Don’t forget “Being There” with Peter Sellars and Shirley Maclaine. Good book, amazing film.

HAHAAAA Oh man Michael Connelly is basically one of the worst writers in the game.

Notably absent: Under the Tuscan Sun.

book version of High Fidelity is better b/c it has 100% more mentions of the Cowboy Junkies

Fight Club — While the book was great the movie was classic.

“Fight Club” the movie is better than “Fight Club” the book.

“The Devil’s Advocate”. Hackford’s movie rocks, Neiderman’s book sucks.

Trainspotting movie better than Trainspotting book. (Also small correction — 2001 the film isn’t based on 2001 the book. The film was developed alongside the book, simultaneously.)

Fight club, fight club, fight club!

fried green tomatoes

Bridges of Madison County. Schlock that was given depth by a decent script, Clint Eastwood’s tight direction, and Meryl Streep’s stellar performance.

I think in the case of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the book is way superior. Since the movie puts so much less emphasis on the Chief, the ending hardly makes any sense.

Die Hard was based on the 1979 novel by Roderick Thorp titled Nothing Lasts Forever, and kicked it’s ass.

Yippee kai yay, motherfuckers!

You should have broadened your list to include some non-American films, such as Luis Buñuel’s Belle de Jour (starring Cathering Deneuve), an immortal picture based on a long forgotten novel by Joseph Kessel.

The two that came to mind for me were already mentioned: Fight Club & The Bridges of Madison County. Damn, but reading the Bridges of Madison County sucked.

WINTER’S BONE — great movie,from a book that was obviously written with hopes of being made into a movie; the director took out all the gratuitous crap and put together a fine film.

Forrest Gump! Terrible book…wonderful movie!

Witches of Eastwick–took a ho-hum Christian devil story and turned into Dionysian Mysteries! (but then I’m a sucker for Nicholson)

Another vote for Bridges of Madison County. Painfully cliched and trite as a book, greatly elevated by Meryl Streep & Clint Eastwood in the film version.

Field of Dreams. The book, Shoeless Joe, is only so-so. The movie is wonderful. Everything the author had hoped his books was, the movie became.

I would add Wonder Boys and The Paper Chase.

The Silence of the Lambs gets my vote–a bloated book with many go-nowhere plot lines and loads of nonsensical character development, boiled down by Jonathan Demme into a lean, cinematic study of the human capacity for depravity. Plus a strong, believable female lead and perhaps the most unforgettable antihero of all time. You will let me know when those lambs stop screaming, won’t you?

Definitely add The daVinci Code. Dan Brown is a pretty mediocre writer, but when I was reading the book, I thought, “This would make a great movie.”

To Have and Have Not is one of Howard Hawks’s greatest movies and is generally considered Hemingway’s worst novel.

The book One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is way better than the movie.

The Shawshank Redemption. Decent book, amazingly perfect film.

Perhaps The Green Mile, too.

Agree with aa on “one Few…” The movie is good but Forman simply made a vehicle for Nicholson losing nearly all that Kesey had to say in his novel.

Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. The movie was much more taut and streamlined (and less annoying) than the book.

Rosemary’s Baby

What about Contact?–a pretty draggy book but visually exciting movie with Jodie Foster.

Bridget Jones’s Diary should totally be on this list. Totally.

The Godfather is perhaps the best of all examples, but Failsafe, Blade Runner, and 2001 A Space Odyssey are right up there.

“Where Eagles Dare”

Witness for the Prosecution. Adequate Agatha Christie potboiler/terrific Billy Wilder movie. The point of the source material is, like most Christie, a puzzle to be surprised by. The movie makes you care about the characters. Great cast– Marlene Dietrich in particular, but also Charles Laughton– and his wife, Elsa Lanchester, in a very nice character turn.

I agree with everyone saying Fight Club is a better movie than book. Put that on the list and take One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest off. Did you even read the book? It’s heartbreaking, visionary and simply amazing. The movie is decent, but it pales in comparison.

Three Days of The Condor. The book (Six Days of the Condor) was unreadable.

I agree with the commenter about – Silence of the Lambs. The book was ok but the film was incredible!

UCCF: Wonder Boys is always the first one to spring to mind when this topic comes up. Decent book, but the movie is so so good.

Another vote for Three Days of The Condor. Saw the movie when it opened and then tried to read the book – I think I got stuck on page 70. Granted, I was 11…

I guess this article didn’t talk about Fight Club because of the first and second rules. Otherwise this listing makes no sense.

Haven’t read the book, but I just rewatched “The Three Days of the Condor,” and it was pretty hard to sit through, too. Maybe it’s best to just call the book and movie a draw.

Glad to see Terry Southern getting credit. Since I’m a fan of his complete weirdness, I have to add the movie version of “The Magic Christian” to this list. The book was a sort of one-joke novela. The movie was a Peter Sellers/Ringo Starr beautiful explosion of vulgarity with tons of guest stars doing embarrassing things. Yul Brynner in drag lip-syncing “Mad About the Boy”? Yes!!

