Has anyone ever seen a movie that is better than its book?

Question

Would love to know this so that I can go out there and buy the DVD! I can only think of one that almost matches it - and that was JAWS.

Answer 1

Sorry, you (and most of the respondents) are missing the point...

Books are a different medium to film. Films may be inspired by or based on a book, or vice versa, but to compare them is fruitless and confusing, which is why most people come to the conclusion you have.

Film uses a very different language to literature, and does not necessarily miss out much of the description you get in a book, however a film cannot just "read aloud" what was in the book, and you wouldn't I bet want it to!

That is because that description is conveyed through a different language - a filmic language, which includes colour, timing, depth of field, dialogue, music, pictures, symbols etc etc etc - it is a much more "whole" sensory experience than a book, which leaves most to the imagination.

The other reason is that although a film may have the same name as a book, that says nothing about the EXTENT to which it has been inspired by it. A film may decide to take just the characters and drop everything else (look at James Bond, many JB films were not originally books) or it may take the general story but only play out one scene. Or it might decide that the message or the conclusion are different. Or it might set it in a different time, or a different country. These are all ok, no? Because they are bringing something to it, rather than just regurgitating (what's the point in that?)

It is alright to like a book and hate the corresponding film, or vice versa, just as it is ok to like oranges but hate spaghetti bolognese. It is just pointless to compare them.

Answer 2

I personally think that the books are usually more informative than the movies. Like the DaVinci code, the book was WAY better than the movie because it was more detailed and sometimes the movies can lack some information that was important in the book. But i have seen some movies that were better than the book becuase sometimes THEY have more information from the book. Plus, the movies are always full of action and you can see what the character really looks like or what their house looks like or their car and where theyre from or what language they speak. It's always fun to read the book then watch the movie becuase you can see it in both points of view. I hated the books of those movies too because they were so long and it felt to me that they never got to the point of what was happening there until they described it with FULL detail.

Answer 3

One of my favorite authors is Michael Crighton. However there is one book I have never been able to read from cover to cover that is his. The book tends to be a bit too technical even for him. There are also spots where it goes very slow. So in this case I would have to say the movie Congo was much better then the book because I could actually make it all the way through it.

Answer 4

As a general rule, books are almost always better than the movies, because you can see inside the characters' heads and get to know them much more intimately than in a movie. However, there are a few that are actually better as movies (I think)
About a Boy, by Nick Hornby. Both the movie and the book are really funny, and really good, but they are very, very different. They start off the same, but about halfway through they go in completely different directions, and I actually like the story the movie tells better than the book.
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker. I found the book difficult to read because of the style of writing or something, but the movie is one of my favorites.
The Constant Gardener by John le Carre. I HATED this book... I thought it was downright boring. But the movie was excellent.

Answer 5

at this point in time, i'm saying no.
Prefer lord of the rings book format, Harry potter is better in book, Pride and predujice is better in book, And Gone with the wind is definately better in book form even if it is a long read. Neverending story, better as a book.

I've loved all the movies I just find more information in the book, then you do in movies, i think you actually see more when it's a book.

Haven't read ET yet though, cos i've only just recently been told that was a book.

Answer 6

No, not really, but I did have an embarrassing moment in a cinema watching Dr. Zhivago. I had read the book. When they were in the field hospital, I thought I knew that there was a horrific scene coming up when a soldier was brought in with half his face blown away. I covered my eyes and said, 'I can't watch this.' Surprise - the scene was not in the film and I felt like a complete idiot.

I found Lord of the Rings - the movie - confusing. If I hadn't read the book first, I wouldn't have been able to understand the film.

Answer 7

Hi, I've written a book about the ghost of princess di which would be great in film because its easy to reconstruct her as a living talking person, know anyone who can knock up a dvd?

Answer 8

always wanted to read jaws. but i've never been able to find it in any new or second hand book shops...
i saw the film with my mum when it first came out. i must of been 12 and i remember the scene of the head falling out of the boat as if it was yesterday.. scary or what?

but no all the books i've read are better than the films

Answer 9

Field of Dreams is based on the book Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella. I have not read the book, but I bought it for my Dad and he read it and said it was no where near as good as the movie. (Field of Dreams is my favorite movie of all time by the way!)

Answer 10

Hideous Kinky (book by Esther Freud, movie starring Kate Winslet)

The book is very bare bones, while the movie adds ambience.
(It's not hideous or kinky. That's a word game the two children play.)