Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Heresy!!! The Shining is the best thing King ever wrote, and Kubrick’s movie sucks raw salmonella-infested eggs. (In all fairness, King’s own attempt to film it fell short of the mark too, although I think it was better than Kubrick’s mess).
Oh, and my own nominations.
From childhood, the horrible book Bed-knob and Broom-stick was virtually unreadably bad. I could not believe Disney made a movie out of it, but when my friends dragged me to go see it I enjoyed it. (They ignored huge chunks of the book plot in order to do so).
My girlfriend says to nominate A Year in Provence, which she said was godawful boring, whereas the four-videotape release from A&E is among our “rewatchables”.
And, of course, Planet Of The Apes was much better than the book Monkey Planet which was written in French so that I couldn’t read it anyways.
Road to Perdition.
[snotty voice]Um, no-o, that was David Lynch.[/snotty voice]
But I’ll submit the original movie “Fail-Safe.” Haven’t seen the Clooney TV version, but the first was great, better than the book.
hrh
Though it’s a very close call, the PBS version of “The Jewel in the Crown” beats the book.
I couldn’t get through Alcott’s “Little Women” book, but have enjoyed the Winona Ryder film version many times with my daughter.
(I liked “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” book much better than movie alteration, though. There’s a filmed version of Capote’s “Christmas Memory” that’s at least as good as the story. I’m no “In Cold Blood” reader or viewer - would be interested in whether someone else has an opinion on which is better.)
I thought Disney’s The Little Mermaid was much better than Andersen’s original book, even if it did twist the story almost beyond recognition.
The 1992 movie version of “Last Of The Mohicans” is definitely better than the novel by James Fennimore Cooper. The novel was bland, stale, lacking in any real substance and about as entertaining as watching paint dry. In fact, the same is true for mmost of Cooper’s other output. Mark twain agrees and his essay “Literary Offenses of Fennimore Cooper” is a great read. It’s at http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html
:
:
I’m going to pretend I didn’t see this. The Hollywoodized ending of the movie version of BAT was a complete and utter betrayal of Holly’s character. It so wholly missed the point that I sat there gaping at the screen the first time I saw it. It completely changed (and, IMO, ruined) the entire theme of the novel. 
I must disagree with you on this one. Although Kubrick’s version of the movie was good, it was JACK’s performance that made it great. There was so much more to the book. One major thing was the animal shaped hedges that come to life. That was so much more creative and scary than the hedge maze in the movie.
The Prime of Miss Jean Brody: The movie provides the confrontation scene that the book screamed out for.
Little Big Man movie was as as good as the book, and close in plot, although the spirit was different.
Strangers on a Train – Hitchcock really helped, why is nobody surprised?
Oh dear God no. The movie was a bunch of overly self-important claptrap. The book took none of the characters – nor the war – seriously. Plus, the movie sliced out all the best scenes (except “His name is Yossarian, ma.”).
–Cliffy
I was going to say that this is an interesting opinion. Many people regard the book as a modern classic, but I have never heard anything good about the movie (which I have never seen in its entirety).
The book A Bridge too Far is better than the movie, although the movie isn’t bad if you are into WWII combat flicks.
I think it must depend on whether you read the book or see the movie first because you probably tend to stick with the first characterization.
Definitely Goldfinger – Ian Fleming actually had Goldfinger ripping off Fort Knox. The movie points out how absurd this is. The one time the Bond movie was superior to the book.
I’ll agree with The Little Mermaid, and the “Steafdast Tin Soldier” portion of Fantasia 2000. Hans Christian Anderson was a good writer, but he insisted on putting drearily unhappy endings on his stories. He then patched this up by translating his heros and heroines to heaven to make up for it. But it rings false, especially in the case of The Steadfast Tin Soldier, which has a natural happy ending that Anderson deliberately mucked up.
Wow, no one has mentioned the first movie that popped into my head:
Apocalypse Now was an awesome movie based on the short story Hearts of Darkness, which was nothing really special.
And the documentary of the making of Apocalypse Now, aptly named Hearts of Darkness, is one of the best making-of movies I have ever seen.
-Tcat
I found Ray Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes to be masterfully unreadable (and I say this, in all seriousness, as a fan of Bradbury). I have to say that I much preferred the movie version, particularly those scenes with Jason Robards in the library.
I haven’t read much of Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels, but what I did read made me yearn for the movies. Anyone more familiar with the books have a different opinion?
ok, just as an english major i have to point out that in fact, heart of darkness is really something special, if only in terms of it’s literary contribution to the genre. it’s a framework narrative(ie, within the story is a story) and one of the first novels to do it successfully. although tomcat, i do have to agree that no matter how much i like and appreciate heart of darkness, apocalypse now is such a phenominal movie