Even author Chuck Palahniuk himself admitted the movie was better than his book on a DVD commentary track of Fight Club.

Yeah, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was definitely resounded more deeply as a book for me. The movie was good, but lacked the amount of layers in the book.

Just saw An Education last night and would definitely add it to this list. I read the book recently and while it’s funny and well-written, it doesn’t explore the concept nearly half as much as the movie did. A great film and a great book – though I will stand up and say, the film is better.

This list is severely lacking American Psycho. And of course, Fight Club.

Children Of Men

Another vote for “Under the Tuscan Sun.” Great movie, dreadful book. But I disagree on “The DaVinci Code”–loved the book and disliked the movie. It lost all the details of the book. They did a better job on “Angels & Demons.”

Bridges on Madison County: unreadable book, unforgettable film.

Agree with Beth, “To Have and To Have Not” is one of my faves, but watch out, Key Largo sucks!!! (another Bogart/Bacall movie)

Add Legally Blonde to that list. It was based on an unpublished novel that was so bad they didn’t bother to publish it after the movie was released (I read a self-published version). It did finally appear in 2003.

“… Eyes Wide Shut, and even A Clockwork Orange” ? I would have put Eyes Wide Shut as the “and even” there, given that it’s probably the single worst film in the entire Kubrick oeuvre. Clockwork Orange, meanwhile, is one of the masterpieces of 70′s cinema.

The Natural. If you love the movie, DON’T read the book!

About the only thing the film “Under the Tuscan Sun” shared with the book was the title. And the book was much, much better!

American Psycho

The Player. In the book, all the Hollywood types were fictionalized. In Robert Altman’s hands we get celebrity cameos galore. Just the opening scene with Buck Henry pitching a story of “The Graduate II” makes this a superior movie.

Glanced through the comments and didn’t see my favorite, “Cool Hand Luke”. An OK book, but the movie connects and expands the story in a much more cohesive and rewarding way. Several of the best parts are found in the movie only. Extra credibility for the fact that the screenplay was adapted by the book’s author, Donn Pearce.

I’d vote for Dune – the book is really dry and Lynch just takes it to another level

The Black Stallion. A good kid’s book turned into a near-flawless adult motion picture.

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest and Clockwork Orange? Have you READ those books?
I don’t agree, at all.
The movie doesn’t even make sense if you’ve read One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, its missing too much critical info.
And Clockwork Orange is much darker and more fucked up in the book.

Even though you haven’t actually included it, you’ve GOT to be kidding about Apt Pupil deserving to make it! The movie COMPLETELY whitewashed everything that made the novella so chilling and powerful – ESPECIALLY with its copout ending. Pretty much the ONLY thing it got right was casting Ian McKellan as Dussander.

Fight Club works better as a movie, more meta (book still great, though). American Psycho is a great movie made from an awful book. The Warriors is also a pretty awful book. Also didn’t like reading The Road much – If this deserves a Pulitzer Prize then they should give one to Stephen King post-haste. Huge John D. MacDonald fan, but DeNiro make Scorcese’s Cape Fear is probably better than the source material, the Executioners. I’m sure I won’t be able to say the same about Leo DiCaprio as Travis McGee.

How about Gone with the Wind?

Forest Gump should be on this list! The book was nowhere near as good as the movie. I am not sure I agree with High Fidelity either. Both the book and movie were good!

Kesey’s Coockoo Nest is far better than the movie. I agree with others, Chief’s role was not given the nuance it deserved. Read the M.A.S.H. book in a speed reading course, mediocre at best.The movie version was terrific. Puzo’s novel was a “can’t put down, page-turner.” Both movie and book are wonderful.

Wildly disagree with High Fidelity. It was a pretty decent movie, but missed the heart of the book, and a lot of the humor, I felt.

I’d have to say The Notebook (movie) was better than the book. The end of the movie is so much more touching, and it seems to have gone into the characters a bit more than the book did.

[...] – Flavorwire dares to list 10 movies they think were better than the books [...]

And Ahren swoops in for the win with Children of Men! Easily one of my top picks of the decade. Read the book after, and while certainly interesting, doesn’t come close to the film’s gutwrenching immediacy, Clive Owen’s bravura performance, and the poetically bittersweet ending. Now I want to go watch it again!

i highly disagree with “high fidelity”
but movies that were better than the book:
fight club
the reader
little children

“the English patient”. And “Bridges of Madison county” boooring books!

Missing from the list: Interview with the Vampire. The movie took out all (trans: pages and pages) the boring, unnecessary fluff. Eg – a 20 page description of him wandering around New Orleans just checking things out, occasionally killing somebody, neither developing the plot nor the character.

I also disagree with One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest. LOVED that book!! However, I also think the movie was great movie and a good adaptation.

I’d much rather watch Gregory Peck in Moby Dick than read that wildly over-rated and grossly padded classic. Same for David Lean’s version of Great Expectations: better than the bloated Dickens (with one of the best starts ever). Also Truffaut’s Farenheit 451 is better than Bradbury’s.

