What Movie is Better than the Book?

1. 71

   bogerkposted 13 years ago

   Almost every time someone has read a book and then seen the movie adaptation they say, "The book was better."
   
   What movie have you seen that you thought was better than the book?

   replyreport
   1. 71

      bogerkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For me, it would be Fight Club.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Antonia Monacelliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Girl, Interrupted.  I liked the book, but I loved the movie. 
      In all fairness, the book is a memoir, and the movie drastically changed what had actually occurred, so it really isn't a fair comparison.  The movie was more of a fictional take with only the bare bones of the memoir intact.  Had the movie stuck with the actual storyline of the book, I don't know that I would have enjoyed it more than I did the book.
      
      Also, A Walk to Remember; I didn't like the book, but the movie was decent.  For a chick flick at least

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's fundamentally impossible if you ask me, as most books (regardless of source) are a lot more detailed and in movies, they often have to cut out a lot of things for time constraints.  However, if you want to count comic books, then I think Blade vastly exceeds the original comic book, as the character was always bland and uninteresting.  It wasn't until Wesley Snipes reinvented the character that he was even remotely interesting.  Anyways, i hope that helps.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I found your post great! We started watching the new TV series Blade and it is very different then the movie. I enjoy it for the most part but hubby finds it really irritating and picks at every hole! This could go a long way to explaining why the TV show is so different from the movie. I actually read this post to hubby and he appreciated hearing that the comic character was not exciting the way he is in the Blade  movie.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks Kirsten.  I'm glad you and your husband liked the post. To be honest, I've never seen the TV series, but I have seen all the films and read some of issues when i was younger. The movies are definitely better than the original comic books if you ask me.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The TV series is pretty new actually. I do enjoy it but I have to forget the vampire world of the movie in order to accept the vampire world portrayed in this new show. I think if hubby could let go of the image of Blade he has (of Wesley Snipes) he might enjoy it more but I don't think he can stop comparing the two. I still prefer it to the vampire world as portrayed by the twilight movies

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, I kind of have the same problem with Heath Ledger as the Joker.  Ever since "The Dark Knight", I can't imagine anyone else playing that character, as all others just seem phony to me now; even Jack Nicholson's version back in 1989. lol. 
                  
                  As far as "twilight" goes, I'm not going to comment on that, as I hated those movies.  lol.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Tina Kachanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     And here I thought I was the only one liked Heath Ledger better thank Nicholson as the Joker. Good to know I`m not insane

                     replyreport
   4. 63

      warchild75posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Fight club and the Shining both better than the books.Also the mini series Martina Coles "The Take".

      replyreport
   5. 72

      Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I might get flamed for this but I once tried to read The Lord of the Rings books. Big mistake. The movies are way better. Tolkien gives you far more detail about everything than you need and while I applaud his imagination for creating this detailed a world its just much easier to process and enjoy in movie form.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      chasescatsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to say that out of every movie that I have seen that came from a book, none were better. Don't get me wrong, the movies can be excellent, but they can never display all the detail that can be provided an author.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Shidoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For me it was Altered States..  Paddy Chayefsky left out one critical observation made but not explained in the movie by Bob Balaban's character.  That one thing made the difference.  The two versions came very close to paralleling each other otherwise.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      filmchick1987posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Harry Potter 5: The Order of the Phoenix. The book was totally boring, LONG and uninspiring. The film captured all the exciting elements and cut the crap.

      replyreport
2. 60

   KristenGraceposted 13 years ago

   Might sound silly, but I thought the Nanny Diaries was better than the book.  I certainly enjoyed it more, although I still thought the book was a decent read...
   The Shining was another movie (although I will note that it's quite the different genre than Nanny Diaries!!).  Still, the movie scared me more than when I was reading.

   replyreport
3. 69

   megmccormickposted 13 years ago

   Bridges of Madison County, the book was pretty hideous, one of the most trite, ridiculous books ever,  but the movie was fairly tolerable.

   replyreport
4. 59

   spookyfoxposted 13 years ago

   The Shinning, and maybe A Clockwork Orange? I haven't read the book but I'd say most Kubrick films based on books are better than them.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Agree on The Shining.  Nicholson is a master, Stephen King....ehhhhhh.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         With The Shining, I thought the novel was much better. In fact, one of the scariest parts wasn't even in the movie. I did love Jack Nicholson, though!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Which part?

