Movies better than the books

[chris]

Eveyone agrees that the vast majority of novels are better than their filmed versions, but there are a few exceptions to the rule.  My picks would be (not including novelizations):
Stanley Kubrik's The Shining (probably most of Kubrick's films for that matter)
A Simple Plan (The film's a lot more dramatic than the book, with a huge difference in the mid-point)
Trainspotting (Amazing book, but I love what they did with the movie)
The Ninth Configuration (A lot more straightforward than the novel, but people still find it strange)
The Pledge (Nicholsan's performance was better than anything my imagination could come up with reading it)
Midnight Cowboy (Not as gritty as the novel, but the movie is just so damned well done, and the performances are great)
Is there any others?

[Creepozoid]

The Shinig? No way. They ruined it. I HATE that movie.

[Bernie]

I may get pilloried for this (ironic because I was a Dr. Seuss fanatic as a kid) but I think the Chuck Jones "Grinch" outdoes the book -- somehow it's even 'Suessier' than the original.  Add in Boris, well, you've got a perfect cartoon....

[Gerry]

In some ways, Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER is better than P.K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep--like most of Dick's novels, it wanders off into psycho-religious, drug-induced philosophizing at the end which makes it a VERY difficult read (and I've tried a couple of times).

[Evan3]

I have to say, Kubrick's film, in fact all King adaption films except The Shawshank Redemption, don't come close to the intensity of King's writings. That includes The Green Mile and The Shining. However, Firestarter came close.

Also, I thought that Jurassic Park was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Crichton.

Lastly, I think that Omega Man, with Charlton Heston putting in a great performance was much better than the short story it was based on. Im not at home and it has been a long time, but I believe the book was called I Am Life or something. Not as good as the movie.

[Gerry]

Evan3 wrote:
>
> Im not at home and it has been a long time,
> but I believe the book was called I Am Life or something. Not
> as good as the movie.

Richard Matheson's I Am Legend

[Bernie]

The original Planet of the Apes was at least as good as the book (whose social satire was actually more obvious and heavy-handed than the film).

[Gerry]

Bernie wrote:
>
> The original Planet of the Apes was at least as good as the
> book (whose social satire was actually more obvious and
> heavy-handed than the film).

I agree with that.

[Ken Begg]

Jaws is the most obvious example.  The central third of the novel revolves around Hooper having an affair with Brody's wife.  Cutting that alone made the movie stronger, and it remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.

Psycho is certainly a contender.

I'll also pillory Kubrick's grossly overrated adaptation of King's much better novel.

[Neville]

Mmm... I really prefer Richard Matheson's "I am legend" over any film version. Anyway, here are two more novels that I think are worst than their film versions:

- The Godfather: Essentially, the plot is the same, but only Coppolla makes it look that tragic.

- The Fight club: There are some major changes in the second half of the movie that make even more surprising and attractive. The original ending is too methaphisichal.

[Nemo2342]

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was much better than the short story it was based on, in my opinion. Conversly, I sometimes think I'm the only person on the planet who hates "The Wizard of Oz" because I like the book(s) so much better.

[Gerry]

Ken Begg wrote:
>
> Jaws is the most obvious example.  The central third of the
> novel revolves around Hooper having an affair with Brody's
> wife.  Cutting that alone made the movie stronger, and it
> remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.

I agree with you there, Ken.  The ending of the movie is far superior than the ending of the book as well.

[The Honn]

You're all going to hate me for this but (so far) I much prefer the Lord of The Rings movies to the books. The books lack alot of the emotion that the films have as Tolkien seemed much happier on describing what the countryside looks like in enourmous detail rather than creating any real characters apart from one or two. And as the book reaches the end the writing style seems to change and it feels more like a history text book than a novel. The films have much more feeling in them and make alot more of all the characters.

[mr. henry]

regarding "jaws", i agree with ken begg and Gerry:

> Jaws is the most obvious example. The central third of the novel revolves
> around Hooper having an affair with Brody's wife. Cutting that alone made the
> movie stronger, and it remains a great film while the book was at best indifferent.

i just finished reading it this week...the book has deeper character development, but the parts with the shark are weaker than the movie. the movie's ending is also better...

the movie is definitely better than the book.

- mr. henry

[Susan]

Amityville Horror. I have to admit the book didn't quite live up to what I had hoped. I think the Shawshank movie was better than the book. ;-)  I'm assuming "Dreamcatcher" will be (the book was total crap!)