Movies that were better than the book

[Squeech]

This is inspired in part by the Starship Troopers thread, but there's a larger issue. The consensus seems to be, even among those who hate the book, that the filmmakers took way too many liberties and turned it into a leather cartoon. So that's one way for cinema to ruin a book: distort or ignore the book's plot and/or theme.

On the other hand, following it too closely may not work either: Dune is well nigh incomprehensible as a movie, because every plot twist is in there, and it's all too dense to follow. So you have to leave stuff out, but then there are those who feel cheated because the director left out a favorite side issue-- like cutting Tom Bombadil out of Lord of the Rings.

And then there's something to the idea that your inner eye is the best camera, and your imagination is the most impressive special effect.

Anyway, I've got two movies in mind that I thought outshone the print versions eight ways from Wednesday.

The Commitments started life as a novelette by Roddy Doyle, where it's pretty much just a story of young Dublin working-class hustlers looking to make a hobby pay off, and maybe get laid. The movie took those bare bones and not only fleshed out the personality quirks (in the book you don't quite get what makes the singer such an asshole and the trumpeter such a beguiler) but introduced this whole new theme of class consciousness (e.g. the blonde singer almost blows off the big gig to go on a cruise with her family, an opportunity nobody else in the band would ever have, and resent it). Plus the band performances really kick ass on screen, it's really delightful.

The other one is called Who Am I This Time, a Kurt Vonnegut short story filmed for TV years ago by Jonathan Demme (apologies if I already told you Robert Altman filmed it; that's wrong) and starring Susan Sarandon and Christopher Walken. I didn't even know this movie existed until I found it in an obscure corner of my local video rental place. It's terrific! There's a scene where Sarandon is the hottest ever, even beyond Witches of Eastwick, and Walken takes full advantage (arguably too full) of an interesting and complex role.

One reason why the films surpassed the books is that the books are way too thin. Vonnegut is not one of the world's great descriptive writers, he just wants to tell the story and get out of the way. So now I'm trying to decide whether I preferred Slaughterhouse Five as a film...

[taterguy]

1. Donnie Brasco

[wildhorses]

2. what about Brokeback Moutain?

didn't that start out as a short story?

[begin_within]

102. Yes it was first published as a short story in the New Yorker magazine

[bigwillq]

3. The Bridges of Madison County

I thought the movie was more classier than the book.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Yes. The movie was a high-class 3-hankie picture.

(That's not a slam.)

Clint Eastwood & Meryl Streep were more effective than a "cuter" couple.

I read some excerpts from the book. Pretentious, pseudo-arty prose! Hey, I enjoy Thomas Pynchon. But a straightforward style works better unless the writer is REALLY good.

[bigwillq]

8. In my opinion

The book made the affair seem like a quick fling, trashy.

The movie was amazing, imo.
I was crying like a baby at the end.

[BlueIris]

5. The Princess Bride.

Funny. Perfect pacing. Decent performances that brought likeable color to a collection of characters who in the book...weren't always. About the book--I think about it a lot. Like a lot of Goldman fans, I've got a lengthy, complicated explanation for its premise that I...will spare you all, but needless to post, I think the film did a better job with the concepts. Or at least, with making the ideas enjoyable to digest. The book? Is downright depressing.

[NewJeffCT]

12. agreed on that one

The book had its moments, but they did a great job with the movie... nearly every role was very well cast - Andre the Giant, Mandy Patankin, Wallace Shawn, Cary Elwes, Chris Sarandon, Miracle Max & wife, etc.

[Orsino]

89. Huh. I would have said that both the book and movie...

...are perfect.

[slide to the left]

97. Oh no!

The book is soooo good. Howeverm you understand the movie a lot better having read the book. But the movie is perfect.

[Atmashine]

6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

The first book was okay, but it was the movie that got me hooked on reading the rest.

