10 Movies That Were Better Than The Books

We’re well aware of the old canard “the book is better than the movie.” But, every once in a while, the movie wins.

By: John DeVore
03/09/2010 12:04 pm

Hollywood doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to transforming bestselling novels and works of literature into popcorn movies. But on some rare occasions a movie comes along that improves on its source material. A clever screenwriter, an inspired director, and a pitch-perfect actor can interpret a book masterfully: streamlining stories, fleshing out characters, and cutting the fat.

10. Blade Runner (Director’s Cut)
Based on Philip K. Dick’s masterpiece “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” Ridley Scott’s atmospheric, cyberpunk noir takes a cerebral sci-fi landmark and turns it into a violent, visceral dirge about what it means to be human.



9. Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
Director Terry Gilliam gave Hunter S. Thompson’s surreal, drug-fueled stumble through Las Vegas what it needed: a little bit more of a narrative. The book reads like you’re in a haze, which is how it was written. Gilliam contextualizes the movie, placing it firmly during the death spasm of the hippie promise. His lead, Johnny Depp, becomes Hunter in an eerily satisfying performance that never feels like caricature.

8. The Shining
Stephen King famously trashed this Stanley Kubrick adaptation, but he shouldn’t have. Kubrick took a perfectly spooky ghost story and created a horror movie game changer. It’s an oft-copied, sinister, and hypnotic tale of one man’s descent into madness.

7. Last of the Mohicans
James Fenimore Cooper’s 19th Century prose can be a slog for contemporary readers, but it didn’t stop Michael Mann from dusting it off and finding its pounding frontier heart. With the help of a superb cast, including a plausibly badass Daniel Day Lewis, this historical saga is the rare highbrow action film.

6. The Bridges of Madison County
This best-selling novel by Robert James Waller is a disciplined, if slim, tearjerker about an affair long dead. It seemed counterintuitive that Hollywood man’s man Clint Eastwood would take the Oprah’s Book of the Month Club Winner and with fellow icon Meryl Streep, transform it into a sweeping, bittersweet love letter to doomed romance.

5. The Godfather/The Godfather Part II
Mario Puzo wrote one of the great pulp gangster books of all time. Francis Ford Coppola made it into two movies as bleak, complex, and cathartic as a Shakespearean tragedy. It’s not just a saga about the mafia, like the book. Instead, the movie is about the dark side of the American dream.

4. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
J.R.R. Tolkien’s legendary sword-and-sorcery tome has moments of brilliance punctuated by hundreds of pages of songs, Elvish genealogy, and exhaustive geographical Middle Earth detail. In making his modern cinematic classic, Peter Jackson ignored such passages and focused on the story – a particularly human story about good, evil, and the power of friendship.

3. The Maltese Falcon
Sam Spade is one of crime fiction’s greatest gumshoes: a tough-talking private dick with a moral code, stuck in an amoral world. A great read, but when a legend like Humphrey Bogart shows up in the movie all bets are off. Not even the most sublime imagination could dream up such a righteous, world-weary hangdog.

2. Fight Club
Chuck Palahniuk sly mediation on modern identity was transformed by director David Fincher into a testosterone fueled loony punk rock opera starring a brilliant Brad Pitt as an unhinged id and a slack-jawed Ed Norton as an everyman on the edge.

1. American Psycho
Bret Easton Ellis's tongue-in-cheek thriller about a serial killer became instantly infamous for its shocking violence and gratuitous sex. Critics vilified the novel for depictions of unspeakable depravity. But the book's main flaw was it's sloppy ambiguity—is Patrick Bateman an actual madman or some feverish delusion? Director Mary Harron offered a solution in her smart, stylish, and chilling movie adaptation—she directly tells us who Patrick Bateman is, crafting an alternately terrifying and hilarious satire of machismo and impotence.

