Films that were better than the Books

I think it's a tough one. I'm goin to lay down some ground rules for your decisions.

Rule 1. The film must be HEAVILY based on the book. I.e, same plot, same characters. For instance the Bourne series wouldn't count because the books are vastly different from the films.

Rule 2. I can't think of anything right now.

So right off the bat I'm going to start with fight club. I feel it condenses the book really well and the plot twist works even better in the film

 

The Godfather 1 and 2 take a book that was essentially softcore porn with gangsters and turn it into a cinematic epic with all-star cast.

 

The Mark of Zorro. The book was pretty meh, the 1940 version with Basil Rathbone and Tyrone power was a classic adventure with one of the great fencing scenes of all time.

 

i was going to say godfather also. another i've thought of is "gone with the wind". yes, i read it one summer in greece because my mother had it around and i got sucked in.

i think it has to be a book that's so-so, allowing the movie to overtake it. it's hard to find any good book where the movie adaptation would be better.

although, one film that i thought did a terrific job against a great book was "no country for old men".

 

The Shining was a pretty spectacular movie, and I think that King is a pretty humdrum writer. Jurassic Park was an awesome movie, and a pretty good book.

 

A clockwork orange.
Liked the movie, the book was a bit meh.

 

I much prefer the book, I think it's Burgess' Nadsat that does it for me - Excellent stuff. The film is pretty bad. I don't get the Fight Club choice either...I guess it's due to the fact that the film focuses more on the fight club and has a lot more violence in it, while the book deals more with the protagonist's insanity. *Sigh* Damn kids!

Lord of the Rings. The books bore me, the film's are good though.

 

Oh, The Life of Brian. Better than that book, bit too preachy for my tastes. I liked the way they just cut out a lot of the extra stuff and focused on the main character too. The humour in the book just doesn't work...much better on film!

Sorry Chadderz, I think I broke Rule 1 of your Book-Film Fight club there.

 

It's very rare for me to say a movie is better than the book. That said, I think Bladerunner is better than the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep)

I also think some books that written based on movies are weak, e.g. all of the Star Wars movie books except for the original George Lucas one (episode 4)

 

The Princess Bride is the obvious one. Book has some issues, film is pure awesome.

 

Oh, and The Two Towers, book is pretty dull.

 

Hunger Games.

Because I know in a movie version I know exactly how long I'm going to suffer through it.

 

I was pleasantly surprised by the first film.

 

I think beyond the broad strokes it's pretty much apples and hand grenades comparison.

 

Sorry Chadderz, I'm going to break your rule and say 'The Bourne Identity.' It had the same characters and a similar plot, it just did it better. Besides, don't films miss huge chunks out of books and do them differently anyway?

'Lord of the Rings' trilogy was better than the books. The books were a snoozefest in comparison.

 

No, the Bourne tv series character was a completely different one to the books. The books were awesome, the films substituted good plots and character development for action scenes.

 

I haven't read the book for a good few years but if I remember right, City of God worked better as a film than a book.

The book is really a bunch of short stories with (sometimes) interconnected characters, the film focused on a specific group and followed them, cutting out the weaker stories and characters.

Books with short stories can work better as films I think.

 

While I enjoyed the action in the first film, the book was a much more effective thriller with a much more gripping plot. In the past I've said that the plot is too anchored to time specific characters for a faithful production, but there's been a spate of films set in the 70s and 80s recently, so who knows? It does take the key plot elements though, just changes their relevance somewhat.
The second book is WAY better than the film, but also entirely different, the film basically just taking unused plot elements from the first book and mashing them into a generic conspiracy theory thriller.
The book of The Bourne Ultimatum is actually a bit of a mess. Long, confusing and with an unsatisfying climax, which is a shame as it also has some very good elements. The film is awesome, could watch it time and again, but is completely unrelated to the book.