and in sustaining the audience's interest. Finally, the movie should be good enough to stand on its own - something that these two movies fail to achieve.