Actually, I just saw “Payback” with Mel Gibson. It had the “cheesy monologue” in it. Not really a detective spoof. Just the typical Mel movie. Just thought I’d let you know. 
Oh yeah, my opinion. I’ll go with Stephen King since he’s who I read most often. Only once have I seen a movie based on a King novel that was even close to as good as the book. As a few of you have said, it’s better for getting inside the character. True. Books allow you to imagine how everything looks and feels. Movies force everyone to believe the same thing. Movies say, “This is how it’s going to be because our directors saw it this way.” The one time I saw a movie that was as good as a King novel was when I saw “The Green Mile”–the movie actually almost surpassed the quality of the book and it surely exceded my expectations. However, I’m certain that this one example is the first of very few.
I just have to mention Seven Years in Tibet. Even given the limitations inherent in the medium, the movie version was vastly inferior to the book. The book was largely about Tibetan culture and the Dalai Lama, as seen by Heinrich Harrer. The movie barely bothered with that, and instead centered on Harrer himself, who was profoundly uninteresting. To spice things up, the film included a fictionalized and pointless love interest with a Tibetan woman.
Good book, by the way.
The books Striptease and Even Cowgirls Get the Blues were raped by their movie versions! I loved both books, and was astoundingly disappointed by their film adaptations, especially Cowgirls. What made someone think the complexity and spirit of that book could be captured by a movie, I don’t know.
Now it is my rule that if I haven’t already read the book, and the movie looks like something I might want to see, I always, always see the movie first. Which is why The Perfect Storm is sitting on my bedside table, not to be so much as cracked open until after I’ve seen the movie. I can usually still enjoy a book after I’ve seen the movie, but almost never vice versa.
The movie version of “The Natural” was better than the book version. In the book, the ballplayer fails in the end. In the movie, the ballplayer stands up to the bad guys, hits the home run that wins the pennant, and gets the girl. The book may be more true to life, but who needs that?
The book is not ALWAYS better than the movie–I actually prefer “The Heiress” to the novel “Washington Square.”
“Now, Voyager” is both a great book and a great movie.
One of the worst cases of bookicide is Gail Parent’s hilarious novel “Sheila Levine is Dead and Living in New York,” which was turned into one of the most godawful, ghastly movies I have ever seen. Oh, same goes for Jack Finney’s “Marion’s Wall” and its filmic spawn, “Maxie.”
Aaawwww, how could I forget To Kill A Mockingbird? Both book and movie were wonderful.
Without a doubt, ** Clan of the Cave Bear ** by Jean Auel and ** Dune ** by Frank Herbert.
Movies better than the book would have to include: ** Last of the Mohicans ** (Hated, detested, deplored the book by James Fenimore Cooper. Hollywood actually improved the story, I thought; and ** Legends of the Fall **, which was a short story and I forgot the author’s name. The movie was really good, IMO.
Jurassic Park, of course.
Anything by Tom Clancy, and I’m including The Hunt for Red October.
Then there’s Robert James Waller.
Warning: I am not now and never have been a Waller fan.
Therefore I think “Bridges…” the movie surpassed what Waller put on paper.
My 2 cents.
Back to more enlightening posters.
a clockwork orange was probably the most dissapointing movie i saw after reading the book.
for anyone who hasn’t read it, please do.
The best book that was made into a the movie most
like the book was Rosemary’s Baby. Actually,
Stephen King said this in his book Danse Macabre.
And it’s true.
Some of King’s books have been ruined, especially
Jack Nicholas in The Shining. Hell, the Simpsons did
it better.
Jurassic park sucked on film.
Any Dean Koontz book-turned film really disappoints me. I try NOT to watch them these days.
A Simple Plan was another let down.
Although, I must say The Client made a respectable film.
-Sam
All work and no play makes Jack 3-putt on the 18th.
Bonfire of the Vanities was a mediocre book but an awful movie. I guess it counts.
I’m a big Waller fan and even I agree. The movie was magnificant and brought to life the internal dilemma more so than the book. The scene at the end when her hand is on the door handle, and he’s in front of her…few movies have made me feel like that.
And yet…
Angela’s Ashes was a painful movie, wonderful book. The actors kept changing as Frankie grew up, and just as I felt I was diving in to one part, Frankie was 5 years olders and a completely different boy.
A Tree Grows In Brooklyn Actually, I have not seen this movie. A Tree is my most favorite book of all time and will always bring me comfort and peace of mind; it’s existence in my mind is perfect and I don’t want to ruin it. Even though Elia Kazan made it, I don’t want to risk it. But I have heard that it’s not the best movie. So I am definitely not going there.
Edwardina, I was coming here to say this very thing! Someone mentioned A Simple Plan. I saw the movie first and thought it was masterful. Then I read the book and was bowled over. However, I know if I’d read the book first, I’d have been gravely disappointed. The movie left so much out. Yet as a movie it works and after all we do have to judge a movie on its own merits. It’s a different medium and it cannot duplicate the experience of reading a book.
Kubric’s “The Shining” is a case in point. I was sick after seeing it the first time, I was that disappointed. The book scared me silly at about the age of 15. However, several years later I watched it again, this time determined to watch it as a movie and not a play-by-play of the book. It works in its own way, and works well. But then again, you’ll NEVER see me complaining about Kubric’s work. I AM interested in reading the book A Clockwork Orange, now, after reading what Mr. Trout has to say here. But the movie was my first profound cinematic experience. The first time I realized a movie could make you think! (I’m sure there were threads here regarding “Eyes Wide Shut.” I’m sorry I missed them!)
Another example: “Sophie’s Choice.” Great movie, great book. And I agree about “Jaws.” Lame book, phenomenal movie!
Annie Xmas – I’ve forgotten what King said about “Rosemary’s Baby” in Danse Macabre, but I vividly recall him saying that the movie version of Carrie improved upon his orignal story. In fact, I think he said the movie more clearly realized what he was trying to convey.
Oh, definitely. I love the book and the movie. I guess whatever adaptation Meryl Streep is on (see Bridges of Madison County) is wonderful.
Sara, I couldn’t agree more! I love “A Tree Grows In Brooklyn.” I have never seen the movie; I think it would ruin the book for me.
Also, “Joy In The Morning”, also by “Tree” author Betty Smith, was a good book, but a really dumb movie. Totally ruined the book for me.
Yikes! This could be a little free-wheeling…
Any movie made from a Grisham book is bound to be better than the book. The man writes on a 7th grade level.
“The Big Sleep” was equal in both movie versions to the book, and that’s saying a LOT about the directors. I liked the Bogart version slightly better, but the difference is miniscule.
While I’m a huge fan of Hemingway, two movies stand out: “A Farewell to Arms” with Gary Cooper, and “The Old Man and the Sea”, with Spencer Tracy.
“Les Miserables” sucked wind as a book, and as film and theatre versions. But the French also love Jerry Lewis and hot buttered snails, so go figure. At least the movie version had nice-looking people you didn’t have to smell.
“Bonfire of the Vanities” stank up my house AND the theater. So did “The Grifters”.
I’m certain there are others, and will continue to post as the ideas strike me…