[Broken_Hero]

74. I agree...but

I just got done reading the first 5 books of the series, finished Order of the Phoenix tonight, and i think that the first two movies were pretty damn close to the movies. I think the first two movies/books were just about the same, it seems the directors of the first two followed the books pretty well...in the POA, they left a bit more out, and in GOF, they left out quite a bit...they left out a bit too much in GOF...but anyways...:P

BTW, i can't think of a movie that was better than the book offhand(give me time, i will think of one), i can definately think of a movie, that was a travesty compared to the book, and that was Dreamcatcher...that movie, was horrible.

[CBHagman]

7. Two mini-series.

One is A Town Like Alice, based on Neville Shute's The Legacy. The novel tells the story of a young British woman who meets the love of her life during captivity in Malaya in the Second World War. Shute based his character on a real woman, and the story has gripping and poignant elements, but much of it wanders off into mundane details of the heroine's postwar business efforts.

The TV series, featuring Helen Morse, Bryan Brown, and Gordon Jackson, distilled the story to its key elements. It works beautifully.

The second mini-series I'm thinking of is also from about the same era (late '70s, early '80s) and is called Flambards. I'm blanking out on who wrote the books, which I read and enjoyed, though not as much as the series. Again, it was a case of the TV version proving more intriguing than the original novels.

On edit: Flambards was set in the Britain during the time of the First World War and the years immediately preceding. It contrasts the old country life of hunting and horseback riding with the new world of airplanes and automobiles.

[Bridget Burke]

9. I read A Town Like Alice & saw the movie. (or miniseries?)

I enjoyed the book but didn't need to learn so much about starting a shoe factory.

"Great" literature can be difficult to film. So much gets left out. But books with good plots & good characters can be adapted more easily, even if the writers did not produce deathless prose.

[CBHagman]

21. LOL! The shoes, the shoes...

Yeah, that drove me out of my mind. :crazy:

Also, Shute wrote the novel in very unenlightened times, racially speaking, so the comments regarding separating the aborigines from whites are troubling.

That said, the heroine is depicted as living peaceably (and assertively) in a Muslim community, which is something I hadn't read about prior to picking up the novel. Shute has such affection for his heroine -- her resilience, her straightforwardness, her wisdom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

106. Interesting

Flambards and A Town Like Alice are two of my mom's favorite works. (The adapatations, that is, not the original books. IIRC, she likes Flambards so much that she spent a bunch of time trying to track down the books (this was pre-Internet); she finally found them and was a little disappointed. She liked the miniseries much better.)

[LostinVA]

10. Howard's End, Remains of the Day

Because in the first, the actual PLACE is so important, and you can't see it in a book... and 2.) So much is internal in the book...

Just realized both also have Hopkins and Thompson in them! OMG!

Oh -- and Terms of Endearment...

[BigMcLargehuge]

22. I think the Merchant/Ivory version of Forster's books are excellent

at least AS GOOD as the books upon which they are based. I wish they would have done "The Longest Journey" as it's my favorite of his. Their best film, to me, is "Where Angels Fear to Tread".

[LostinVA]

25. That was a wonderful movie! As was Maurice... the first time I saw

Hugh Grant...

[BigMcLargehuge]

11. Harrison Bergeron (also Vonnegut)

a good short story, a fantastic made for cable film.

[CanuckAmok]

34. WHAT?!

The cable movie had a happy ending, didn't it? Didn't Harrison free everybody from the tyrannical Diana Moon-Glampers and her authoritarian cabal?

How can that be better than the book?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[BigMcLargehuge]

66. he shot himself in the head on live TV

[CanuckAmok]

100. Hmmmm, I'm sure you're right, but I remember it being far...

...more up-beat in tone than was the short-story.

[BigMcLargehuge]

101. it was upbeat only in that the son of lobotomized

Miranda di Pencier was removing his headband and trading DVDs of his 12 hour standoff in the TV station with his friends ten or so years later.

[Sequoia]

13. Sideways

[Orsino]

14. The Hunt for Red October.

Oh, I liked the book a lot, but the movie condenses all the fun into the perfect little manly-man action flick.

[Reciprocity]

50. Me too. The movie is far better than the book,which is good.

[terrya]

15. "The Manchurian Candidate"

It (the original) was based on a novel by Richard Condon. And while the book was good, the film was much better...largely in part because of the director, John Frankenheimer.

