Movies that ARE better than the book

[The Knize]

Lawrence of Arabia was not really a film of 7 Pillars of Wisdom and I would argue that 7 Pillars was an amazing book. Still that was a great movie probably the equal of the less acclaimed book.

If one takes Apocalypse Now as a film of Heart of Darkness, I would agree that the film is better.

I disagree on Cuckoo's Nest. Great book and great film.

High Fidelity is an interesting pick. I personally think the movie is much better than the book.

I have kind of soured on Hemingway, so I will take your word on To Have.

 

[Orville]

That said, I have really enjoyed the first two Hobbit movies despite being a long-time fan of the book. Yeah, it's different...but in a way that still keeps the spirit of the books. I haven't seen the last installment yet. Waiting to buy the DVD.

I could not disagree with you more about what Jackson did in bastardizing the Hobbit. I was on board when it was announced. I was even happy when they announced TWO movies (as the subtitle is There and Back Again). but stretching it to THREE films by adding a bunch of extra filler from Silmarillion, from the appendices, installing characters that either did not appear in the book or did not exist in the book was too much. In the Hobbit, the Battle of the Five Armies is dealt with in less than a Chapter. Jackson blows that up into almost an entire film. I will not watch.

I agree. I really didn't mind the plot line elaborations. I'm not sure it would have made for a very interesting movie without them.

It would have been just fine as two movies, clocking in at 5-6 hours. There was no need for the add-ons beyond Jackson's desire to be done with Tolkien forever.

 

[shimsham]

In the Hobbit, the Battle of the Five Armies is dealt with in less than a Chapter. Jackson blows that up into almost an entire film. I will not watch.

I walked out of the third Hobbit. I think it was the second time in my life I have walked out on a movie. It was dreadful.

 

[Donnchadh_Sempill]

The biggest issue with turning the Hobbit into a film is that, unlike the Lord of the Rings, it was written as a childrens book. You HAD to give it more meat, or you'd just wind up with a live-action version of the Rankin-Bass cartoon. A good bit of what was added came from Tolkien's writings--stuff that he thought of AFTER the publication of the Hobbit. Once you accept the fact that its a derived work, its a pretty good movie.

 

[lemisanthrope]

A few points of discussion...

The Big Lebowski was a book?? Possibly the best movie ever.

A&E's Pride & Prejudice...better than the book?? I haven't seen it, but find it hard to believe.

The LotR movies were just terrible. I mean, if you just are a huge CGI fan, I guess they're cool. I watched Fellowship and Two Towers and then never even bothered to watch Return of the King or the Hobbit movies. But the books are absolute masterpieces, even if the morality is simplistic, as George R. R. Martin has stated.

2001: A Space Odyssey. The book was written for the film. Kubrick was breathing down Clarke's neck to keep up with writing, as production started before the story was finished. It was based on an earlier short story that Clarke had written. The book is kinda rough, and the true expression of this collaborative artistic vision is the movie.

Jurassic Park...actually I think I enjoyed the book more.

 

[shimsham]

The Big Lebowski was a book?? Possibly the best movie ever.

Just kidding. This is from Caly Cooley's Movies R Fun book that reimagines stills from R-Rated movies as illustrations from Little Golden Books.
http://www.amazon.com/Movies-Fun-Collection-Cinematic-Inappropriate/dp/1452122334

 

[heybatter]

The Big Lebowski was not a book, although the Coens derived a lot of inspiration from Raymond Chandler.

 

[Rory1262]

Was there a book of Chinatown? Midnight Cowboy?

Robert Towne's "Chinatown" was an original screenplay.
"Midnight Cowboy" is an excellent addition to this list. I've read the book by James Leo Herlihy, and it's good, but the movie surpasses it.

 

[Rory1262]

Apocalypse Now

Though it's inspired by "Heart of Darkness", you can't say it's based on Conrad's work.
So it's a moot point whether it's better.

 

[Bossies]

. . .

A&E's Pride & Prejudice...better than the book?? I haven't seen it, but find it hard to believe.

. . .

The great thing about this version (also BBC version, 1995) is that compared to the movie in 2005 with the actress from Pirates of the Caribbean, this series was 200 minutes longer, which to me was a decent amount of time to tell the story as it deserved. Trying to squash it down to 127 minutes really condensed things unnecessarily. I have watched it repeatedly (3 or 4 times), and I hardly ever watch repeats.

. . .

