Or even as good?
I’ve seen a lot of really good movies made from novels I’ve read, but I can’t think of one that was quite as good as the novel. Am I just a literary snob, or are novels always better than the movies that are made from them? Maybe dopers can suggest a few.
We’ve only recently had a thread about cases where we thought the movie’s change of the novel improved it. I’ll give one example – Goldfinger, where the movie was less cartoony than the book, and they changed Goldfinger’s mission (rob Fort Knox) to an achievable one.
it ain’t great literature, but you didn’t specify that.
I know this is usually one of the first cited, but – Silence of the Lambs. I also thought The Client by John Grisham was made better with a kick ass cast of Tommy Lee Jones, Susan Sarandon and the damn near child prodigy-turned-heroin addict Brad Renfro.
The Shawshank Redemption - admittedly only from a great short story
The French Lieutenant’s Woman - less annoying interludes from author in the movie
The Thin Red Line - dunno, the endless shots of landscape and nature worked better for me than the written equivalent
Blade Runner (? Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Darryl Hannah) was much better than “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” but a poke in the eye with a sharp stick would be better than reading that book again.
Personally, I think that both **Rosemary’s Baby ** and **The Caine Mutiny ** surpass the book.
I’m also pretty sure there are hundreds of films which were based on utterly forgotten, uninspired books.
Forrest Gump.
How they pulled that movie from that book is totally beyond me.
There are those who argue that The Maltese Falcon movie is better or as good as the book. Ditto The Godfather.
Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window is head and tails better than Cornell Woolrich’s novella. I think the same goes for Psycho, though it’s been many years since I read Robert Bloch’s book, and my memory is fuzzy.
I’ll have to read the book again, but as far as Bond movies go that must be the exception rather than the rule. All I can remember at the moment is that Goldfinger is funny looking so Q and Bond figure he’s a Jew, but no, the club where he cheats at cards is Restricted, so he can’t be. 
[soiler]Did GOldfinger get sucked out the window in the novel as well?[/spoiler]
Arthur Hailey wrote the book Runway Zero Eight then wrote the screenplay for Zero Hour.
Airplane was much better.
I don’t know about better, but I thought Fight Club the movie was at least as good as the book, and I loved the book.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
:runs and hides:
Jaws. A truly great movie, absolutely the best man-versus-animal-who-wants-to-eat-man movie ever made. The book, by Peter Benchley, is long and dull and his prose (IMHO) isn’t very good.
Terms of Endearment is frequently cited as a movie that was better than the book.
I really enjoyed **The Bourne Identity ** as a movie. I thought the book was bad.
Hannibal, as a movie, had its moments. The book was utter trash.
I’d say **Treasure of the Sierra Madre ** is better than the B. Traven novel. And I would second The Godfather as being much better than the novel.
Goldfinger wasn’t cheating at cards at a club - it was while sitting near a hotel pool, playing rummy with a man named Du Pont (who Bond had met in the first novel - Casino Royale). Hugo Drax was cheating (at bridge) at a London club called “Blades” where M was a member in the novel Moonraker. There’s no indication, that I recall, of a restricted club in any of Fleming’s novels.
In the novel, Oddjob got sucked out the window (he’d not been kiled in the vault as in the film). Bond strangled Goldfinger.
“Jurassic Park”. Shit book, pretty entertaining movie in a “Jaws” kinda way.
-Joe
The Godfather often gets cited in discussions like this. I’ve not read the book, so I can’t really say. But the movie is often considered one of the top 10 films ever produced, so how could the book top that?
Field of Dreams is much better than Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa.
Third Time was the Charm!
I agree with this. Excising Tom Bombadil=best move ever.