Fight Club, seconded. The book isn’t bad, although it’s clearly sort of an amateur writing. But the ending (and therefore the audience’s perception of the whole thing) is better, and they smoothly transitioned all of the ideas from the book to the movie, and it’s just an excellent movie all around.
I know, but save that factoid for the question that pops up every now and then about whether or not a remake can ever be as good as the original! 
Oh, you better run. 
Godfather was a great movie made from a good book.
Jurassic Park and Jaws were good exciting movies made from not very good books.
I think the book was very good. But the movie was great, so I still agree it is a good example.
I think Dune was as good as the book. Neither was great, both were entertaining.
Jim
One of my all-time favorite movies is Diggstown, with James Woods and Louis Gossett, Jr. It was such a fun movie that I searched for the book for ages, and finally located it through a site that sells out-of-print and hard-to-find books. The book is called The Diggstown Ringers, and how such a terrific movie was even conceived of from such a ridiculously bad book is beyond me.
I liked the book version of “The Thin Red Line” better but did like the film.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” was better than the, um, well it was a short story, wasn’t it?
I find this puzzling. It’ not that I dislike the film – I think David Lynch’s version of Herbert’s book is vastly underrated, and uttterly fascinating (the amplified-for-TV version was on tonight, the one Lynch disowned, so that it’s credited to the eternal pseudonym “Allen Smithee”. Even that one I like – it incorporates a lot of the cut Lynch footage and it was clearly put together by someone who knew and loved the book, noy a hack.)
But it’s incredibly incomplete. So much of the book had to be sacrificed to time constraints that it’s hard to follow, unless you’ve read the book. Pepper Mill hadn’t when she first saw it, and says “it was like a book with ten chapters ripped out.” She came to appreciate it a lot more when she finally read the book.
So I don’t see how the film can be “as good as the book”. It’s missing too much.
“Exit to Eden” was a subpar comedy too embarrassed about its subject matter to portray it properly. But the book was a muddled, murky, dull, dirty romance that took kinky sex and made it seem dull. It was, amazingly, worse than the movie. Any movie that has Rosie O’Donnell and Imam wrestling each other while wearing leather teddies has SOMETHING going for it. I’m not sure what, but something.
Yeah I have to throw ***The Lost World*** in this ring as well. THe book was a clone of Jurassic Park down to the two randomly inserted cute kids, and Ian Malcom ranting in a morphine induced haze while big baddies attack them during a helicopter evac.
I mean really, what the HELL was he thinking? DIdn’t he think anyone would notice that two books (one being the DAMN SEQUAL to the other) HAVE THE SAME DAMN PLOT AND EVENTS HAPPENING!!
Saw what you want about The Lost World movie, but at least it had a DIFFRENT plot then movie it was following.
The Racer was a fairly passable short story.
Deathrace 2000, though, magnifique!
Practical Magic was a better movie than book.
I don’t believe so. I hated the movie until I read the book and understood the connection between the ape with a tapit bone and the starchild approaching Earth.
He did not know what he would do with this new thing, but he would think of something.
I enjoyed the movie when I saw it. I had read the book a few years earlier and the movie came out when I was 18. I thought it was a fun if flawed movie. I do consider Dune a flawed book. If you were a big fan of the book, I would expect your opinion to differ.
Jim
I’ll echo Jurassic Park and **Jaws **and The Lord of the Rings trilogy and raise you Stand By Me (“The Body”) and The Princess Bride.
The Neverending Story was better than the first half of the book on which it was based, but the second half of the book (never put on film) was better than the first half, so kinda sorta?
Goodfellas I think was better than Wise Guy, the book it was based on, although the book wasn’t bad.
Frankenstein, although it didn’t follow the book at all closely, was much better than the appallingly bad Mary Shelley novel.
Oh see, I think just the opposite - although you are not the first person to disagree with my assessment. I thought the book was marvelous, and the movie dreadful. I HATED Aidan Quinn’s character and the final resolution was hokey.
I did love the aunts in the movie, though, and thought both Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock were well-cast for the book’s characters.
Really? I know the book was written in an old style, but it was a very good and innovative story that was quite ground breaking for the time. I give her a lot of credit. I found the story compelling. All that said, I saw the movie before I read the book and I was young enough for it to scare me quite a bit. I think the book was better.
Condemning this book would be like saying that any version of the War of the World was better than the book.
Jim
I’m believably the only person who read the book, but Howl’s Moving Castle was far, far and vastly better as an animated feature than as a book. The book simply wasn’t very good.
Melville fans may disagree, but I think Peter Ustinov’s film version of Billy Budd is better than the original novella.
Lord of the Rings trilogy (it’s true, it’s true!)
The Godfather
The Prestige (the movie cleaned up the book’s out-of-place framing sequences and disappointing ending)
Goodfellas (based on the autobiography Wiseguy)
Fight Club (although the book was very good)
L.A. Confidential (an excellent novel, but the movie took what could have been a meandering 12-hour HBO miniseries and made it into one of the finest films of the last 20 years)
Lord of the Rings trilogy, yes. Mayhap I’m a philistine, but I’ve been trying for near 20 years now and still can’t finish those books.
Bladerunner, even with the voiceover, better than (while only distantly related to) Do Androids Dream
Star Wars