 Print
 Stumble It

Related Articles

Comments

Join the discussion!
wtf
on July 23, 2010
who wrote this shit? putrid.
one to add to the list
on July 16, 2010
Children of Men as a movie was spectacular. I read the book by P.D. James, and while it wasn't a bad read, it was pretty slow the entire time. The film adaption created a much more riveting story.
WRONG!
on June 12, 2010
Fight Club was a thousand times better as a book. The film came pretty damn close but it's nearly impossible to transfer Palahniuks genius to film.
Peter Jackson can suck it
on June 3, 2010
Ok so i have only read through about half of the comments which is really no small feat in and of itself. But come on Peter Jackson tried, but good lord he did not improve on the book in any sense of the word. He ruined some characters, i mean ruined them. But that's beside the point. The problem with a movie over a book is that there is no originality in a movie, it is the regurgitated remains of a five star meal. Not matter how good it was going in, it will always be crap coming out.
ATTN
on May 28, 2010
Just going to point out that this entire article is really just designed to piss people off. See how thin skinned you all are, getting way out of control angry for no reason at all? Only because of the illusion of safety the Internet provides, you feel free to act like imbeciles. Well, just know, you ARE being watched. Keep it in mind. Imbeciles.
The Shining
on April 20, 2010
is perhaps Stephen King's best novel and neither Kubrick's film or the later television miniseries even comes close to realizing the book's brilliance onscreen.
soo
on April 18, 2010
so, I am assuming you have not actually read these books, because if you had then you wouldn't be polluting minds with your inaccurate lists. Written in many different forms, i can understand why some might find it difficult to comprehend.....but for the rest of us educated folks, well we shall stick to the books for our entertainment
foolish
on April 7, 2010
Bret Easton Ellis will be remembered as one of the greatest writers of this generation. The way Ellis wrote American Psycho challenges the reader, the movie does nothing but strip the book of everything that made it memorable.
tolkien
on April 6, 2010
Yes the books where good in the sense that Tolkien laid out the history of middle earth for the third age and gave hints into the past of the second and first ages of the land while leaving readers to either imagine the history or go in search of it themselves through works like The Silmarillian and The Children of Hurin which his son Christopher thankfully went back and was able to piece together from his fathers unfinished works on those parts of the history. I would like to see peter Jackson actually make movies out of those works to see how they will translate visually because he did a great job with LOTR main story.
flaming
on April 6, 2010
sucks. Everyone has a different opinion. Last of the Mohicans: spot on. American Psycho sucked in both forms as did Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. LOTR was more entertaining in movie form. Fight Club was fantastic, no matter how you dosed it. As for the others, I say meh... Except you missed Princess Bride. 1000000000x better in movie form.
i agree, with some
on April 6, 2010
Some of these are accurate, such as Fight Club. The book is good and chuck Pahlaniuk is great, but there really is no comparison. The movie takes the story and makes it better. Chuck Pahlanium said so himself. I must say that The Shining is a fantastic movie and Jack Nicholson obviously did an amazing job, but it still can't compare to the book. Just because it happens to be one of the few Stephen King stories that actually became a good film does not mean it is better than the book. If you want an example of a Stephen King story that was turned into a way better film, take a look at Shawshank Redemption. Just an alright short story, but a pretty epic movie. And seriously with LOTR? Such an epic book series. The movies were impressive and great, but still not the same. Even the extended versions could not have as much in them as the books.
Hah!
on April 5, 2010
To all the people saying that the author has never read the books, I say... MY HAIR IS A BIRD. YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.
Sadly, I think some of these comments are right...
on April 5, 2010
If the author of this post has read the books in question, it was probably either a) at least a decade or two ago or b) was only after he had seen the movie version, because he somehow felt obligated to. For example, the author only described Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep as nothing more than "cerebral". When I finally did watch Blade Runner, I was confused by the massive differences between the two plots, and I was also very sad that they left out what I consider to be the very best part of the book, where Deckard starts to wonder if he's not the one who's actually a replicant and his life as he knew it wasn't some kind of implanted memory... Also, I'd bet that whoever read Lord of the Rings didn't get past the Council of Elrond scene... once that's over, the plot moves forward pretty well, there aren't many more songs, and almost all the remaining family historied are confined to the appendices. And of course everyone's got some issues with some part of the film or another, but once again my favorite parts of the book (the barrow-wight scene, which was the creepiest part, and the Eowyn/Faramir romance) were pretty much completely absent from the movies. American Psycho: People can appreciate ambiguity in literature, and often actually enjoy finishing a book and still thinking about it and trying to decide what it means to them.
do not agree
on April 5, 2010
sorry the LOTR books were 10 times better than the movie. Same with FAL, the Shining,and the Godfather. just my opinion but you should read these books they are pretty kick ass
Jurassic Park
on April 5, 2010
The movie was far superior to the book.
Dickson
on April 5, 2010
Why you did not add Harry Potter to the list? It fits perfectly in this retarded nonsense list. For an author to post some thing like this he must have read these books to give out his opinion. DID YOU READ THEM?!!!!??
Add Twilight(s) to the list
on April 4, 2010
After suffering through the first three books of the Twilight saga, I'm happy to say that I think that the movies almost erased the torture of having to read books that could have been shorter.
WHAT????
on April 4, 2010
LOTR??? Bitch be trippin
Forrest Gump
on April 2, 2010
I think Forrest Gump the movie was better than the book.
I think the author haven't even bothered
on April 2, 2010
to read those books... Otherwise I can't imagine how on Earth could he say this... Godfather... Shining... LOTR?? that B-action movie better that the book??
hahahahahahaha
on April 2, 2010
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Funny thing about subjectivity. . .
on April 2, 2010
This is the mans opinion. Don't get on him just because you see things differently. There are no FACTS here. Stop treating them as such. OP, this is a fine list.
This is funny
on April 1, 2010
The best part of this list is the controversy it brought up in the comment box! I greatly appreciate the university level arguments and intelligent view points. I also enjoy how some of these are countered with "your a retard" Honestly this is very subjective so no one is right, but here are my two sense. Ive written two essays on fight club at an undergrad level. The theme changes ever so slightly in the movie which is sad, and the movie is also a lot less brutal. The spectacle is better in the movie with Brad Pitt flashing his 347 abs and all. Chuck Palahniuk however is an incredibly gifted author so i think that trumps all and just the experience of reading the book makes it better. Above and beyond all else hollywood killed the meaningful book ending and replaced it with feel good bullshit and goes against everything the book built up to. Its very sad.
You have to be illiterate.
on April 1, 2010
There is no way someone who can read has an opinion like this. The fact that you even posted this is a brilliant testament to the fact that you are an imbecile. Please, for the sake of humanity, crawl back into the pit of ignorance from which you came.
The Godfather
on April 1, 2010
movie is better then book?!? mby this could be true for someone how never read it!!!
Movies vs Books
on March 31, 2010
