In this post, we share a selection of films that the author of the post believed were better than the book.
This list was compiled with a vague sense of unease. I generally don’t believe any film is better than the book. However, sometimes there are books that aren’t that good to start with. At other times, magic happens and the film is as good as, or even better than, the original.
15 Films That Were Better Than, Or As Good As, The Book
These are 15 films that I believe were actually better than, or as good as, the book.
- Atonement by Ian McEwan
- Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote
- Fight Club by Chuck Palhniuk
- Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg
- Jaws by Peter Benchley
- Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
- No Country For Old Men by Cormac McCarthy
- One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
- The Cider House Rules by John Irving
- The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger
- The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje
- The Green Mile by Stephen King
- The Help by Kathryn Stockett
- The Princess Bride by William Goldman
- Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh
Please share films that you enjoyed more than, or as much as, the book below.
Top Tip: If you want to learn how to write a screenplay, sign up for our NEW online course: The Script.
0 thoughts on “15 Films That Were Better Than, Or As Good As, The Book”
I’d add The Godfather and the Firm.
I don’t know what to do with this. This isn’t really an article, but rather a list declaring a supposed truth. Why do you think the movie is better in these cases? What was added, left out, changed, developed further? Could you give us something to discuss?
Ah now, you left off one of the great classics, which the author himself acknowledged was better realized in film – Bladerunner.
It is not stating ‘a supposed truth’. The post clearly states ‘These are 15 films that I believe were actually better than, or as good as, the book.’ It is an opinion. You don’t have to do anything with it.
I totally disagree with you about three of these movies: Cuckoo’s Nest, No Country, and anything by Ondaatje, but especially The English Patient. And I agree with George Wells, what exactly do you mean by “better”? None of the movies, of my three mentioned books, has nearly the depth nor the interior motivation of the characters.
The movie *84 Charing Cross Road* was a beautifully woven story of a long friendship-by-letter that began during WW2 between an NYC writer and the owner & staff of an antiquarian bookshop in London; when I eventually ran across the book, I was surprised and dismayed to discover it is little more than a transcription of the letters.
My apologies. That came off more hostile than I intended. I need to let the coffee kick in before internetting.
I guess I’m just curious as to why you think that. Granted, there are only two titles here that I’ve read and seen the movie adaptation, and I already disagree. Cuckoo and Tomatoes are great books and movies, and I wouldn’t put one above the other.
What makes any one of these movies a better representation of the ideas than their source material?
Also, Fight Club.
I totally agree about The English Patient and Atonement. And I have to add Chocolat by Joanne Harris. (but Juliette Binoche is in two of those movies, so it might have something to do with her acting…)
Fight Club is another interesting case where the author thought the movie was better, Michael.
Thank you, George. It is just an opinion and a matter of taste. Everyone will think differently. Amanda says, ‘It’s not an in-depth article. These were simply films I enjoyed more than, or as much as, the book.’
Isn’t this a bit like saying vitamin C is healthier than D? Movies and books are intrinsically different media that appeal to different audiences at different stages; they serve different purposes, they provide different experiences. Hopefully, as well-rounded humans–and especially well-rounded artists–we can appreciate both for their unique pros and cons.
It’s my opinion you Don’t like books, as much as movies
You missed the biggest one – World War Z
I would add Out of Africa, and The River Runs Through It. Dinesen’s books are interesting, but the film turned them into pure magic. The characters in River Runs Through It didn’t come alive for me in the book — I think in both, the characterization was enhanced and enriched by tremendous acting.
I would add “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”
The Natural (Bernard Malamud) was much better on the screen. Of course, changing the ending helped.
“Stardust.” The novel by Neil Gaiman was grim and depressing, but the film adaptation adopted a tone of joy and hope. Is it objectively better? Unknown. But it is a vastly more enjoyable time, and I think that should count for something.
Time travelers wife!
Apples and oranges. It’s a different medium. They are all great books or they wouldn’t have inspired great films. “Better?” Irrelevant.
charlie and the chocolate factory
Catching Fire, anyone?
Pride and Prejudice (with Keira Knightley), The Lord of the Rings series, Harry Potter series (good enough that I enjoy them in their own right, anyway)
The Perks of Being a Wallflower – but then, the movie and script were made by the man who wrote it, so he got to improve on his own story! It was made for film.
I agree wholeheartedly regarding No Country For Old Men. I also agree with the other poster that you may have overlooked The Godfather.
I haven’t read most of these books, but I agree with your Jaws and The Green Mile selections. The one I always mention is The Godfather. I did not care for the book, but I love the movie.
I completely disagree that McCarthy s book “No Country for Old Men” is not as good as the film! His book is incredible. It has a deeper illustration of the decay in American culture and just God Damn beautifully written language. They both are every bit as good as each other! Please don’t miss out on reading it
I was very surprised at the number 15, that there were that many, because usually I think the books are so much better than the movies. I found myself in total agreement on “Jaws” and I would add “The Horse Whisperer.” The ending was rewritten into something uplifting, and while in principle I hate it when books get messed with I have to run with experiencing hope rather than profound sadness in this case.
