It’s chic to go to or watch a film based on a book and say the requisite “Well the book was MUCH better. I mean, there were whole parts of the book left out of the movie! Well I guess they have to do that for time, or whatever”.
Where have you seen the opposite be true — movies that were better than the book they were based on?
Big one that comes to mind for me is Goldfinger. I read the book and the movie’s more entertaining.
Forrest Gump, no question. The book is absolutely bizarre. Forrest is an abrasive retard with a pet ape who travels to Africa and then goes into space. I have no idea how they took that and made a decent movie script from it.
About a Boy. The film’s ending was completely different, and nailed the narrative arc in a way that the book couldn’t come close to.
Such an awesome film all-around, in fact.
Lord of the Rings.
<ducks>
Silence of the Lambs–The book is good, but you never heard of it until the movie, right?
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest–A difficult book to turn into a movie, but Michael Douglas absolutely did it perfectly.
In 1993 there was a movie version of The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. I love the book, but the movie out did it in two ways. One, the movie version brought forward the opulence the characters lived in to a modern audience. Two, in the book, May (the main character’s wife), is as dumb as a box of rocks. In the movie, you at least get a glimmer of intelligence and the idea she knew what was going on and was doing her simple best to prevent it.
I’d say King Rat, mainly because I really hate how James Clavell writes.
The three stories in the movie Sin City work much better than the graphic novels they’re based on.
Kiss of the Spider Woman–The book is not so good, the movie was excellent, as was the musical. Odd vehicle for a musical, but it worked.
The movie Patriot Games was far better than Tom Clancy’s original novel, IMHO.
I was going to chime in with that one. I read the book long before the movie came out and thought it was absolute dreck; the main character was an irredeemable dingus, the situations were idiotic and contrived, and the writing could have been a college freshman’s creative writing assignment. Reading “Forrest Gump” was a waste of a good afternoon.
When I saw the film I was amazed that anyone could spin literary shit into film gold (or at least film silver). Quite a testament to the skill of a good screenwriter.
It’s been long time since I’ve read the book or seen the movie, but I always thought Stephen King’s The Dead Zone worked much better as a movie than it did as a book.
It’s been a while since I’ve read it but for me A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess doesn’t quite have the edge that Kubrick’s film does. It’s a fine book allright but it’s a little boring and has a happy ending that comes out of nowhere.
The movie though has scenes that just chill to the bone and has those wonderful Kubrick touches throughout - all helped by crazy 70s music, suggestive artwork and Malcolm McDowell’s overacting.
Agree w/ Clockwork Orange. I tried starting reading it a couple of times and couldn’t get through it. Movie’s solid though.
LA Confidential is a better movie then it was a book. But only if you watch the movie first before reading the book, like I did… because the “big reveal” in the movie is established in the book pretty early as a basic fact.
The 1939 version of The Four Feathers. It’s a great Adventure Story with amazing scenery, well done battle scenes, and is a shining example of Everything That Is Right With Adventure. And it’s in Colour. 
The book, on the other hand, has far too much sappy romance and musing and people sitting in parlours taking High Tea, and not nearly enough gunfire.
I’ll agree with that one, and brazenly refuse to duck.
Actually, I had–and had also read the previous Red Dragon. Both books freaked me right out, I think maybe I preferred Silence. Not sure if I like the film better, though.
I always get mixed reactions to this, because so many people dislike the movie, but I preferred the cinematic version of The English Patient to the stream-of-consciousness book.
I much prefer the filmed version of Last of the Mohicans to Cooper’s book, which comes off rather stilted.
*
The Godfather* was a good book but a better movie.
Well it was a mini-series but maybe we can call it a long movie. But Stephen King’s IT was much better in film form. Of course from what I could see from behind covered eyes. Being terrified of clowns, I still don’t know what possessed me to watch the damn thing. Probably to try and ‘cure’ myself lol. But the book was a thousand pages of boring crap. I basically skipped though 2/3 of the book and didn’t feel like I missed much.
Totally agree with this one. Can I also nominate “Pet Sematary” another King book that is so boring I had to literally force myself to read the second half. The movie, while not perfect by any means, is a pretty good horror. That Zelda bit “Rachel…” gives me the shivers every time.
Fight Club.
Word. That’s what I opened the thread to say. Polanuck isn’t a great writer and the narrative stucture of the book was much imporved upon by Fincher. Removing the mother was also a good choice.
I disagree with Clockwork Orange, but I think that’s a matter of taste. I think the book and movie are trying to accomplish totally different things and for a good long while thought that Kubric had missed the point. I now understand that Kubric missed the point intentionally because he wanted to make a different point. They both work, but work differently.