I think comparing movies to books is like comparing apples and oranges. The book will always have more space and time to tell a wide and multifaceted story, whereas any movie adaptation is subject to the limitations of viewer attention span, the limitations of visual storytelling and the perceptions of the director handling the project. I agree that the movies listed were good, but the books they were based on are subject to the interpretation and imagination of the reader. Books simply have more room to tell the story and the ability to convey more information to the reader making for a more captivating experience. In every case listed I found that what I saw in my mind versus what was presented to me in film were very different things that should be judged separately.
nuh uh
on March 31, 2010
The Shining movie is FAR inferior to Stephen King's book. I'll give you the LOTR one though.
youre out of your mind
on March 30, 2010
for you to believe any of this was true makes me believe that you are a retard
Really?
on March 29, 2010
Have you read Fight Club? It's brilliant, it's a masterpiece, it's a complete and utter mindfuck in the best sense of the word. The movie was amazing too but I wouldn't call it better by a long shot.
Retard
on March 29, 2010
You're a fucking retard dude. Seriously, fuck you.
hi, my opinion is correct.
on March 29, 2010
these unruly commentors and OP surely have not seen/read any of these films/books, else their opinions would normalise in the face of indubitable and absolute proof of a SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT. good list of good films / good books.
What the fuck man
on March 29, 2010
Seriously what the fuck, Fear and Loathing? Blade Runner? Eat a dick you massive faggot, you know nothing.
UGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH
on March 28, 2010
This post couldn't be further from the truth. I really hope that the poster is a troll.
so untrue
on March 28, 2010
i realy think you should read those books before to make such statement.
Movies That Were Better Than The Books
on March 28, 2010
Bull. All of these books are way better than the movies.
All good
on March 27, 2010
Apart from the omission of Jaws, I don't really have any problems with the list... The Shining should definitely be on there, Kubrick puts Stephen King to shame when it comes to suspense. LA Confidential might have been a good shout too - the book is brilliant, but it's so convoluted - turning it into a functioning, enthralling film was an amazing achievement. Oh, and Die Hard. The book that was based on was terrible.
youre a fucking fool
on March 27, 2010
youre an ignorant piece of shit if you honestly think that stephen king trashed the shining. fuck you
murphman
on March 27, 2010
these were books first?
Epic Fail
on March 26, 2010
This is a joke, have you read any of these books? EPIC FAIL
Really? I Mean Really?
on March 26, 2010
Ok, I understand that you're gettin a LOT of hate right now, but REALLY? Fear and Loathing? It comes close, I mean, Johny Depp shoulda probably won an Oscar for best actor (or even been nominated) jus for the sheer amount he jumped in HST's shoes. BUt the movie is no comparison to the book. Same goes for Fight Club, the Shining, AMERICAN PSYCHO. Ambiguity was the point you sack!! I could give a shit about LOTR, but I agree with it's fans as well. It's awesome when a movie is able to keep up and DO SOME JUSTICE to the book from which it is based off of. And if I had to choose which film adaptation even comes close to exceeding the original book material, it would be Trainspotting, due to it's FLAWLESS cinematic representation. p.s. your a hack
BRET EASTON ELLIS IS A GOD.
on March 26, 2010
American Psycho at #1? Are you fucking serious? Kill yourself. How dare you.
Illiterate
on March 26, 2010
do you know how to read? have you ever read a book, much less the ones you listed here?
so wrong
on March 26, 2010
total bullshit
Fail
on March 26, 2010
You failed son.
Bladerunner VS a good book
on March 26, 2010
As a movie Bladerunner is neat. As a story stacked up against the original book, it is a fluffy piece of summer popcorn fare. The ideas, themes, characters and pathos in the book are a thousand times more compelling that the visuals of the movie. This one should not be on your list.
To all commenters
on March 26, 2010
This is not a battle between books and movies because if it is, Movies are without a doubt the winners. I didn't read any of this books but i watched all the movies and that on it's own is the evidence of triumph of movies over books. I'm the IT Manager of one of the biggest company in my country, i have 16 person in my department that report directly to me...I'm not an idiot or ignorant or whatever names you like to call people who don't read books. Who the fuck would spend three days at least reading lord of the fucking ring when he can watch the movie ??!! I even find the movie to long it should be compressed, we don't have time for this shit.... I've read many books that were made into movies and i know what all of you are talking about, but enough is enough you should stop attacking movies and Hollywood,it's pathetic it's like praising hand painting and hand painters and attacking photographers or attacking cinema and praising Theater...come on guys it's time to grow up a give every sector of art it's own space... Finlay forgive my weak English it's not my language i learn it through movies :-)
Disagree
on March 26, 2010
Fear and Loathing, Fight Club.....Really?
learn to read
on March 26, 2010
You're a fucking idiot!
movies better than the books
on March 25, 2010
Shawshank redemption should be at no 1 and The Birds at no 2, 3 would be Mary Poppins.
apples noranges
on March 25, 2010
YOU ARE SO RIGHT!
I am smart
on March 25, 2010
I read books. I hate movies. The Poster is stupid. His opinion is wrong. I like to read. I am smart. Did I mention I like to read? I am better than everyone else. My opinion is the correct one. Movies suck. They suck like the poster. Books are better.I swear I read books and am smart.
I am Smart
on March 25, 2010
I read books. I hate movies. The Poster is stupid. His opinion is wrong. I like to read. I am smart. Did I mention I like to read? I am better than everyone else. My opinion is the correct one. Movies suck. They suck like the poster. Books are better.I swear I read books and am smart.
I Am Smart
on March 25, 2010
I read books. I hate movies. The Poster is stupid. His opinion is wrong. I like to read. I am smart. Did I mention I like to read? I am better than everyone else. My opinion is the correct one. Movies suck. They suck like the poster. Books are better.I swear I read books and am smart.
My views
on March 25, 2010
There are several central messages of philosophy and sociology in the book, concerning issues like the consequences of obsessive consumerism and limitless satisfaction. In my opinion, whilst the film was interesting, it was shallow by comparison. I think you're forgetting one crucial dimension in these comparisons though - the original books are loaded with original and often complex ideas. Their film counterparts, on the other hand, are completely void of them.
I must disagree
on March 25, 2010
Seriously, you thought that the movie "The Shining" was actually better than the book? I'm a fan of both the book and movie, but until you reach the point where you can write suspense and horror better than Stephen King, please refrain from making reviews like this. You didn't even give reasons as to WHY the movie was better! I don't mind hearing a good argument, but your reasoning is preposterous and illogical.
Article
on March 25, 2010
Who ever wrote this list si a complete fucking idiot
movies
on March 25, 2010
I get the impression you're not a book ready kinda guy. Your arguments suck arse. Fear and Loathing WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no
on March 25, 2010
I disagree with so many of these. The Lord of the Rings books are great pieces of literature and while I love the movies they are just not comparable. It's not boring genealogy, whoever wrote this has obviously not read many of these books.
So true
on March 25, 2010
The Lord of the Ring movie was definitely better than the book. I have never read such a boring book in my life, it was totally crap!
I'm sorry...
on March 25, 2010
But you are wrong about nearly every movie on this list...but ESPECIALLY LOTR!!!!!
apples noranges
on March 25, 2010
you really cannot compare a book and a movie, regardless of how well one is adapted from the other. You FEEL the book in an entirely different way, without the emotionally manipulating musical score, or the constantly changing camera angles or whatever. Two of my favorite book adaptations are "of Mice and Men" and "the Grapes of Wrath" by the way. Oh, and "Lust for Life" was a great book and a decent movie for it's time...