            replyreport
      2. 59

         spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I used to love Stephen King, but even when I did, there was always something that I found silly, usually in the manifestation of an obviously supernatural event.

         replyreport
5. 55

   Lexe Charlestonposted 13 years ago

   That's hard to say. Maybe the movie Apocalypse Now--based off the novel Heart of Darkness. Don't know if this really counts though 'cause the book is brilliant. It's just that the movie is also brilliant which I rarely find when movies are based on books.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      shawshank redemption and the lord of the rings trilogy were based off books, and they were great.  probably not as great as the books, but still great.  plus,everything spooky fox said too.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         bogerkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Good call on Shawshank Redemption. That might actually be the best example of a movie that is better than the book.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Piper_Lynchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Totally agree on Shawshank.  The novella was good but different.  The movie was less graphic and seemed to have more heart.  Or, maybe that was just Morgan Freeman's narration.  Morgan Freeman could narrate a trip to the bathroom and I'd probably still think it worthy of 4 stars.

            replyreport
6. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   The Horse Whisperer
   
   Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

   replyreport
7. 79

   Me, Steve Waltersposted 13 years ago

   Lonesome Dove....only 'cause I enjoyed seeing it played out in the movie version...with real scenery...and seeing the characters come to life on screen!

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This one would be a tie for me - both versions were great! The movie script was almost identical to the book, and I LOVED Robert Duvall as Gus.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Home Girlposted 13 years ago

   Try to read Shakespeare, seriously, I can't. I usually give up pretty soon. But to watch movie is another story. Same about Dickens. Though I love to read Jane Austin. And movies are pretty decent too.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Before I read any Shakespeare I thought I'd feel the same, but I found Hamlet to be one of the most enjoyable and fun books I've encountered, read it like 5 times.

      replyreport
9. 83

   kerrygposted 13 years ago

   Sense and Sensibility was one of Austen's weakest novels but I thought Emma Thompson did a fantastic job of distilling what was good about it and leaving out what was less good in her adaptation.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I also think the movie version of Persuasion is better than the book.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The one with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds? That was very good. I liked the book better than S&S, though, so it's harder for me to judge.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that is the best one. I have trouble getting through the book even though it is a small one.

            replyreport
10. 69

    IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years ago

    The YaYa Sisterhood.

    replyreport
11. 78

    kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

    It has taken me ages to think of a movie that I preferred to the book (I always prefer the books) but I have just remembered one. The Exorcist. This may well be down to the fact that I read the book at about 12, and really struggled to take all the detail in while the movie was very easy to keep up with. I may well want to read the book again that I am all growed up!

    replyreport
12. 61

    BillyDRitchieposted 13 years ago

    JAWS.  The movie is a first rate, A-Z adventure story, the novel is a fairly trashy read where you hope all three main characters get eaten by the shark....

    replyreport
    1. 92

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes! The movie was better!

       replyreport
13. 78

    nell79posted 13 years ago

    When I was a teenager, I saw a movie with Juliette Lewis called That Night and loved it. I found it was based on a book and so I jumped on it. I hated it. Looking back, I'm sure it was more realistic and I do remember it had a lot of good details, but the endings were very different and I liked the movie one better (think hollywood ending haha).
    
    As an adult, I think I just about always prefer the books to the movies, though I'm not a snob about it. I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Harry Potter, Where the Heart is, and other movies, but the books have so much more and the imagination isn't limited by the contraints of technology (though that's becoming less of a problem for movie-makers these days).
    
    One of my favorite adaptations is BBC's Pride and Prejudice. I love that one!

    replyreport
14. 79

    brimancandyposted 13 years ago

    I haven't really read a whole lot of books, but I did read both Jurrasic Park and The Lost world. I did like both movies, but neither of them followed the books completely, and the Lost world  movie wasn't anything like the book. However, to see it all brought to life on the big screen sure made it interesting, and Jurrassic Park was a very good movie. (Not so excited with lost world)
    
    Another book I read was Master Of The Game, which was made into a TV mini-series, and the series was much better than the book. They did an excellent job with the acting roles, and, I couldn't wait to see each part as the show unfolded. I think the twin sisters near the end of the series was the best part.
    
