Movies that are better than the book

[I.D.10-t]

I have read few books, and some of them have been made into movies. One of the most split minded and preachy was Johnny got his gun. Don't ask me why I decided to watch it as a movie, but I thought the movie was more compelling and better than the book.

The movie was dated had many issues, but It accomplished what the book wanted to do and more.

Any other books not worth reading when there is a movie out?

[pipersgrip]

Ok, I might get shot down for this one, but I thought The Count of Monte Cristo was a better movie. I just felt that the book was way too eloquent and boring. The movie was pretty much all the good stuff.

[Hotblack]

I haven't yet read a book that wasn't better than the movie. And in many cases the movie is dire. There's so much more space for character and plot etc. in a book, which all gets lost in a film adaoptation. Having said that there have been some pretty good movies of the book. To Kill A Mockingbird and The Grapes of Wrath immediately spring to mind. There may be more but I'll have to think about it.

[MTGuru]

I've always thought that the ~2 hour time constraint of a typical movie corresponds to the narrative space of a short story or novella. Cinematic treatment of novels always requires butchery. But well-done butchery can sometimes stand on its own merit.

[Walden]

Cinematic treatment of novels always requires butchery. But well-done butchery can sometimes stand on its own merit.

They butcher that thing and chop it up and salt it and add some spice and stuff it in that 90-minute casing and it becomes a sausage!

[I.D.10-t]

I've always thought that the ~2 hour time constraint of a typical movie corresponds to the narrative space of a short story or novella. Cinematic treatment of novels always requires butchery. But well-done butchery can sometimes stand on its own merit.

What about TV? Do you find that "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" was done well by TV?

[mutepointe]

I don't even care if there was a book but this was one hell of one of the best movies of all time. Read about Brooke Shields or watch Brooke Shields, hmmmmm.....let me think.

[emmline]

Oh yes mute...that was SUCH a good movie. Such.

If they ever make a movie version of a book I wrote, it will be better than the book.
Slumdog Millionaire was a good movie, but it was not better than the book, Q & A.

[Wombat]

Since the demise of Classic Comics/Classics Illustrated it's been hard to find a book that's better than the movie.

[swizzlestick]

Only one movie come to mind: Slaughterhouse Five. The main character is supposed to be "unstuck" in time and experiencing his life in nonconsecutive order. The juxtaposition of scenes and the fades from one time to the next emphasize that experience. The movie has an element of surprise that the book never gave me. The book is not a favorite -- the movie is.

[HDSarah]

I agree with Hotblack: in my experience, books are better. I try to avoid movies made from books that I've already read and liked. I did see most of the Harry Potter movies, and those just reinforced my decision to avoid movies made from good books.

[dwest]

'68 version of War and Peace, even at eight hours it was easier to follow than the book.

[jileha]

The movie I've probably seen the most times in my life (although not for a long time now), is Ben Hur. I read the book after seeing the movie and can't really remember any particularities of the book and never felt the urge to read it again. The film definitely left a much longer lasting impression.

The age of the language/style used in the book might be a factor as well. Being written in 1880 by Lee Wallace (had to look that up, no immediate recollection of that name either), it might not have been that an exciting read.

Another of these old classics comes to mind: Barry Lyndon, written by William Makepeace Thackeray in mid-19th century, directed by Stanley Kubrick and some of the music composed and performed by the Chieftains - that alone should be enough to prefer the movie! Way back in high school, I did an extensive presentation on the use of the music as leitmotifs in that movie (for my English class! - the coolest teacher), maybe that's another reason why I'm biased towards the movie.

[chas]

Edit: I've come up with one that I feel strongly about: Elmer Gantry. I love Sinclair Lewis as much as the next guy. I think I only have about 2-3 books left to have read, or tried to read, his whole output (outside of essays and such). I've found a handful of his books, including Gantry, to be almost insufferable. I thought the movie was fantastic, great plot (same as the book), great acting, great music.

I've always thought that the ~2 hour time constraint of a typical movie corresponds to the narrative space of a short story or novella. Cinematic treatment of novels always requires butchery. But well-done butchery can sometimes stand on its own merit.

Another of these old classics comes to mind: Barry Lyndon, written by William Makepeace Thackeray in mid-19th century, directed by Stanley Kubrick and some of the music composed and performed by the Chieftains - that alone should be enough to prefer the movie!

Barry Lindon is a good example of a movie not within the 2-hour limit. I saw it when it first came out, and I think it tipped the scale at a bit over 4 hours with the intermission. In subsequent releases it was around 3 hours, I think. It suffered from the abridgment. Personally, I liked the original better than the book.

But, more than that, as has been pointed out, there are miniseries. There have been some not-half-bad treatments of Jane Austen, CS Forester, and others. I'd definitely not characterize any of those that I've seen as better than the book, but they didn't need to be abridged.

[s1m0n]

Whichever you found first.