sacre bleu you missed one!
on March 24, 2010
why the hell wasn't JAWS on this list?!? other than that i have no complaints, and i completely agree with fight club.
Wow! You know...
on March 24, 2010
It's pretty obvious, to me and several hundred others who've commented on this site, that someone has never even opened a book except to make it look like he was actually reading something. I'm 53 y.o. and have yet to see a movie based on a book that even came close, and by close I mean covered the book the way it was written even if the director's vision differed from mine, to what the book did for me as a reader. To date, the only thing that gets a 70% grade is the LOTR trilogy and even then so much was left out to keep it down to 3 movies let alone 3 movies of 3 hours in length. Chapters were cut down to 2 minutes when they were even included as vital to the story line. Don't get me wrong! I really like Peter Jackson's interpretation but there was soooooo much not included, even in the "extended" versions, that it was like seeing an anorexic whale. Yeah, it's a whale, but where'd the rest go??
stupid fu k
on March 24, 2010
your a dumb ass 4sure go read a book b4 u post about books retard
Movies better than the books?
on March 24, 2010
I have yet to see a movie adaptation that's better than the book.. When it happens it is a very rare thing indeed.
nice
on March 24, 2010
you have just proved yourself retarded. what a fail of a list
I cant say Im surprised...
on March 24, 2010
Hey people? If a book like Lord of the Rings or The Shining is boring you, youre probably not intelligent enough to understand JUST HOW MUCH FUCKING BETTER THEY ARE. Grow some intelligence, learn to read, and get over this stupid, modern day, Western society bullshit where you cant find anything entertaining without the camera views changing every 2 seconds. Next time you watch a movie, especially an action movie, youll see what Im talking about. Worst. List. Ever. You have lost so many internets by posting this.
DER, I CAN'T READ
on March 23, 2010
That's what the author is telling us. He was probably that kid who based his book reports on the movie adaptation because he lacked braincells.
Disappointing
on March 23, 2010
Stumbled from CT At first, found the article interesting- I like on the rare occasion that Hollywood is able to do better than a novel. But REALLY? Terrible, terrible choices. The Shining was a MUCH BETTER book. Did you even read it? They turned the movie into a pop-and-scare about Jack Nicholson and ignored the boy that the entire story was about, the whole POINT of the book was that the reader loves Danny. Nice going.
Wrong
on March 23, 2010
I'm not going to go into excruciating detail, because I can see many of my supporters have already done that below, but I will reiterate the fact that this list is completely misguided. What I did to allow myself to actually enjoy this list was to pretend it was instead called, "ten super good movies that were based off of super good books." Otherwise, this list is shite.
wrong
on March 23, 2010
To the person who said this... 'Nevermind that Philip K. Dick practically invented cyber punk and the entire genre of The Matrix-esque "Is-this-real?" plotline.' ...you couldn't be more wrong. The 'brain in a vat' argument that has caught the attention of modern science fiction is actually an update of the classic 'evil demon' concept written about by Descartes something like 400 years ago and tirelessly written and analyzed by thousands since that time.
Add...
on March 23, 2010
...Requiem For A Dream. Book is fantastic. Movie is a outrageously fantastic.
:)
on March 23, 2010
PLayoffs!?!?! PLayoffs?!?! You wanna talk about PLayoffs?!?! PLayoffs?!!?? That is what you printed word constituents sound like. Let a man have an opinion. Besides, print is dead these days.
American Psycho
on March 23, 2010
The movie was the Walt Disney version.. Book was definitely better..
Depressed Realist
on March 23, 2010
You poor, poor, depraved being.
I Found It!!!
on March 23, 2010
The wrongest list on the internet.
wrong
on March 23, 2010
you obviously have only read at most the cliffnotes to most of these books. one movie book that should have made this list had the list been worth anything..Forest Gump
Lord of the Rings
on March 23, 2010
Movie of Lord of the Rings better than book??? did u read it at least?????
You fool
on March 23, 2010
WTF, The only books I've read on this list are american Psycho and the lord of the rings. Both are infinitely more detailed, expressive and complete than their celluloid counterparts. Does the author of this even like reading?
wrong
on March 23, 2010
wow this is wrong. fight club is right, and maybe last of the mohicans. that is it.
a slight aside
on March 22, 2010
Two goats wander into a farmer's house. One of them finds an old VHS tape, and munches down a few lengths of tape. "Well, how do you like it?" says the other goat. "Oh, the book was much better."
absolute nonsense
on March 22, 2010
I didn't bother reading the other comments, there was far too many of them and I instinctively know what they all say. In my subject heading I said it was nonsense, here and now I'm going to use the language of my home town: This list is fucking bollocks and i'm sorry I ever stumbled across it. Illiterate people should not be allowed to compare films with books. period.
Nice Article, one which was...
on March 22, 2010
Clearly written by an illiterate boob who can't understand why people even read books, and therefore couldn't figure out why anyone even bothered. Nevermind that Philip K. Dick practically invented cyber punk and the entire genre of The Matrix-esque "Is-this-real?" plotline. Nevermind that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is fragmented and has no plot because that's what it's like to go on a week-long bender whith a sociopath (or AS a sociopath). It has no plot because life has no plot. Never mind Stephen King trashed Kubricks movie because it barely even glances off the plot, which is twice as involved (and has more depth than Kubrick's film). Or how about how The Last of The Mohicans movie completely destroys the plot of the books? And finally, never mind that Fight Club is written the way it is because the narrator's mind is disjointed and confusing because he hasn't slept in weeks, we liked the movie better because we didn't have to learn how to read or comprehend first! As for the rest of them, I haven't read the books, but with your resounding review, I'll be sure to tell all illiterate morons not to bother reading them. Way to trash some great books by ignoring the fact that the reason the films were made was because the books were so good, not because the directors (and screenwriters) thought they could do better. Stay where you are, dumbass, and keep reading movie reviews about movies that involve hundreds of people and pissing on writers who actually put their lives on the page alone and without help. Maybe one day you'll learn something.
WRONG
on March 22, 2010
WRONG.
wow
on March 22, 2010
Is this a joke?
ugh
on March 22, 2010
I hate the movie fight club, but the book is amazing, this is craziness
you killed a little part of my soul
on March 22, 2010
as i read down your list i could not help but notice my uncontrollable feelings of malice directed toward you increasing exponentially with each entry on this horrid list... i have nothing but hatred in my heart for you, sir. hatred. in .my.heart.
Who wrote this?
on March 22, 2010
Wow. This list is horrible. I seriously doubt whoever wrote this actually read some of these books.
LOTR
on March 22, 2010
The movie was better than the book for me, because I could never read the books. I tried like 3 times, but they were not interesting. Way too much of not a lot happening, and Tom Bombadill (sp?) made me want to throw up in my mouth. I understand that a lot of people love the books, but in my opinion, they were never captivating.
Nice list
on March 21, 2010
I'm surprised you left off The Holy Bible.... I mean, the Ten Commandments was an awesome movie. Thanks to the OP for being brave enough to give us his opinion. Just because he is wrong, doesn't mean he isn't entitled to it.
seriously?!?!?!
on March 21, 2010
you cant be seriously serious about most of these, right? e.g. - the shining.. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?! bollocks.
????
on March 21, 2010