    I also read Consenting Adult, which was also made into a TV show. Again, it had two good actors (Martin Sheen and Marlo Thomas) and, it just brought the whole story to life. Not saying it was a great movie, but it was better than the book.
    
    Going way back, I also read "Burnt Offerings" But, the book kind of gave away the whole story in the first few chapters. I actually saw the movie before I read the book, and found the book kind of boring and long. I think
    the movie could have been better, but, it was pretty good for it's time.
    
    I also started reading "Phantom Menace." But, never finished it.
    You can't read Star Wars, you have to see it.

    replyreport
15. 0

    Toby Hansenposted 13 years ago

    None.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       First, Jaws

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Shidoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I agree.  I hated Matt Hooper in Benchley's book!

          replyreport
16. 76

    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 13 years ago

    Stephen King's It and
    Enemy Mine

    replyreport
    1. 60

       KristenGraceposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I saw It when I was only a kid and I became TERRIFIED of clowns.  Pennywise was not the friendliest of sorts...

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Shidoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Clowns can be naturally terrifying!

          replyreport
17. 60

    thirdmilleniumposted 13 years ago

    Where Eagles Dare.
    Alistair McLean wrote the book and the screenplay side by side and finished both in 6 weeks flat, even as the shooting of the movie was going on.
    
    It was perhaps the virtuosity of Richard Burton and the magnetism of Clint Eastwood that pulled it off. But yes, the movie was certainly better than the book.

    replyreport
18. 74

    Don Shipposted 13 years ago

    A Walk to Remember and Dear John! I liked the movie!

    replyreport
19. 63

    I am DB Cooperposted 13 years ago

    Without a doubt The Shining was a better movie than a book. Stephen King apparently hated Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining (but apparently loved the later made-for-TV version), but I think he was just jealous. The movie was really Kubrick demonstrating how his genius towered over King's. You could watch The Shining a thousand times and not catch all the intricate details. Everything from the character's clothing to the patterns on the carpet are in some way tied into Kubrick's grand theme.

    replyreport
20. 60

    Broken Poetposted 13 years ago

    Darren Shans Cirque Du Freak

    replyreport
21. 60

    SuperGalposted 13 years ago

    I could get a lot of flack (flack?) for this, but I must say The Lord of the Rings movies are better than the books.  Though to be honest, I have not read the LOTR books (aside from The Hobbit) simply because I found them to be a bit...unreadable.  The writing is just so...idk, tedious.  It seems to drag on forever with unnecessary details.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       filmchick1987posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I understand what you mean. It took me quite some time to get into the Lord of the Rings books. However, once you get into them, it's like you are part of the fellowship and a part of you dies when the book ends. (I'm only exaggerating a little bit)
       
       I'll never forget reading an entire paragraph on the texture of bark though. Tolkien clearly loved trees... (A tad OTT)

       replyreport
22. 86

    rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

    I wouldn't say the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is better than the books. The books, while filled with rich, intricate details, make it entirely like another world, a fantasy, which is what he wanted. When he describes the woods, the landscape, the mountains, he is introducing characters. They are as much a part of the story as the human characters. The landscape becomes symbolic of good and evil. And the films do change some from the books. But I love both the books and the films. The movies are among the best fantasy ever produced.
    
    I can't think of a movie that is better than the book, at least the books I have read. I didn't read The Shawshank Redemption, but the movie is 5 stars.

    replyreport
23. 57

    danielle dayposted 13 years ago

    For me it would be The Princess Bride read the book but liked the movie much more.

    replyreport
24. 60

    Bronson_Hubposted 13 years ago

    Fight Club.

    replyreport
25. 83

    Rafiniposted 13 years ago

    I don't know that I would say better than, but at least equal to -
    
    Harry Potter 1,2,3.  The movies matched what I saw in my imagination which I felt was truly amazing.

    replyreport
26. 57

    seedyukposted 13 years ago

    Gotta agree with fight club. Also I believe Of Mice and Men deserves a mention as John malkovich did very well in bringing Lenny (the less intelligent main character) to life. The film in general did very well in bringing the book to life come to think of it! Great little book complemented by a nice film version.

    replyreport