[_testify_]

16. Shawshank Redemption

Short story was "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King. It was good, but c'mon. That movie is fantastic.

[billyskank]

17. On Lord Of The Rings

I'm not so bothered about Jackson leaving Tom Bombadil out, because that character genuinely didn't contribute much to the story. All he did was save the hobbits from the Old Forest and the Barrow-Wights, and neither of these events are essential to the story.

But one thing I consider unforgiveable is that he left out the story of Eowyn, Aragorn and Faramir.

For those who are unfamiliar with the book, the basic gist is this. Eowyn is a shield-maiden, a warrior at heart born into the body of a woman. She longs for battle and esteems valour above all else. When she sees Aragorn she sees everything she sees her idea of the perfect man: valiant, princely, honourable, and she loves him from the first meeting.

Unfortunately for Eowyn, Aragorn has promised himself to Arwen and will not give himself to any other. So, Eowyn decides to lose herself in the lust of battle which is why she goes to the battle of the Pelennor Fields in disguise, and there she kills the Lord of the Ringwraiths.

Injured in the battle, she is healed in body by Aragorn himself, but finds upon recovery nothing in particular to live for. But she meets Faramir, who is recuperating in the same place, and he steals her heart.

Mawkish and hackneyed for sure (although what in the book isn't), but I thought the character of Eowyn was left undeveloped without this tale included in the film.

[_testify_]

18. I am 150% in agreement

The scenes from the Houses of Healing should have been included. And, like you, it's the only thing I really found lacking. Although I would have liked to see Sharkey in the Shire at the end.

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. it was a little bit

in the extended version.

[Orsino]

92. Yeah, the extended version treated it pretty well.

Not enough to suit me, but what we got was good.

In the theatrical release, there's a quick shot of Eowyn and Faramir as an obviously happy couple at Aragorn's coronation, and it doesn't make sense unless you know the books.

The books and movies are completely different animals. Tolkien wrote a fake historical saga based on his linguistic hobby. It's not much like a conventional novel; it's in a class by itself. The movied set aside the hobbit-centric viewpoint, and turns the story into action-adventure.

The movies do it incredibly well, though. It's as though Jackson revealed the "real" events that formed the basis of Tolkien's saga--it's the difference between Beowulf and Eaters of the Dead/The 13th Warrior.

[Squeech]

20. Good point

I knew there was something I'd overlooked, thanks.

I do like Bombadil myself, I think his real role is to remind the reader that the good guys/bad guys dichotomy that so dominates the rest of the story (and the films) is not the ultimate truth.

[YankeyMCC]

51. I missed the Eowyn/Faramir

development too but I understand why it was left out. The 'movie Aragon' is very different than the book Aragon. Movie Aragon is primarily driven by his love for Arwyn, the book version of Aragon is primarily driven by his sense of destiny and duty to return as King of Gondor. In the book Aragon might have considered Eowyn as a good choice for his queen and since he did love Arwyn he could've justified letting her go across the sea 'for her own good' but still have a viable queen.

In the movie Aragon might have been willing to let Arwyn go but he would despair and wasn't really looking for a replacement.

So that takes a bit of the wind out of that love triangle (or potential triangle) sails.

And as in the Tom Bomdadil case that side-plot didn't do anything to advance the story of the ring being taken to Mordor which is what PJ was focusing on in order to get the movie to 'fit' and try and keep a linear plot for general audiences to follow.

But as I say, that's a great aspect of the books, the characters of Faramir and Eowyn are great in the books, so it can be sad to see them so reduced (even if necessary) in a different version of the story.

[Reciprocity]

52. I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't have so much a problem about leaving out Tom Bombadil, as I do leaving out the Barrow Downs. For those who read the books you may remember that it was in the Barrow Downs that Tom Bombadil gives each hobbit a dagger from the barrow-wight's treasure pile in The Fellowship of the Ring. This is significant because without the dagger Merry would not have broken the spell on the Witch-king of Angmar that allowed Eowyn to destroy him. There was a prophecy that “ not by the hand of Man shall he fall”.