Although the movies themselves are great in there own right, the books are better then there counter part. I understand saying that the LOTR movies did help get people into a wonderful world, many went to read the books after wards , and truly understood the movie as an adaption of a great book. Comparing the two isn't fair, as the books are thousands of pages of detail and emotion, while the movie is compacted into a 3 hour format that limits the amount of information they can take for a book. All the movies here are great in there own right , and only do justice for the books, the after reading the book , the movie only helps bring better imagation into the book next time i read it, not the other way around. Hence why the book will always be better then the movie , as you'll watch the movie going.. well they changed that to fit it into the right time slot.
PVCpiperat
on March 21, 2010
Uh, so American Psycho the movie was better than the book? LOTR? I'll grant ya Fight Club but American Psycho, especially, is light years ahead of that sloppily done film. Also, I enjoy masturbation.
Pretty obvious you like cliff notes
on March 21, 2010
This is an awful list, one of the worst I have seen. I'm sure you wrote this just to get a rise out of people who actually know what they are talking about.
DIsagree with most
on March 21, 2010
I think this list would be better titled "10 Great Movie Adaptations of Books"
Forrest Gump
on March 21, 2010
Forrest in the book is just an idiot. You don't like him. Tom hanks gave him the sweet wisdom that defined the character.
IDIOT!!
on March 21, 2010
Really? Really? You really think the fight club movie was better than the book?! I thought you were stupid when you had Fear and Loathing up there.. but now I know it for sure. Fucking Fool.
rage
on March 21, 2010
Dear John DeVore: On behalf of every literate person on the face of the planet, and especially on behalf of English majors everywhere, I would like to sincerely pass along this message: FUCK YOU Have a nice day.
American Pyscho...
on March 21, 2010
The film was better than the book??! Wow, that's just made your feeble opinion void.
Okay
on March 20, 2010
I understand that this is mostly a matter of opinion so I will say based on my opinion that Fight Club the movie and book are equally great. While Palahniuk's endings are lacking, I still found the book to be amazing. And American Psycho... I loved the depravity in the book. It was sickening, it was gross and the movie lacked that. I understand why it did... but I still think that the book was better. But that is just my opinion.
fail
on March 20, 2010
I was waiting for Harry Potter to be number 1. I doubt you read any of these books, but you were surprised that they were books first, so you put them on this list. Not only is all of these books better than their movies, some of these movies suck. Comparing books and movies is like comparing cars and airplanes. Get off the Internet and read one of these.
This is fantastic.
on March 20, 2010
I agree with everybody who loves these angry comments. They're fantastic. We get it. You all have virgin rage. Don't trash someone's OPINION because your quivering body has never been laid down on that wonderful four-poster of yours while your lips say "No, no..." but your eyes scream "YES, YES, OH BIG DADDY YES." Happy masturbation, everyone.
BS
on March 20, 2010
The Shining is a fantastic book, one that captures more imagination, fear, and just emotions in general much better than the movie does. Yes the movie is good, but not better than the book, not even close.
Fight Club
on March 20, 2010
No way. The movie was a great adaptation/interpretation, but in no way was it better than the book!
read a book
on March 20, 2010
have you ever read the shinning, because to say the Kubrick piece of shit is better then the book is grounds to be drug out into the street and shot, twice.(once in the balls and once in the head)
Yeah.
on March 20, 2010
Good list. You forgot about Clockwork Orange.
movies are art too!
on March 20, 2010
I think that it's difficult for a lot of people to even admit to themselves that film can be an art form--and I don't mean that in a snobbish, exclusive way; I'm talking about pop art. Movies can be called movies and not films and still be considered art. Shakespeare was a pop artist 400 years ago. He had the stage--we just have a new, exciting medium to take advantage of: film. While the books may be excellent (and I've only read a few of them), I know that the films ARE excellent, and I don't think the goal of this article is to defame the novels, but to praise the (yes, still) burgeoning art form of MOVIES.
What a load of crap
on March 20, 2010
About the Shining: "It’s an oft-copied, sinister, and hypnotic tale of one man’s descent into madness. " This is exactly what the book is and the movie is not. In that respect the miniseries that came later is SO much better.
Yikes
on March 20, 2010
I could agree that Palahniuk books make better screen plays, aside from that, just plain wrong. I know its supposed to be an opinion, but jesus christ. Tolkien, Ellis? Man, You just suck.
LOL Twat!
on March 19, 2010
I think the true beauty of this article are the comments!! I almost peed twice reading them. keep up the rage people!
lol twat
on March 19, 2010
I think what the true beauty of this article brought are the comments. I just peed my pants from laughter after reading the comments. HA HA. Loving the use of the word twat!
Sorry
on March 19, 2010
i am sorry i am just not down with lord of the rings being better than the books. i will say it was a good adaptation and jackson did a good job with all the mythology that Tolkin put into his books and yep a am a LOTOR nerd so fuck anyone who says other wise
What kind of retarded are you?
on March 19, 2010
Learn to enjoy a good book before making yourself look like an asshole by writing a piece of crap like this article. I hope this post was meant to be sarcastic - otherwise: Get off my internet.
jokes
on March 19, 2010
is this article a joke?
Too Serious
on March 19, 2010
I think that these choices are logical. Why are you people taking this so seriously? We get it. You like the book more. Get over it.
Lies
on March 19, 2010
This article is all lies! I mean really? Do you think a man who has never made an relevant film in his life (Gilliam) can make a better piece of art than one of the best authors in the last 50 years? Fuck no.
Did your mother drop you on your head?
on March 18, 2010
Somehow, you've managed to list several books that I love... and at the same time, leave out all of the movies that are actually better than the books. Hunter S Thompson was a genius, you twat! And Tolkien is... f***ing Tolkien!!! One of the most famous, well loved authors of all time! I hate to be repetitive, but have you read any of these books? Please stop, take a breath, put down your liquor bottle, and at least Spark Note a book before you decide to blog again. Cheers!
dumb
on March 18, 2010
i hope you realize its all opinion some people like to eat cheetos and zone out into a screen and others like to read arguing about it is just retarded obviously some people are going to like the movie more than the book just look at the society we live in.
Accessibility
on March 17, 2010
The major virtue of these movies is that they take a niche book and make it more accessible to wider audiences. And for the record: Chuck Palahniuk himself said that the Fight Club movie was in many was better that the book.
Eh
on March 17, 2010
Chuck Palahniuk said that he felt the film version of Fight Club was an improvement. I disagree. There are definitely moments in the book that the movie fixed, but there's a charm to it that the movie didn't quite capture as well. Fear and Loathing pretty much go hand in hand, it's harder to say which is better.
Hey! I can see the future!
on March 17, 2010
When I saw LOTR on the list, I predicted a bunch of no-life nerds would defend a book they did not understand but like because it seemed to the way to go. God I am hot! Suck it Nostradamus!
lol this was a joke article right?... right? :(
on March 17, 2010
Did you even read the books? Or did you Wikipedia them? Maybe Sparknotes? Either way, this list is ridiculous for the most part, at least based on the books I read. The two that I think are the most absolutely fucking ridiculous however are these: LotR is by far a better book than the movies. The movies are great, but the book just takes it above and beyond. There's so much rich detail and characters and plot events that are lost in the movie version. And like an above poster said, it basically got turned into "the Lord of Oz". The director of American Psycho admitted she failed as a film maker to adapt this book into a movie. It's a watered down and boring compared to the amazing writing of Bret Easton Ellis.
