A movie that was better than the book?

Children of Men. The book sucked. Then again, the movie was very loosely based on the book as the plot, the characters, and the underlying themes were changed.

I want to say Forrest Gump but I'd have to read it again to make sure. It's been about 6 years since I read it so I might feel different about it now.

Personally I found the Hunt for Red October movie better then the book.

Children of Men. The book sucked. Then again, the movie was very loosely based on the book as the plot, the characters, and the underlying themes were changed.

Exactly the one I was going to say! It's the only time I've loved the movie more then the book.

I hate that book.

'Oliver!'...one of Dicken's weakest books but a lovely film. Also I would be inclined to agree with Kila (I dont even know if he likes/approves of this nickname) with 'The Godfather'.

'Angelas Ashes', McCourt writes like a child, the film is much better.

I have heard from a few people that "Field of Dreams" (the movie) was much better then the book it was based on, "Shoeless Joe Comes to Iowa". However, I have never experienced this myself.

To me, the only one that comes to mind that wasn't better then the book, but was just as good as the book was "The Hunt for Red October".

Ok, I'm going to get mega flamed for this, but the Lord of the Rings series. I'm sorry, but I could just NOT get through the books.

*prepares anti flame wall*

Big Fish. Without a doubt.

I'll also hazard saying Fight Club, but its been a while since I've read that one.

The first one that comes to my mind is The Princess Bride. The movie did humor much better and Buttercup was too stupid in the book. I know many people love that book though. Also, The Wizard of Oz, and I agree with tartan_skirt--I liked Fight Club more as a movie.

I think there are more, but those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Wizard of Oz I think was better as a movie. I read the book and it was ok, but the movie is just better.

Wizard of Oz I think was better as a movie. I read the book and it was ok, but the movie is just better.

I would disagree with you on that one. The book was great and the movie is a example that some movies are censored to protect children.

I'd have to say that all the books I have read, all the movies I have seen. However good they were, there is nothing better than what I read. Sometimes movies go a little overboard.

I have already been drawn and quartered for saying this, but I was prepared to chuck Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" (post-apocalyptic/-nuclear war novel about the last days of Australia) out the window, because it was so incredibly dated (characterwise). Much to my chagrin, windows of high-speed trains cannot be opened :-D. Not a bad book, but I found some of the characters annoying, because they were so clearly rooted in the 1940s and 1950s.

The 2000 re-make (TV film) does change a few things dramatically, but in my opinion that needed to happen (no way I'd taken the book's or Ava Gardner's Moira as in any way connected to my situation in life, but I can connect to Rachel Ward's Moira). The characters in this film really get under my skin (and I have seen the film a few times), whereas the book is so-so, and the 1959 film does not draw me in either.

I think, generally, if you have a weak book, the film can make something of the heart of the story. Point in case: "The Bridges of Madison County", which is average at best as a book, but a pretty good film.

superman,batman and a whole lot of other movies.

I'd definitely say that the movie
A River Runs Through It
is way better than its book.
The movie really brought out every visual aspect that was described, yet the book didn't transport me, the movie did.

And so was
At Play in the Fields of the Lord
(book was wonderful, but I just didn't visualize the scenes as much)

i dont know it depends if you have read the book or not.
if you read the book then you would know how many parts are being left out of the movie. so far i haven't come across any movies better than the book but thats just me

...............

The Lord of the Rings (each of the three movies) is the only I can remember.

Children of Men I think is the only one that comes to mind that far exceeded the book.

Not 'better' than the book but highly enjoyable adaptations:
Of Mice and Men
Lolita
Howl's Moving Castle
American Psycho

no ,supposably the book eragon was better than the movie.

lord of the flies was a better movie then the book

It was mentioned here but Fight Club is a good contender. It's not that the book wasn't good: it's great and the writer has his own distinctive pleasuring style. But the movie was truly defining.

The Godfather
Stardust
The Lord of the Rings
Gone With the Wind

i can only think of those four right now...there's most likely more.

Stardust

LORD OF THE RINGS! I just CAN'T go trough the books! I get sleepy in the first 10 pages!

And Water Horse.
I know, the book if for enfants, really, really small kids, but the movie is kinda cool. They only took the basic idea, but, really... The movie is way better.

(and NO WAY Harry Potter and the Prisioner of Azkaban was better as a movie. gosh. But I'm a JK Rowling reader, so, I can't really say..)

i think Pet Sematary by Stephen King was a better movie than a book

LORD OF THE RINGS! I just CAN'T go trough the books! I get sleepy in the first 10 pages!

Exactly!

And Girl, Interrupted - the narrative is boring, it took me a while to read the whole book and I only finished it to get it over with.

The Bridge on the River Kwai
LORD OF THE RINGS

The Godfather
Stardust
The Lord of the Rings
Gone With the Wind

I think that the peeling tb Lord of the Rings s much better than the book. Sorry to the purists, but the book is well-sota. We must recognize the genius of JRRT and the universe invention, besides literary lios ... but jack. It's like Umberto Eco, but almost always great jack.
The film however is the best of the book without the bad. Even the parts that changed me look better.

Fight Club. The book was awesome too, but the movie was a little bit better.

The Hunger Games was better than the book. And I'm prepared to receive some hate for this opinion, but I personally liked Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory more than the book.

Some films have come close though. To Kill A Mockingbird, and Hugo were both about as good as their own books. The Adventures of Tintin was roughly as good as the comic series.

Not-so-good/average books, great movies:

The Godfather
Stalker (1979)
Shawshank Redemption (based on a novella not a book, though)
The Shining
Blade Runner
The Silence of the Lambs
Psycho
The Graduate

Great books, even better movies:

Trainspotting
A Clockwork Orange
Fight Club
Requiem for a Dream
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Blade Runner