<Snip>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
LOTR, ROTK chapter 6.


If Merry had not had the blade of Westernesse, the Witch-king would still be with us.
This sword was made specifically to kill the king of Angmar. This was before he became a wraith, I believe. Like Sting, this was a magic sword. His spirit (Witch-king) still lived even though his body had long been dead. Only a magic sword was able to destroy the spell that held the long dead flash of the Witch-king to this plane of existence. Once the spell was gone, then and only then, was he wholly in this world. Where he could be destroyed. I'm not saying it was Merry who killed the Witch-king, but he was the one who made it possible for someone else too, by destroying the spell.

[billyskank]

85. Valid point

:)

[tigereye]

63. hmmm I don't agree

we recently reread all of the LOTR for my kid and I have to say that leaving Bombadil out was a mistake, since his pastoral and gentle nature is so critical to what I saw as one of the major themes of the entire book. I think the book is the kinder, gentler, deeper and more lyrical story (and so beautiful when read aloud) and although I loved the movies, a lot of the pastoral, kindly and less Hollywoodish (for lack of a better term) underpinnings of the book are lost or cheapened in some way.

[Reciprocity]

69. Too right you are. Arwen part in the movie is almost all Hollywoodish.

I guess they thought women would not go see the movies unless it had a girly girl in it. If they had left her out and been more true to the story there is no telling what all else they could have shown.

[billyskank]

83. Interesting that they gave her some action

In the film she carries Frodo to the ford and faces down the Nazgul; in the book it is Glorfindel who does this.

Basically, in the book all Arwen does is look beautiful and marry Aragorn.

[Orsino]

93. Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire bookend that theme...

...nicely. I would have loved to have seen a Jackson treatment of both elements--with Judi Dench as Lobelia.

[Redneck Socialist]

78. My only real beef with the movie...

is leaving out the scouring of the shire.

The hobbits leave the Shire as children essentially, and return as warriors, larger and literally scarred by their experiences. They represent the changes coming to all the world. The movie glosses over this with an "and they all lived happily ever after" ending. Leaving out what happened to the shire and the heroes' return dramatically changes the story IMNSHO.

[billyskank]

84. I understand

although I can see why Jackson did it. The Return Of The King is three hours long; the ring has just gone into the fire, the main story is over, you've got a bloody sore arse and you're busting for a piss. The last thing you want to find is that there's still four chapters' worth left. ;)

[Reciprocity]

108. The one thing Jackson did.....

that I don't think anyone else could have done, was the environment the story was taken place in. The absolute smartest decision Jackson made in the entire movies was to hire Alan Lee and John Howe. Both have been artist of Tolkien's world for decades. And it was there art on the wall that inspired Jackson and Walsh as they wrote the screenplay for the movies. They were the driving force behind the look and feel of the movies along with of landscape of New Zealand. Because of there work I am able to overlook all changes to the story.

[FormerDittoHead]

19. Goldfinger (spoilers?)

Spoilers, but seriously, has anyone NOT seen Goldfinger?

While the film doesn't overtly bring up the lesbianism that was throughout the book, the whole thing about Goldfinger using the bomb at Fort Knox wasn't in the book at all, whereas in the book Goldfinger really did plan to simply steal the gold but gets caught at the doors of the vault.

In this regard, the movie is much, much better.

[BigMcLargehuge]

24. excellent point

I sometimes forget how well the early Bond flicks expanded and improved on the source material. The nuking of Ft. Knox was a plot masterpiece.

[Vidar]

23. "A Color Purple"

[jus_the_facts]

26. Jaws....

....the book was good...the movie was BETTER! :applause:

[cemaphonic]

28. Kubrick

I think the only movie that Kubrick did where the source material is unarguably better than the movie was Lolita, and that book is a top-rank classic of English Lit.

