Name a MOVIE that was BETTER than the BOOK!

[quote name='elwood731']I disagree on High Fidelity, but eh, tastes are personal.

I will add The Wizard of Oz to the list.[/QUOTE]

I suppose part of the reason I enjoyed the movie so much more was the change of setting. I've spent a lot of time in Chicago, and I thought it really captured the feel of the city.

That, and John Cusack put in a phenomenal performance.
 
In all honesty, I can't say I've seen a movie that beats its novel counterpart, but I'm not a big novel reader.

One that did come close, though, was definately Willy Wonka. Yeah, yeah, I know it isn't based on the book or whatever, but it was still good, and obviously along the same lines.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Blade Runner was much better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the book it was based on.[/QUOTE]

Damn right.
 
Bridges of Madison County.

Not that I've seen more than a few minutes of the movie but I was a assistant manager of a Crown Books store when the book became a monster hit. The wretched thing came to be the bane of my existence as it drew a particularly dim sort of woman into the store looking for it and more like it.

The movie came and went without my having to acknowledge it or deal with its viewers. Thus it is a lesser offender to my well being.
 
Lots oe people say it never happens but there's more than a few I like better than the novels or novellas...

Die Hard
It's a Wonderful Life
Hunt for Red October
Clear and Present Danger
The Natural
A Time to Kill
Forrest Gump
Blade Runner
Lord of the Rings
The Exorcist (Dunno if it was really better, but it's equal at least)
The Great Escape (same here)
 
a[quote name='peteloaf']I'd have to say Fight club. Don't get me wrong I loved the book, it's just that everything in the movie was done so well. Take the score for example, so much of the mood of the movie was set by that. The supersaturated colors and high contrast of the film realy add to the mood as well.[/QUOTE]

same here :D
 
[quote name='FPS Jim']a

same here :D[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with the movie being better as a whole, though there are certain scenes that were better handled (meeting on the plane as opposed to the nude beach springs immediately to mind). I'd say both versions are excellent, which is probably true of everything mentioned here. After all, shitty books don't make for great movies. :lol:
 
[quote name='smalien1']The epitome- To Kill A Mockingbird

That was a horrible book[/QUOTE]

And the SE DVD came out recently ... I need to pick that one up. Along with the new Deer Hunter.
 
[quote name='Brak']I haven't seen either of those; the 2002 version ot the 1972 version (Solyaris). How are they?[/QUOTE]

i've seen them both, and i have to say that i REALLY like the clooney version better. they subtract some stuff and add some stuff that wasn't in the russian version, but i think it makes for a more viseral movie that convays the feelings of longing much better than that 1972 release.
 
American Psycho... I loved the movie, so I got the book. It's so... so disgustingly graphic that it distracts from the theme of the book, and not to mention it's a dry read when it's not vomit-inducing.

[quote name='smalien1']The epitome- To Kill A Mockingbird

That was a horrible book[/QUOTE]
I disagree with that being a horrible book. I actually liked that novel when I read it in school (one of the few). I haven't seen the movie in its entirety yet, tho I can see it being better than the novel.

Edited to add:
[quote name='JSweeney']The Shawshank Redemption.

The movie fared a bit better than the short story from "Different Seasons"

(The book also spawned the movies Apt Pupil and Stand by Me)[/QUOTE] I think the movie and novella are about the same level for Shawshank Redemption, but while we're at it, IMHO Stand By Me is much better than its novella equivalent, "The Body".
 
[quote name='judyjudyjudy']American Psycho... I loved the movie, so I got the book. It's so... so disgustingly graphic that it distracts from the theme of the book, and not to mention it's a dry read when it's not vomit-inducing.
[/QUOTE]

I noticed that also, it seemed like the entire book was one big long insane ranting, something he only did every now and again in the movie. Still the book does have a few parts that were left out of the movie.:lol:
 
I always find the movies never cast actors that represent anything close to how I pictured the characters in my mind and that alone makes me not enjoy the movies half as much usually.
I'd agree with the choice of Shawshank Redemption though which is surprising since Stephen King movies are usually pale imitations of his books.
I'd also add a Time to Kill it was one of Grishams earlier novels and a bit rough around the edges as a read but I thought Bongo Boy and Sandra Bullock nailed their parts in the movie. For me its a victory for the movie if it's even close to being as good as the book.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Blade Runner was much better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the book it was based on.[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's time to throw down! Blade Runner may be one of the greatest of movies, but since PKD is my favorite author, I can't say the movie bests the book. The book has a scene set in an opera house; in the movie it takes place in a strip club. Unforgivable. My feelings are admittedly colored since I saw the original version in the theaters, with its deliberately-bad narration and nonsensical ending.

Not many PKD books/stories have fared well in transition to the screen. Screamers, Total Recall, Paycheck, Imposter, all fail to capture the real Dick flavor (heh). A Scanner Darkly unfortunately stars Keanu Reeves, but is at least made in an interesting way. I was very impressed with Minority Report, at least until the last ten minutes.

I had to watch the original Solaris for a class in college. It was so boring I made my wife watch it and give me a synopsis. That said, Stanislaw Lem is a pretty obtuse SF writer, so even that might be better than the book.

The Godfather was a best-selling "beach read" and there was a bidding war to buy the film rights. Coppola was a nobody and the producers certainly didn't expect to get a masterpiece out of him. The book is good, but Puzo devotes a lot of time to a ridiculous "sexy" subplot about a female character (the woman Sonny has sex with at the wedding) whose vagina is too large and who eventually becomes a showgirl in Las Vegas and has an operation to make her vagina smaller. I'm not kidding. I can't imagine why Coppola left that out. The movie is better.
 
Anything published by Hustler. :lol:

Disneys Aladin is better than Disneys Aladin: The Book of the Movie...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top