Are you fucking serious?
on March 17, 2010
RAGE.
I Call Bullshit
on March 17, 2010
More than half the movies on this list were no where near its novel counterpart. Have you read American Psycho? Fight Club? Fear and Loathing? Then you would know you're spouting crap.
Erm.
on March 17, 2010
I would have to agree with some of these, but Fight Club, as what many other people have been saying, Should definitely NOT be on this list. The book went into so much more detail about everything, and even stuff that the movie didn't even think about covering. Fear and Loathing would probably be the same thing. Granted the movies were great, they just didn't compare. Most of the time I would say the movie never compares to the book.
you suck
on March 17, 2010
you sir are an idiot. this list blows. books are always better
I'll agree with one of these...
on March 17, 2010
The bridges of Madison County. Although that's like saying you'd rather eat at Burger King than McDonalds.
American Psycho...
on March 16, 2010
Is equally ambiguous in written and theatrical formats. You are unequivocally incorrect.
American Psycho
on March 16, 2010
I just wanted to expand on a previous comment about American Psycho. *spoilers* The movie also leaves it open ended, not only with the lawyer's comment but also the scene where first we see him running through, killing the desk man, and then again only running through without killing him. That, in addition to the lawyer's comment, leave the movie just as open as the book did. I agree the movie was easier to get through but the book did a much better job illustrating his personality and OCD. Other than that...how can you say the LOTR movies were better than the books?!
WTF
on March 16, 2010
TROLLING SO HARD
Awful List
on March 16, 2010
What the fuck were you thinking? Do you read at all?
What a load of shit
on March 16, 2010
You obviously have not read many of these books....
????
on March 16, 2010
this list fucking sucks. whoever wrote it should die.
seriously???
on March 16, 2010
i hope that you were being sarcastic with this. i dont really think that theres much beyond that that needs to be said.
Monique
on March 16, 2010
Great article. Not many people might say this, but I also liked the movie version V for Vendetta better than the graphic novel. The movie version takes out a lot of subplots that aren't really needed, like the widow's. --------------------- moniqueblog.net societybook.wordpress.com
Rarely a movie is better than the book it is based on
on March 15, 2010
For the list you have made it would be more correct to say that the movies are as good as the books. But yes, there are exceptions. I agree with previously suggested Shawshank. Another exception is Zotba the Greek with Anthony Quinn, Alan Bates, Lila Kedrova, and Irene Papas which is great compared to the somewhat tiresome philosophy of Nikos Kazantzakis novel.
Wrong
on March 15, 2010
Wrong On the Shinning, The Lord of the Rings and Fight Club. The books all lost something in translation to the movies. Can't say for the rest of these, but it seems you don't like to read and that is your problem, not the litterature
Nuggets
on March 15, 2010
Forrest Gump the movie was way better than the book.
Seriously?
on March 15, 2010
Fear and Loathing? That movie was the biggest pile of trash, and Benecio Del Toro distilling Oscar Acosta down to a fat latino flopping around like a fish out of water was pathetic. And LoTR, which the movies were amazing, and really well done, the books give you so much rich detail you feel like you are part of that world. But i guess the MTV generation doesn't want to spend all that time on history and environment, no time to feel a part of something.
Blade Runner?
on March 15, 2010
Blade Runner is an awful adaptation of the book. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is, as you said, a masterpiece, which delves into the concept of what it means to be human. Blade Runner is an action movie. That is all.
What is this
on March 14, 2010
I don't even
I would add
on March 14, 2010
The French Lieutenant's Woman - brilliant film from a pretentious book. Atonement and The English patient are two films where the film equals the novel in brilliance. As for LOTR - I have read the books at least 20 times, including quite recently, and know whereof I write. I think the films are a great improvement, especially the first one. Tolkien's prose is turgid and uninspired and a real struggle at times. (If he has had a word processor, I am sure he would have rewritten vast swathes of it; he is on record as commenting that he couldn't bear the typing a revision would require.) The screenplays are a superb distillation of the essence of the books - just look at the council where it is decided that Frodo will take the ring to Mordor. Cinematic brilliance out of prosaic tedium.
Movies I Would Add
on March 13, 2010
Creator starring Peter O'Toole Practical Magic starring Sandra Bullock
LOTR maybe
on March 13, 2010
The LOTR movies are amazing, both the books and the movies. The amount of detail that Tolkien went into with the books was phenomenal, and they are some of the best books I've ever read. That being said, I can see how they aren't meant for everyone, since the majority of what he writes about is detail.
just my opinion
on March 13, 2010
i agree with shawshank being added to the list. i'd also add the english patient.
Number 2 does not belong!
on March 13, 2010
Palahniunk is my favorite author, and for good reason. His writing is unparalleled, especially by the world of screenplays. While I agree that Fincher's adaptation of Fight Club is great and stayed impressively true to the novel (much more so than many book-to-film transitions), there is no way the movie is better than the book.
Well...
on March 12, 2010
Patrick Bateman or BATMAN?
I hate it...
on March 12, 2010
...when self-idolizing hacks simply O.D. on adjectives, and think they have talent; this list is what results. Wish I hadn't-a seen it; now pardon me while I try to go sand-steam it outta my brain.
P.S.
on March 12, 2010
LOTR wasn't "a particularly human story about good, evil, and the power of friendship." It was a little deeper than that, overturning the typical CONCEPT of "good vs. evil" with a decidedly CHRISTIAN story of deliverance FROM evil through grace and faith. The movie just turned it into "The Lord of Oz" with Dorothy and Frodo.
HELLO?
on March 12, 2010
STAR WARS, anyone? As for LOTR, the movie WAS better than the book... if you're under 10, and need to see a Disnified version with hobbits constantly making stupid faces. This review is basically "duh, book too HARD! Movie BETTER!" He obviously hasn't read any of these books, just the reviews by "hip-talk" reviewerss that are just as obnoxious as his own TV-Guide-style "snappy dialogue."
1 film stands out on this list...
on March 12, 2010
... For all of the wrong reasons. American Psycho is, a best, an average film, wrenched from the remains of one of the most remarkable and unsettling pieces of english language writing of the last 50 years. That said, with the (possible) exception of LOTR which, while cutting the nonsense of the characters stopping for a sing-song every ten pages perhaps failed to deliver on the potential for exploring the main character's struggle by casting a weak lead, the rest of the list seems a pretty good shout.
Choices
on March 12, 2010
Most of them are sound choices - the shining and Lotr were pretty dodgy choices though - I can understand his reasoning though - a lot of the irrelevant stuff from fellowship was removed - but surely that's more of a good reinterpretation to make it work on screen rather than improving it? The shining - apart from a few scenes, which were indeed genre defining, there's nothing spectacular - the FIRST maze scene where the mother and son go through the maze in the book was terrifying - it literally sucked you into their world, but in the film - didn't feel a thing. But I don't know, the film is still good and I can't stand horror films. Worst thing about it though - the omission of 'The Third Man'. I'm sorry but that is simply inexusable, as that film literally defined film noir and was influential for decades - the other films on the list either fill niches or were influential but for not nearly as long (lotr comes to mind - in the same decade it's technologically been surpassed) - and even then most of these influences are technical and not in execution or creativity - what happened to art for art's sake?
Another one missed
on March 12, 2010
