Movies that are better than the book

[greeny]

Okay, so usually the book is better than the movie, right?

But can you think of any examples where you think the movie is better than the book?

For me, Interview With the Vampire is one. (Don't hate me!!)

[2cutiekitties]

The Firm with Tom Cruise. They changed the ending for the movie, amen!! One of my top 20 all time favs, I that movie!!

The Iron Giant! Just saw it, what a doll of a movie.

[LaLaLaLa]

The Princess Bride
Jaws
The Shawshank Redemption
The 13th Warrior

[BookGoddess]

The English Patient

I love the film. The book is poetic but it's so sparse. The author is a family friend but I love the film better. :

[EdnaMarie]

Jurassic Park is about as good, better in parts, and the sequel is definitely better because you can tell he wrote the book as a screenplay. :roll

[Red Pajama]

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, since I still think the book is better than the movie. But, for me, the Lord of the Rings trillogy is my favorite movie of all time. The books, while better than the movie, are not my favorite books.

[Sailor]

I hated the Twilight books, but actually thought they did a good job with the movie. At least, Bella seemed to have more spunk in the movie. However, I really like the actress Kristen Stewart, so I could be biased due to that. I think she's fantastic in everything.

I liked watching the Harry Potter movies better than I did reading the books.

[Brittany93]

A Walk To Remember, that book was boring...

[chezlyryan]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

Jurassic Park is about as good, better in parts, and the sequel is definitely better because you can tell he wrote the book as a screenplay. :roll

I agree, in the book I had no sympathy for the Grandfather who was only interested in money. In the movie each of the kids had their talents, and the Grandfather wanted to show dinosours to everyone, not just the rich. In the book I wanted everyone to get eaten by the dinosours.

[terrordactyl]

twilight the books kinda seemed like they were written by someone who wasnt the greatest writer

[MusicianDad]

The two that come to mind are Interview With the Vampire (the book was booooooooring!) and Fahrenheit 451 (got about three chapters in before I got fed up with the way that guy writes).

[Smokering]

Don't hate me, but I preferred Stardust the film to Stardust the book. I saw the movie first and loved the charisma of the actors: by comparison the book's characters are a bit flat and don't have nearly the same chemistry. I know a lot of people love the book, so perhaps it was due to expectations: but still, Stardust is in my top 20 - maybe even top 15 - favourite films, and the book doesn't even count as one I like.

I like Jurassic Park way better as a book, though. I read the book first, and then got disappointed that the dinos in the movie didn't look as real as the ones in my imagination. Oh, and I couldn't stand Interview with the Vampire in either format. We get it, drinking blood = sex, enough already! I think Buffy spoiled me for pretentious vampire lore.

I like Breakfast at Tiffany's far better as a film, but I wouldn't say it's better than the novella: just very, very different.

[Rico'sAlice]

Forrest Gump.
The book is weird. Forrest is kind of a perv. And there are some events that are even more ridiculous and totally unbelievable compared to the ones they used in the movie. Plus you don't have the soundtrack or score.

[vbactivist]

the origianl charlie and the chocoalet factory. I loved the movie, but the book was just okay - but i also saw the movie as a kid,and read the book aloud to my own kids as an adult. I wonder if I would feel the same if I read the book first...

[miss_sonja]

Originally Posted by 2cutiekitties

The Firm with Tom Cruise. They changed the ending for the movie, amen!! One of my top 20 all time favs, I that movie!!

Totally agree! I loved the way the writers changed the ending--it was perfect! Much better than the book.

I almost like the LOTR movies better than the books. The changes made...work. They do.

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Fahrenheit 451 (got about three chapters in before I got fed up with the way that guy writes).

Oh, say it ain't so, MD!!!

In the book I wanted everyone to get eaten by the dinosours.

[ChocolateNummies]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

the origianl charlie and the chocoalet factory. I loved the movie, but the book was just okay - but i also saw the movie as a kid,and read the book aloud to my own kids as an adult. I wonder if I would feel the same if I read the book first...

I felt this way about Mary Poppins. I mean I know the movie was a musical and they tend to be syrupy and upbeat but I really disliked the book. I read it to my daughter a year or two ago and found it so dark. I couldn't find anything likable about MP and couldn't understand why the kids liked her so. I mean, she was magical and all in the book but she also came across to me as more unkind than lovingly firm.

[notjustmamie]

I have to agree with both Forest Gump and Mary Poppins. I found both books somewhat strange.

I would also add Bridget Jones's Diary.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

Oh, say it ain't so, MD!!!

After the nth hundered thousandth "living but not living, breathing but not breathing" type of crap I just tossed it across the room and said screw it. Last time I checked there was more then one type of writing device to use when authoring a book.

[Smokering]

Nooooo! Bridget Jones' Diary is way better than the movie! I read the book, saw the movie and was like "Why is this popular?" The book (and the original column) is witty and well-plotted. The movie is Renee Zellweger being amusingly fat - which isn't that funny and also entirely misses the point of the book, which is that she obsesses about her weight despite not being fat. And then there's the sequel, which I think is even better (book) and worse (movie). I really do not get the movie hype. What am I missing?