The LotR movies were just terrible. I mean, if you just are a huge CGI fan, I guess they're cool. I watched Fellowship and Two Towers and then never even bothered to watch Return of the King or the Hobbit movies. But the books are absolute masterpieces, even if the morality is simplistic, as George R. R. Martin has stated.

. . .

I am a die hard fan of the LotR universe as originally written by J.R.R. Tolkien. I absolutely adore the fantasy world he created and the detail and creativity in the literature. In my opinion, there is enough material for at least fifty, three hour movies, some as a series, some standalone. I'd love to see the one on one combat of Fingolfin vs. Melkor; Melkor and Ungoliant's destruction of the two trees; the Fall of Gondolin; the Kinslaying (the first of the three) leading to Galadriel's banishment from the Blessed Realm (Aman, Valinor, the Undying Lands); the story of Beren and Luthien and the Silmarils, and so on (I could go on at length).

I also really liked the LotR movie trilogy, a lot.
However, and this is a crucial point, one cannot truly compare the movie(s) to the book, because they are so different. Yes, Hobbits take ring to fire and world saved, but there are more differences than similarities between the two. Where is Ghân-buri-Ghân? Tom Bombadil? The Barrow Downs? Where was Erkenbrand? Why were there Elves at Helm's Deep? Why was so much dialogue attributed to the wrong characters? For instance, one of my favourite lines was spoken of Eowyn by Gandalf to Aragorn and Eomer in the chapter "The Houses of Healing" and reads: "But who knows what she spoke to the darkness, alone, in the bitter watches of the night, when all her life seemed shrinking, and the walls of her bower closing in about her, a hutch to trammel some wild thing in?" Given these differences, I prefer not to compare them but to enjoy them separately. There is enough material in the book for ten, three hour long movies.

Yes, the morality is simplistic, but that's also due to the character's placing high emphasis on loyalty, which removes a lot of moral "gray area".

 

[Donnchadh_Sempill]

I have to agree with BOSSIES. If you were expecting a word-for-word interpretation of the book, you're asking to be disappointed. If you take it lightly, the movies are well done.

 

[acesn8s]

I thought Jackson did a really good job with The Fellowship. Things started to fall apart when he made Gimli the comic relief in The Two Towers. I was bothered by surfing Legolas, dwarf tossing, and the swarm of green ghosts in Return of the King.

The Hobbit trilogy was more bad than good. There was enough content in the book that they could have struck to the book and still made a quality movie or two. The whole Lake Town scenes were awful. The Kili and Tamriel love angle was trite and forced. The orcs, in the numbers portrayed, just look to big and powerful to chopped down like kindling.

 

[gargamel]

Gone with the wind
The Godfather (both written soap opera).

I desagree with American Psycho and Cuckoo's Nest. The books are much better than the movies.

 

[lemisanthrope]

Now that we've fully hijacked this thread into a crackling heated brawl about Jackson's treatment of Tolken...

I really don't think what bothered me about LoTR was departure from source material. I'm okay with that...I understand that different media tell stories differently (although, yes, leaving out Bombadil and the portrayal of Gimli really did grate on me). I just thought they, although beautiful, were cheesy movies with a lot of mindless CGI action and a fair bit of spotty acting (that does not include Sir McKellen...he was wonderful). It had nothing to do with loyalty to Tolkien. I don't consider myself that hardcore of a fan. I just thought they were bad movies.

 

[jpakstis]

Jaws and American Psycho.

For me Jaws will always be the answer to this question. Has anyone read the book? They all go home every night!

 

[Bossies]

Now that we've fully hijacked this thread into a crackling heated brawl about Jackson's treatment of Tolken...

. . .

Brawl? No, no brawl. At least so long as you don't contradict me.

Earlier on I mentioned Lawrence of Arabia. I think I got it confused with Beau Geste, but I can't remember which version it was. . . 1939 I think.

 

[gwsmallwood]

Brawl? No, no brawl. At least so long as you don't contradict me.

Did I miss any?

 

[Kit Walker]

Just one:



After all, this IS about movies.

 

[OldAF]

I think Shane, possibly my favorite western movie, is better than the book.

Gregory Peck was brilliant in To Kill a Mockingbird but I have to give the nod to the book.

I liked Seabiscuit but the book was deadly dull.

 

[Porgy Tirebiter]

For me Jaws will always be the answer to this question. Has anyone read the book? They all go home every night!

It's been forever since I read the book...probably forty years...but doesn't Hooper have a fling with Chief Brody's wife? After casting Duddy Kravitz in the role of Hooper, the screenwriter obviously edited out that bit of comedy.