You forgot "The painted veil"...The book is extremely boring, but the movie, with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts, is very touching...And the introduction of the political aspects was very sensible and give motion to the movie...
Missed another one
on March 12, 2010
You forgot "The painted veil"...The book is extremely boring, but the movie, with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts, is very touching...And the introduction of the political aspects was very sensible and give motion to the movie...
Missed
on March 12, 2010
You forgot "The painted veil"...The book is extremely boring, but the movie, with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts, is so touching...And the introduction of the political aspects was very sensible and gave motion to the movie...
I totally disagree with this list
on March 12, 2010
I have a strong feeling that what the author of this list meant was that most of the movies on this list won awards, where as most of these books, if not all, did not. This however- does not say anything about the quality of the book, or even the movie for that fact. Personally- i think its difficult to compare a movie to a book because they are two very different art forms. But at any rate- the last thing i need to point out after reading this - I never read Fear and Loathing- nor did i ever take enough drugs to feel fulfilled in watching the movie- but, I do know what it is about. To say that Terry Gilliam did a better job of telling a story based somewhat off of H.S Thompsons life that Thompson himself did, is just plain silly.
There Is One Missing
on March 11, 2010
A very important one to the history of film infact...Th Wizard Of Oz. Honestly the book is pretty bad, almost completely devoid of any emotion, while the movie added a whole new back story
The Shining
on March 11, 2010
NO WAY is Kubrick's horrifically bad adaptation better than the book! Regardless of the few memorable scenes we all know, the fact that the garden animals didn't actually come to life ruined the whole thing for me.
american psycho?
on March 11, 2010
the movie was better than the book, at the very least because the movie lacked a scene where bateman feeds evelyn a used chocolate-covered urinal cake.
Love it!
on March 11, 2010
I completely agree with everything on this list except The Shining. If I had made the list basically the exact same titles would be included. Esp. Fight Club and American Psycho.
Lists
on March 11, 2010
Have to agree with most posters here, there's lots wrong with the list. LOTR? Please... Got me thinking about other adaptations though and for that reason alone - Thanks
jessy
on March 11, 2010
great post
Celeb Toast
on March 11, 2010
this a fabulous list!All these movies amazing,but some of them were not better than the books.The fight club movie was good, but it wasn't better than the book. www.celebtoast.com
Agree 100%!!!
on March 10, 2010
I've read 8 books on this list and couldn't agree more. The two I haven't: Last of the Mohicans and LOTR (I hate that wizard crap but I loved the movies). The rest are dead on, especially Fight Club, American Psycho, and Madison County (my girlfriend at the time made me read it...no, we're not together anymore). The Godfather is also correct. Two of the best movies ever made from a very good book. If Coppola didn't make those movies then the book wouldn't be as revered.
You can watch em here
on March 10, 2010
Hey, Please check out my blog here: http://streaming-linkz.blogspot.com/ Thanks!
LOTR: what you call weak points...
on March 10, 2010
... I consider the strengths that made it the best fantasy ever written, by leaps and bounds. Are you SURE you didn't add it to your list just for the fun of kicking a hornet's nest?
Terrifying article
on March 10, 2010
This has all the hallmarks of being written by someone who has never enjoyed reading as much as watching film. The movies you mention are adaptations and singular interpretations of what are mostly excellent books. To try and put them side by side and say "this version is better than this" is ridiculous, they are two completely different mediums that cannot be directly compared. In some cases (Jaws) the text is so bad that it can be fairly easily said to be better in movie form but that does not qualify the choices you've made here. In particular in "American Psycho" did you ever stop to think that Ellis WANTED the reader to be confused as to the true nature of Patrick Bateman's mental state? It's called 'metaphor' and is a tool that 'authors' use to call attention to a point obliquely. Although the film version cleverly draws out a single point it really only works in that medium which is why it was done that way.
Do you do substitutions?
on March 10, 2010
For the most part an agreeable compilation... but if I could pull out LOTR and put in ADAPTATION as a substitute - that'd be a tasty burger.
Um....no.
on March 10, 2010
Author of this article is obviously a retarded faggot who can't read.
Very, very wrong.
on March 10, 2010
The Shining movie was awful. American Pyscho was an ok movie with a FAR superior book. Fight Club is not a better movie. How did you not include Sideways, Forrest Gump, or In the Bedroom on this list.
Of course.
on March 10, 2010
Tubby nerds come to get their rage on because they disagree with an opinion. Rage on!
LOTR???
on March 10, 2010
Did you read the book my friend? It's clear you haven't to say that... sorry.
Such a poor list.
on March 10, 2010
Especially since it's missing one of the more famously better-than-book movies: Forrest Gump
Missed One
on March 10, 2010
Forrest Gump. Far and away a better film than book.
WOW
on March 10, 2010
I don't remember if I have a ever read a top ten list that is more wrong. Like another commenter, the only book that could be on here is Shawshank, and since that was really a novelette, I could see why it was left off. Fight Club, LOTR, Fear and Loathing.. please take your illiteracy off the internet, we don't need you here. Perhaps you should go to public school and be an English teacher.
So wrong...
on March 10, 2010
About Fight Club and about Lord of the Rings.
worst list ever
on March 10, 2010
worst list ever. how about the whole bourne series while you're at it. your picks make me question your reading skills
Forgot Forrest Gump
on March 10, 2010
The movie was way better then the book!
The Man Who Would be King
on March 10, 2010
After watching The Man Who Would be King with Sean Connery and Michael Caine, I was excited to find the novella it was based on in a Kipling collection in my parents' bookcase. What a disappointment that read was.
Forrest Gump
on March 10, 2010
I think this is a glaring omission from this list. Winston Groom's novel is so scattered and lacks a clean narritive that it is amazing anyone saw this as film source-work, let alone transform it into one of the most memorable characters of our time.
No.
on March 10, 2010
First of all, the literary works of Brett Easton Ellis have been cited by my college professor as "a real world example of something with a negative value." So the movie would pretty much HAVE to be better than the book. Second of all, JAWS. Just... JAWS!
Fight Club
on March 10, 2010
The fight club movie was good, but it wasn't better than the book
You missed #1
on March 10, 2010
Jaws. Hands down. Horrible book. Groundbreaking movie.
Lists like this
on March 10, 2010
are what happen when illiterate people review books.
New Title Suggestion: "10 screenplay adaptations of famous novels and how the author got it wrong"
on March 10, 2010
In my opinion, this is a list of 10 influential and visionary novels written by 10 influential and visionary authors. This is also a list of 10 influential and visionary films created by 10 influential and visionary producers, directors and actors. However, the article reads as if the novels are flawed and the film corrected this flaw by editing and condensing the story to appeal to a specific audience rather than stay true to the author's artistic vision as they intended it to be experienced by their readers. Films are not meant to be experienced like novels and novels are not meant to be experienced like films. For example, an excerpt from Mr. Devore's opinion of Stephen King's novel "The Shining" as compared to Stanley Kubrick's adaptation: "Stephen King famously trashed this Stanley Kubrick adaptation, but he shouldn’t have." Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick both created works of art considered to be masterpieces and the praise is rightly justified. However, to say the film is "better" than the book is to say that Stephen King got it wrong and Stanley Kubrick got it right. Or how Hunter S. Thompson's novel "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is "hazier" than Terry Gilliam's film, therefore adding a little more narrative was just the fix it needed. This is like saying "Thelma and Louise" was better than "Fear and Loathing" the film because it's about two friends driving through the desert but with hot chicks, Brad Pitt and *Spoiler* they drive off a cliff at the end. I can't wait for the screenplay adaptation of "Catcher in the Rye" directed by John Hughes in his comeback effort and the ensuing update to this list according to Mr. Devore's keen and modern analysis. Sure to be an instant classic. Also, be sure to read John Devore's previous article "Why Cliff's Notes are Better Than Books" or "Why Getting Your GED is Better Than Graduating High School."
