10 Movies that were better than their Books

My Top 10 moives that will make you rip up your library card:

Fight Club
Chuck Palahniuk’s overrated novel simply lacks the punch of the film. Palahniuk writes in a visual style, which can’t compete against the real thing. This story has found its home on film. While the novel wants to be “underground” it feels too slick for the distinction, yet somehow the movie (with the likes of Brad Pitt) manages to pull of the anarchist look and feel more successfully.

The Last of the Mohicans
James Fenimore Cooper’s famous and overwrought novel is one of the worst written books with a “classics” distinction ever penned in American literature (It was notoriously panned by none other than Mark Twain). Yet in the hands of director Michael Mann, Cooper’s novel comes to vivid life. The film is visually stunning, packed with action, and dripping with cinematic chemistry between Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe. One of the best action romances of the last two decades.

About a Boy
Nick Hornby is a writer that I want to like – but can’t. His novels are chick-lit written for sensitive guys. The characters never quite get off the ground. It’s the same with “About a Boy,” which falls horribly flat. So imagine my surprise at how well the novel translated into a movie. Damn, if the film isn’t hilarious. Hugh Grant was born to play a middle-aged adolescence and was rightly nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. A fine soundtrack from Badly Drawn Boy is also a plus.

Lord of the Rings
A sacrilege, no doubt. Tolkien fans will probably want to egg my house, but the films just capture Middle Earth better than the books. Tolkien had difficulty with action scenes and was much more comfortable with mythology and back story. So while the books can feel dusty and antiquated, the movie captures the magic and violence of the story and makes it feel young. Director Peter Jackson has made the greatest film trilogy of all time.

The Silence of the Lambs
Thomas Harris wrote an interesting, middle-of-the-road thriller that was a great read while you were stuck in an airport. But Jonathan Demme’s movie became a phenomenon that redefined the genre and ushered in a darker era of thriller/horror movies like “Seven” and “Kiss the Girls.” It also won an Academy Award for Best Picture.

Forrest Gump
Not many people even realize that the movie was based on a Winston Groom novel of the same name. The novel garnered raves (and even comparisons with “Huckleberry Finn”) when it was first published, yet it still falls short of this quirky, likable film starring Tom Hanks. The movie went on to collect six Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Blade Runner
This movie is based on the Philip K. Dick’s underground science fiction novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Dick had one of the most stunning imaginations in literature, but his novel isn’t as fully realized as the movie adaptation by Director Ridley Scott. The movie is dark, mysteriously and surprisingly philosophical. It’s also one of the best science fiction films of all time.

The Shawshank Redemption
Stephen King wrote a novella called “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” in his collection “Different Seasons.” King has always been underrated as a writer (who writes better horror stories than King?). But the story can’t live up to one of the most beloved films of all time (ranked number 2 in popularity at the Internet Movie Database).

Jaws
One-hit wonder Peter Benchley wrote a scary novel about a man-eating shark that became one of the greatest summer blockbusters of all-time. It was also the movie that put Director Steven Spielberg on the map. So damn terrifying that it continues to make millions of people afraid to swim out over their heads in the ocean – 30 years later.

Maltese Falcon
This is a close one. The novel by Dashiell Hammett is fantastic and remains a great read to this day. But the movie narrowly edges out the novel by a hair for one reason: Humphrey Bogart.

Thoughts? Additions? Disagree?

 

I'm egging your house for suggesting that the LOTR trilogy is better on film. While Peter Jackson did a wonderful job of capturing the spirit of the novels, the films miss the governmental allegories that help to elevate the series above the level of pulp fiction. LOTR is an important work of literature.

I also have an addition: The Shining. While the early Stephen King novel is excellent, it does not rise to the level of art that Stanley Kubrick brought to the film.

 

I have to agree with the LOTR comments. Peter Jackson is just amazing.

 

Yeah, the movie of Silence of the Lambs is probably better than the book. But the movie is so great! Although, my bf believes Fight Club the book is better than the movie.

Peace and love

 

I think the books of Tolkien are definately better than the movies. The movies looked good, yes, and they captured the spirit quited well too. But I'm quite fond of the dusty and antiquated feel about the book and Tolkien handled the action and suspense rather well in my opinion.

One scene, a real short one, in the movies that I find horrible is where the Orks are attacking and Legolas skates down the stairs on a shield, places two arrows on his bow in the same time and shoot two orks in the forehead. Man, save that for crappy actionmovies, not for an epic story like Lord of the rings. A good thing was that this was an exception, I do like the movie trilogy in general.

 

Shawshank was word for word to the book, and Fight Club the book was better than the movie, they had to go hollywood on the ending there.

Stephen King is underrated? HAH.

Definatly agree about Last of the Mohicans.

 

Gotta disagree with LOTR, minds turned off right now so i cant think what else to say

 

I agree with you, the LOTR films were alright, but there were so many gaps and they don't credit Tolkien's work.

 

Stand by me.

 

like said before the fight club book was so much better than the movie.

but i do agree with the silence of the lambs. though the book was very enjoyable the movie blew it out of the water.

 

I've only ever read Fight Club
and I agree, but I would say that they are so different that it's hard to compare

I also think that Stephen King is rather overrated (especially as a horror writer), not underrated at all

I don't think LOTR was better as a movie
I think it sucked both ways, I fell asleep during all three movies

Batman Begins was better than any of the Batman stories inv olving Scarecrow if you ask me
but nothing could ever touch on the Demon's Head series with Rah Al Ghul
so that's like half better than the books =P

Friday Night Lights was a better movie I think

 

I cried during Batman Begins....

 

The book always seems to be better than th movie

 

I liked Trainspotting better as a movie.

 

thats because the book is impossible to read.

 

I tried reading The Prestige last night, Christopher Nolan can write it better in email form. No surprise this book was published in 1995 and the film not released until 2006.

I think Howl's Moving Castle is equally great as a movie and book, director visually has a better idea of the author's intents than I did as a reader

Black and white film of Telltale Heart, obviously isn't better but mannerisms are extended long enough to convey better than many readers will read it

 

Good one! That movie kicked all kinds of ass, but yea, the short story didn't really do it for me. I forget what the story was called..? The Body or something?

 

The Body is correct. It was part of a group of Novellas called Different Seasons. Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil were two of the other novellas featured in Different Seasons. I believe the final novella is called Breathing Lessons, and it has not been made into a film.

 

what about jurassic park? i think somebody told me that the book didnt do too well...

 

Being a real fan of Tolkien, I don't think the movies are better;

BUT, Peter Jackson rocks my middle earth world! Oh, yes, he did them justice.