[Orrex]

27. A Clockwork Orange--hear me out!

I found that the imagery in the book sometimes tripped over itself simply because Burgess was so rich and imaginative that the text could become unwieldy. I know that acolytes of the text will crucify me for this, but I found that Kubrick's pared-down version worked better in some ways.

I also think that it was a wise choice to limit Alex's music obsession to Beethoven, because that got the point across without smothering the viewer. This plot element works well in the book but IMO wouldn't have come across as well on-screen.

:popcorn:

[hfojvt]

31. I never read the book. I disliked the movie

Pauline Kael wrote: "Far from being a little parable about the dangers of soullessness and the horrors of force, whether employed by individuals against each other or by society in 'conditioning', the movie becomes a vindication of Alex, saying that the punk was a free human being and only the good Alex was a robot."

She's not a big Kubrick fan.

[Orrex]

33. Her critique sound right on the money, to me

Alex the punk was a free human being and, since he was capable of "moral choice" (in the prison charlie's words), he was morally superior to Alex the robot.

[hfojvt]

38. according to the movie you mean

but Pauline and I would say that's not a very humanist message.

[TheBaldyMan]

81. Antony and Cleopatra, apologies to Will Shakespeare

but I just love BIG Hollywood epics.

[DrGonzoLives]

29. Fight Club

Sorry, but Palahniuk can't write for shit.

[cemaphonic]

30. No Godfather yet?

That's one of the canonical examples of this.

Also, Night of the Hunter
Possibly, The Big Sleep, although it is really too close to call.

[sarge43]

37. Cold Comfort Farm

If no other reason than Ian McKellen's "No butter in hell!" rant. Much better viewed than read.

[yellowdogintexas]

42. oh I love that wonderful movie! Never read the book though

[sarge43]

57. Do read it, yellowdogintexas

There were several funny bits left out of film. But no, even in the book, we never do find out what Aunt Ada saw in the woodshed.

[yellowdogintexas]

65. But it was nasty.

[sarge43]

87. "But did it see you, dear?" n/t

[hfojvt]

32. The Wizard of Oz and The Neverending Story

Michael Ende disavowed the movie, but I think the movie's explanation of Fantasia was much better - "It is the world of human fantasy. Every part, every creature is a piece of the hopes and dreams of mankind. Therefore, Fantasia has no boundaries"
"But why is Fantasia dying then?"
"Because people have begun to lose their hopes, and forget their dreams. So the Nothing grows stronger."
"What is the Nothing?"
"It is like a despair, destroying this world, and I have been trying to help it."
"But why?"
"Because people who have no hopes are easier to control, and whoever has the control has - THE POWER."

Compared to the book

"What are you creatures of Fantastica? Dreams, poetic inventions, characters in a neverending story. Do you think you're real? Well, yes here in your world you are. But when you've been through the Nothing, you won't be real anymore. You'll be unrecognizable. And you will be in another world. In that world, you Fantasticans won't be anything like yourselves. You will bring delusion and madness into the human world...fears where there is nothing to fear, desires for vain, hurtful things, despairing thoughts where there is no reason to despair."

[XemaSab]

36. Neverending story was a lot like Bambi

Where after you read the original you wonder who got the idea to make it into a film for small children...

Way, way, way too much was stripped out of the book for the film. Like the last 2/3. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

40. I saw the movie when I was about 25

Did not read the book until I was 35. Like the Iron Giant, it is a kid's movie that I loved as an adult.

[x-g.o.p.er]

39. The Stand, although it was a mini-series...

The book was awesome, and I thought that the miniseries would pale in comparison, but it was actually pretty good.

I can't say it was better than the book, but it was as good as the book.

[yellowdogintexas]

41. Another MiniSeries: "Reilly Ace of Spies" was absolutely

wonderful on Masterpiece Theatre. The Book SUCKED. Very hard to read. Whoever did up the screenplay for that series was amazing.

And Godfather can't be better than the book, since it is so damn true to the book it should have its own reward just for that.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. Godfather, in a walk. Took a decent, entertaining, pulpy bestseller,

and made an incredible brooding dark beautiful masterpiece moving painting out of it.