Lord of the Rings better as a Movie???? nooooooooooooooooo
on March 10, 2010
The lord of the rings??? now way. completely wrong. the book was so much more fulfilling. Another movie which IMHO was better than the book is the Shawshank Redemption.
I disagree
on March 10, 2010
I disagree with almost every choice you made in this post. The only exceptions are Te Bridges of Madison County (didn't read the book or see the movie) and Last of the Mohicans (didn't see the movie).
Reeedonkulous.
on March 10, 2010
I'm sorry, but have you completely lost you mind? Do you even read? Have you read the books you've mentioned? These are masterpieces. The only one on the list I can safely agree with is The Shining, because the film is a tour de force and the novel is a mumbling sack of recycled hogwash.
10 movies that didn't wholly fail to do justice to the books
on March 10, 2010
is maybe what this list should be called. The best example of a book being worse than the movie is Jaws. I suspect that whoever wrote this didn't actually read any of these books.
You've got to be kidding!
on March 10, 2010
Out of this list, the books I have read were far superior to the movies. I seriously wonder if the author, of this rather absurd list, has even bothered reading the novels or just based it on other peoples opinions? The biggest kicker is The Shining. You need to read the book to understand the movie, and you despise the movie even more after reading the book.
This list is rubbish
on March 9, 2010
This is pretty insulting to the authors that wrote these books. LOTR has sold 150 million copies world-wide. The Maltese Falcon is still considered one of the greatest American novels (Modern Library). Besides why compare apples to oranges.
Wow
on March 9, 2010
This is so wrong. Have you even picked up half these books?
another better movie than book...
on March 9, 2010
The Children of Men was way better in movie form!
Narnia
on March 9, 2010
The book is slow at best. The movie is a vast improvment.
American Psycho
on March 9, 2010
American Psycho the book is 100% better than the movie. The book puts how OCD this dude was in better perspective, and it is way too graphic to ever show in a movie that isn't rated NR
LOTR?
on March 9, 2010
Was fine until you mentioned The Lord of the Rings. If the author really believes that the movies were better then the book then i can only "Pitty the fool"
um...
on March 9, 2010
Forrest Gump? Shawshank? Planet of the Apes (60s). Much better than most of these.
movies better than the book
on March 9, 2010
I would add Cujo to the list.
Into the Wild
on March 9, 2010
What about "Into the Wild?" The book was intended more as a biography/documentary. The movie was intriguing.
Can you read?
on March 9, 2010
Some of these movies may be on a par with the books but really. Whoever came up with most of these must have been looking at the pictures and not reading the words.
Are you kidding?
on March 9, 2010
The LOTR movies can't wipe the LOTR books asshole
My vote
on March 9, 2010
A Clockwork Orange
Sir...
on March 9, 2010
your an idoit.
Stephen King's Misery
on March 9, 2010
Misery should definitely be on this list
Movie better than the book: Starship Troopers
on March 9, 2010
I'd add Starship Troopers. Heinlein's book is sub par in my opinion and without the many layers that the movie has. Which is odd, because that's normally easier to achieve in writing. It's even to this day an amazing movie, with very realistic CGI.
American Psycho
on March 9, 2010
SPOILERS: Yeah, but we still don't know whether he really did any of those things or not! Think about it: the movie gives an easy out when the lawyer says he saw whatsisface in London last week, but people were ALWAYS mistaking one character for another in the film. The lawyer could have seen someone else. It might all be in Patrick's head but, then again, maybe not.
No Shawshank Redemption?!?
on March 9, 2010
Considered the best film ever made (#1 on IMDB) and it is by far a significant improvement over the weak version made by Stephen King.
Horribly Inaccurate
on March 9, 2010
... and wrong. Obviously written by someone who would rather lounge in front of a TV and have their imagination spoon-fed to them instead of reading a book and engaging their own.
No
on March 9, 2010
No. Just No.
Like the idea but...
on March 9, 2010
Saying the movie is better is a rather flawed approach. I would rather state great movies based on books. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is a Philip K Dick masterpiece, while Blade Runner is great, I do feel i loses a lot of the book's feel. For example the whole Mercer ideology is absent from the film. Other then these minor quibbles, great post :)
No Way
on March 9, 2010
If anyone thinks the Fear and Loathing movie is better than the book then you must be illiterate.
Moby Dick
on March 9, 2010
The John Huston one. Ray Bradbury scripted (or co-scripted?) it and it does a superb job of distilling the tale down to its essence.
Very very wrong
on March 9, 2010
These are all amazing movies (well most of them) but they were based on even better books. Fight Club is one of my favorites. There was much more to the book that didn't make it into the movie. I'd say that this is a list of great adaptations but movies better than the book? No way!
Better name for this article
on March 9, 2010
would be "Good adaptations of books for people who don't like reading". Especially LOTR. Movies better than the book? Blasphemy.
Fear And Loathing
on March 9, 2010
Its a great list, but I have to say that I thought Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was a scrambled mess of a movie. I used to enjoy it when I was 13/14 just because it was about drug use and, as such, seemed very adult. Watching it now it is almost embarassing, Benicio Del Toro was the only saving grace.. I will admit though that the book is one of the few by Hunter. S. Tompson I haven't read yet, perhaps it is even worse.
I disagree on almost all accounts
on March 9, 2010
While I hear you that many of these movies are fantastic, comparing adaptations to the originals is often difficult to do--as noted in The Godfather transition from pulp to "high art." My main complaint with this list, however, seems to be based on canonization rather than actual merit. Just because people have heard of these movies and perhaps not read the books as much does not make them better. "Cutting" the fat, as you put, means literally changing the story. I would disagree that most of the books contain more complex, nuanced, and character development than the movies. No offense to these films, most of which I love, but a comparison such as this appears to be simply built from entrance to popular canon and response rather than artistic merit.
Jaws
on March 9, 2010
JAWS was lightyears better than the beachread novel it was spawned from.
Fight Club?
on March 9, 2010
Hollywood completely ruined the ending
Worst list ever
on March 9, 2010
Firstly, All the film version of the Thompson novel does is take everything at face value. Secondly, stop making shitty lists.
Nice
on March 9, 2010
The Movie is always better than the book. Who has time to sit down and read a book anyways! Jes swww.total-anonymity.us.tc
Missing Shawshank
on March 9, 2010
You've got to include The Shawshank Redemption on this list. While it's a good short story by Stephen King, Frank Darabont managed to flesh out a much richer story, creating one of the greatest films of the last 20 years.
Haha! Lord of the Rings? Yeah, right.
on March 9, 2010
Funny joke there, good one. I'm still Lolling
Almost right...
on March 9, 2010
Except "The Shining" and "Fear and Loathing...". There you are so, so wrong. But I'll forgive you for that for including Fight Club. Great article!

Celebrity Photo Gallery

Amanda Seyfried 'Letters to Juliet'
Katherine Heigl in 'Killers'
Russell Crowe is 'Robin Hood'
More Celebrity Photos »