M*A*S*H was the first one that came to my mind. The book was entirely episodic and less than stellar writing, but the premise inspired not only an excellent movie, but an iconic series.
I would say “The Shawshank Redemption.” The movie incorporated a load of poetic justice that was not included in King’s novella. This detail made me like the movie far more than the book.
I have The Woman in Black by Susan Hill and James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans on my the-movie-was-better-than-the-book list.
“Green Fried Tomatoes” was a beautiful movie – but the book was still better in many ways – and the movie did not dare to examine quite a few aspects of the book.
I don’t really read the book and then watch the movie, but did with the Green mile, and there is defenatly a very important part of the story that was not that clearly reflected in the movie.
The Help?? SERIOUSLY??? I couldn’t put the book down. The movie was a sappy, crappy, Hollywood-washed atrocity. Even if I hadn’t read the book, I would have hated that movie. What they did with the nanny’s story and how they changed Skeeter’s mother was shameful.
Anyway, to add to the list: Rebecca and The Notebook.
84 Charing Cross Road!! If anyone was at all disappointed reading the book after seeing the movie, try the follow-up book, Duchess of Bloomsbury Street. Love Helene Hanff’s wit.
Forrest Gump
Forrest Gump the movie was superior to the book. I felt it had more depth.
Showing my age here. Eye of the Needle was a much better movie than book. Of course, Donald Sutherland can make nearly anything better.
Bridges Of Madison County. Removing all the “I am the last cowboy”/new agey clap trap and just focusing on the simple story of the two main characters made the movie infinitely superior. EXCEPT for the egregiously bad “modern day” bookend scenes…
which Little Women film are you talking about… certainly not the Winona Ryder version?
Personally, I found The Help to be a good film, but the book just outshone it for so many reasons. Other than that, this is a fairly accurate assessment.
I would add Practical Magic to the list– as much as I love Alice Hoffman, the movie version is just more cohesive and has a charm that the book did not. And– Aiden Quinn.
I disagree about The Help, although it the movie was very enjoyable. And seriously, someone added Little Women???
I have always thought The Joy Luck Club was an wonderful but very different translation of an wonderful book. In other words, movie and book are very different, but in my opinion equally good.
Films simply do not have enough time to capture the dimensions one finds in good novels. However, I felt A Clockwork Orange was true to Tony Burgess’s novel. The 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice captured the air du temps and character quirks of Jane Austen’s novel thanks to Keira Knightly’s nose wriggles and Dame Judi Dench’s imperious bearing.
I’d add Ella Enchanted to the list, but that may just be my love of Anne Hathaway talking. Either way, rather than saying the book or movie was “better” (since we are talking two completely different mediums here), I prefer to say “I liked the movie as a movie better than I liked the book as a book.” Or vice-versa.
I enjoyed both the movie and book for most of those, which I think speaks to how well the movies were made since all of the books are wonderful. My only movie over book preference is “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” I’m still trying to figure out how that book got published with 100 pages of blah, blah, blah before the story started!
The Hunt for Red October way better than the book, Death Train the movie was so much better than the book
Have to agree with Godfather, Forrest Gump and A River Runs Through It. Also, This Boy’s Life.
I also liked Practical Magic and Ella Enchanted as movies. I felt that the form of a movie told their stories in a more enjoyable way than the books did, for me. I would also add Matilda.
Notebook..
Under the Tuscan Sun. Actually, I liked the movie and the book. They are just so completely different that they don’t seem to come from the same place.
Lord of the Rings… All 3 movies.
Practical magic and Interview with a Vampire. Also the Color Purple
I was glad someone mentioned Matilda; I feel the same way about that! I felt the book and movie were almost equal, but I enjoyed some aspects of the movie a lot more.
I consider the Harry Potter books and movies as equal for the most part, although I will always hold the books higher.
I thought The Hunger Games was way better than the book.I watched the movie first, and got excited to read the series, but they let me down. The author kept breaking the tension.
THE HUNGER GAMES
AND CATCHING FIRE WERE AS GREAT AS THE BOOKS
Captains Courageous (with Spencer Tracy) was an outstanding movie. The book upon which it was based was so dry, I could not choke it down.
A Good Year starring Russell Crowe based on the book by Peter Mayle.
The Reader
The Secret of NIMH to the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. To be certain, it is the norm I prefer books over their movie counterparts. NIMN, however, took such a different tact with the movie that it went from enjoyable (as was the book) to delightful.
The film adaptation of V for Vendetta prospered by focusing on just one of the graphic novel’s several abstract concepts (taking away power from the government) and using that tighter focus to show how this concept can apply to people on an intimate level, which made me care a lot more about the movie’s one idea than the book’s dozen. Plus, the main character’s hyper-theatrical and poetic, talking in rhyme and quoting Shakespeare – of course that’s gonna be *fantastic* when spoken out loud.
Though arguably not a masterpiece, either literary or cinematic, one that comes to mind is Planet of the Apes. Written by French novelist (in French) Pierre Bolles, the 1963 novel went on to become the basis for the critically acclaimed 1968 film of the same title, which was followed by several sequels.
I misspelled the author’s name for Planet of the Apes, above. It should be Pierre Boulle.