[yellowdogintexas]

67. well, Puzo wrote the screenplay from his own novel.

and Coppola is a master

[JohnKleeb]

44. Cuckoos Nest, dont kill me zombie Ken Kesey

I thought the movie was better not that I didn't enjoy the book but the movie was much more entertaining and easier to follow for me.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

45. Dissenting opinion! Book rules! heh

Electroconvulsive treatment for you!

[JohnKleeb]

47. I ;liked the book

but not as much. You know the strange thing is I swear to god I feel like Chief sometimes, I mean I am not a small guy but thats how I See myself and no I am not a schizophric.

[begin_within]

68. As a huge fan of the book I would have to disagree, the movie is just a...

...thin rip-off of the book and it also completely loses the point of view of the book (the book's narrator is Chief Broom, the Indian, and his gradual progression from paranoid schizophrenic to clear-thinking sane person is apparent in the narration, but is completely and totally lost in the movie. Oh well, I'm sure you have heard this before though. I do know that Ken Kesey hated the movie version of it.

[JohnKleeb]

77. Thats why I said Ken Kesey's zombie

I have heard that. I liked hte movie better still but I think thats only because I am a very visual person.

[SOteric]

46. Bladerunner

Which is the film version of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The book is not his most praiseworthy piece of literature. The film is a lasting classic.

[Richard Steele]

61. For sure!

The book was just a padded-out short story, IMO.

The movie was brilliantly conceived and executed.

[Frank Cannon]

90. As a huge PKD fan, I have to agree

There's a lot of people standing around talking in Sheep, and it just seems to go on and on and on.

The movie kept the essential themes of the book, dropped all the redundant stuff, and added a lot of detail which fleshed the story out and made it seem real.

After all these years, it's still my favorite movie of all time.

[anarch]

105. true enough

and I like Dick's books...just not that one so much. The movie is amazing.

[leeroysphitz]

48. My personal top 3 movies that were better than the book:

1. The Godfather. Puzo is great but Coppola put the icing on the cake and turned a great story into an enduring classic.

2. The Hunt For the Red October. (semi spoiler) The plot twist towards the end of the movie is not in the book and makes the film much more interesting. Also Clancy can be sort of dry when going on and on about military nomenclature etc...

3. The Bridge On The River Kwai. I've always been impressed by the way the filmmakers were able to so seamless weave Holden's Character into the story. It was so authentic and well conceived that I think it actually added to the story. Also (spoiler) The british Colonels sudden realization of what he had done and his resulting action made for a much more satisfying ending than the novel provided.

[Hugin]

49. Logan's Run.

At least the movie made sense.

I put Planet of the Apes in the same category.

[mvd]

53. All the Star Wars movis

You just have to see it to get the experience of Star Wars. Whereas with Harry Potter, the books are where it's at.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. I think Star Wars books appeared AFTER the first movie hit it big.

[mvd]

56. Even so, there's no qualification in the topic

I still like the movies more.

[Saboburns]

54. Lonesome Dove

Another mini series. But By Gawd, Robert Duval rocked that film.

[pokerfan]

80. I was thinking about adding Lonesome Dove

But the book truly rocks and even won the Pulitzer. After Dove, I read everything I could find by McMurtry and nothing I found even comes close to "Dove."

"A man who wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough."

[Reciprocity]

58. Tony Hillerman's A Thief of Time

I love Hillerman's books, but the movies are much better in my view.

[tigereye]

70. mmm

The movie that I saw (I think Lou Diamond Phillips was in it) was incredibly dark and dense, which the books are not. I felt that one would miss the lovely way that he moves the characters through the story and the internal dialogues that are so critical to the characters.

I did like the PBS version, but the books are so much better.

[Reciprocity]

71. I think I've seen three and there were all on PBS.

I'm actually re-reading them now. I'm on the Ghostway. One positive thing about losing your memory is old books are new again.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/006100345X.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[lakemonster11]

59. Field of Dreams.

Some beautiful poetic passages in the book, but there's also a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be in there. The movie got it right.

