Anything by John Grisham...
It has to be short enough to be accurately portrayed in around 2 hours. Otherwise I'll get irritated at the movie for being lazy. Harry Potter and Shawshank are probably the only movies I can think of (at the moment) that didn't leave me wanting to plead with people to read the book, it's soooo much better.
HP - Terrible books...terrible movies - but the first movie - the only one I watched - had bearable moments.
At the time the books came out...there was a man living in our building with the name of Harold Potter...
Fair enough. : )
Was this Harold you knew a dick? I'm just curious why you think something most people love and see the good in them as being terrible...
I have different standards. I prefer real witchcraft as opposed to the Hollywood kind.
Strong characters and location are a must. Sometimes you can read a book and have it almost play out like a movie in your mind if the details are done right. That of course makes it an obvious winner. A prominent narrative also helps. Some writers rely heavily on backstory to flush out their narrative. I've seen movie adaptations that will just jump straight to the point and offer up little in the way of explanation because I guess they worry about being bogged down in details.
One that's about 30 pages...including the blank cover page..