Also, Bridget Jones' Diary. The book is great, but the people who made the movie made all the right decisions about what to leave, what to cut, and what to change.

And the play Ragtime is way better than the book, which sucks big time. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it.

Other than these examples, I've generally found books to be much better than the movies they spawn, even when the movies themselves are brilliant.

[CBHagman]

99. I disagree a great deal about Bridget Jones's Diary.

The screenplay had a too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth quality. The actual film was filled with awkward silences, gratuitous crudeness, and wasted opportunities for laughs. They made poor use of actors like Jim Broadbent, Gemma Jones, and Sally Phillips.

The book was funny, poignant, and outrageous, developing character by what was done and said, not by explanation by the title character. The movie was disappointingly formulaic.

[Arkham House]

60. Kiss Me Deadly

It was just another Mike hammer novel--though to be fair, Spillane doesn't deserve the crap he's taken in some quarters...he could write...but the movie is terrific, one of the best American films of the 1950s...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

62. The Natural

They took Bernard Malamud's depressing novel about a selfish, depraved jerk and totally changed it.
I love the movie!

[Bryan]

64. Jaws

I saw the movie first, and I was shocked to read the book and find that it was dull, plodding, and full of extraneous plotlines that detracted from the essential story of the hunt for the shark (the Mayor doesn't want to close the beaches because he's in debt to the Mafia, Hooper has a pointless affiar with Helen Brody, etc.).

Amazingly, the film's script-much of which was reportedly bashed out during filming, at least partly by the actors-does a much more direct job of telling the story, but is still full of color.

[SaveElmer]

72. Last of the Mohicans...

1990's version...

The James Fenimore Cooper book, while a classic, is hard to read, and is often confusing!

[sarge43]

95. Read Mark Twain's slam dunk of Cooper

It's hilarious.

[realisticphish]

73. Gettysburg

Killer Angels is a fantastic novel, but the movie captures the scope a little better, i think.

[JohnKleeb]

76. I'll agree with that sentiment

Though Ive heard that Gods and Generals the novel is better than the film.

[Redneck Socialist]

75. What's Eating Gilbert Grape

Not necessarily BETTER than the book, but different enough that it works on its own right. See the movie then read the book. You won't be disappointed.

[wickerwoman]

79. Shawshank Redemption and Stand by Me

were both better films than their respective novellas.

Apt Pupil, OTOH was my favorite in the book, but the film chickened out.

[Oeditpus Rex]

82. 'The Ten Commandments'

That book really drags, man. All that "thou shalt" crap.

There's one good part — some dude named Solomon wrote some soft-core porn. But that was about it.

[Sugar Smack]

86. The Godfather

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

88. Goodfellas, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather.

[sarge43]

91. The Maltese Falcon n/t

[AngryAmish]

94. Rememberance of Things Past

Robert Reed (AKA Mr. Brady) was electric in this movie. Probably the finest performance ever.

[slide to the left]

96. Memiors of a Geisha

Ok, it wasn't better than the book. But since that is my favorite book and has been since it was first published, and since I have read it atleast half a dozen times, I feel justified in saying the movie did the book justice.

The book is written in such a way that cannot be conveyed through dialouge since it it told in the first person. The changes that were made in the story, I feel, kept the heart of the novel intact.

[Coventina]

98. Mansfield Park

Don't get me wrong. I love Jane Austen. "Emma" is my favorite book of all time, probably.

But the movie of Mansfield Park really made the story come much more alive for me than the novel ever did.

[kay1864]

103. 2010

Don't get me wrong, I like Arthur C. Clarke. But the Russians and Americans in his book were WAY too chummy. The conflict in the movie was lots more interesting. Enjoyed the shots of Lithgow and the other Americans exiled to Discovery (although there's no gravity dammit! So Lithgow can't lounge on the floor of the storage bay)

[LuCifer]

104. Private Parts

I thought I would never laugh my ass off more than to the book, but the movie DID! And a BA BA BOOIE to y'all!

[NNadir]

107. I love "Who Am I This Time." I loved the story and I love the movie.