Best calls so far: all the Stephen King stuff, Children of Men, Fight Club, Belle de Jour (we are erudite tonight)!

High fidelity shouldn’t be on this list. The book is one of Horby’s best, the movie is very nice but not memorable and the shift to US doesn’t make it gain anything.

The Girl with the Pearl Earring — movie much better than the book

And John Grisham book would be better as a movie — they were written that way on purpose – to sell books that become movies

Slumdog Millionaire gets my vote. The book (called Q&A) is good but the storyline is less cohesive than the movie’s and I felt the movie’s minor plot changes really brought it together and wrapped it up at the end more successfully.

There are loads. For example….

Let’s start with THE WIZARD OF OZ. The Frank Baum books are OK, but if it weren’t for the 1939 movie, I really think they’d be seen today as century-old curiosities. Still read, yes, but curiosities still.

POLLYANNA. The characters in Eleanor Porter’s novel tend to be rather flat, one-dimensional, especially Polly Harrington. Not to take anything away from Hayley Mills, but the movie’s an ensemble cast, with special credit due to Karl Malden as Rev. Ford and, above all others, to Jane Wyman, who added enormous depth to the character of Aunt Polly.

For another Hayley Mills movie, the absolutely hilarious THE TROUBLE WITH ANGELS definitely outshines the quite funny novel, Life with Mother Superior, by Jane Trahey.

And don’t forget a couple novels by Roy Chanslor. Ever hear of him? But I hope you’ve heard of the movies CAT BALLOU and JOHNNY GUITAR.

And for a couple very fine and perhaps even great novels that I think are outshined by their adaptations, Muriel Spark’s THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE (Maggie Smith’s first Oscar, and it’s an absolute disgrace Pam Franklin wasn’t even nominated for Best Supporting Actress) and Jeanette Winterson’s ORANGES ARE NOT THE ONLY FRUIT, the latter of which was adapted to a miniseries with the screenplay authored by Winterson herself (three 50-minute episodes, so the whole is watchable in one slightly prolonged sitting).

What timing. I was just talking today about this very topic in my Lit & Film classes today and mentioned The Godfather & The Princess Bride. I’d also add The World According to Garp. It’s far less smarmy on film.

How about the Committments? The book is fun, but only 141 pages. The movie fleshes out the characters more and hearing the accents makes it even funnier.

[...] Find out which ten movies made their list. [...]

[...] 10 Movies That Were Better Than the Books [flavorwire.] [...]

Thank goodness someone FINALLY mentioned “The Wizard of Oz.” But I can’t believe “Mary Poppins” hasn’t come up yet.

I would add the Millennium trilogy by Stig Larson, I enjoyed better the Swedish movies than the books.

I also agree with Steve about Moby Dick

I think the television adaptation of “Anne of Green Gables” is superior to the book. Collen Dewhurst and Megan Follows were fantastic as Marilla and Anne. Tremendous production as well. Does it matter that it was on PBS and not the big screen?

dare I mention, A Christmas Carol, the Alistair Sim version?

anything written by Brett Easton Ellis makes a better film than the actual books

Yes, Silence of the Lambs!

The African Queen. Unreadable drivel – great movie.

LA Confidential – tight film, rambling and unnecessarily convoluted in book form.

What about The Bourne Identity?

You left out the most famous example of “Movie better than the Book”
Gone With The Wind

Field of Dreams. Its source was shoeless joe, but according to my mother was completely unrecognizable where the main character had a twin brother and she couldn’t finish it, it was so bad.

I agree with those who have cited “Silence of The Lambs.” An incredible movie but the book was not very well written, shoot the author completely missed using the metaphor of the lamb killing in the book. Thank God, the screenwriter knew what he was doing.

The other I would add, and I’ll probably get flack for this, is Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. Just the fact that Jackson decided not to split the story up like Tolkein did in the last two books alone should have earned it a spot on this Top Ten list. Also Jackson wisely adds scenes that are either found in other Tolkein writings or are just hinted at. Plus let’s face it, Jackson turned a sprawling three novels with dense back history into something comprehensible. No small feat!

Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, Sum of All Fears. But these are all admittedly very easy targets. Clancy is an abhorrant writer with atrocious grammar and exceptionally poor sense of character.

3Days of the Condor

The English Patient was a good book but at times so opaque only a grad student could love it. Also, The Bible. The book can be inspiring yet terribly tedious–needed a good editor. The scene in the movie of the animals walking to the ark was wonderful.

Kesey’s Cuckoo was much better. I think it’s a testament to the quality of the book that an incomplete and lacking adaptation won an Oscar.

I disagree with some of the commenters however. LOTR movies better than the books? The books are an absolute work of genius that required so much planning and effort it’s staggering. To me, those works are untouchable. Classic story of good vs evil told in a startlingly original manner.

I also disagree with those saying Wonder Boys, but this may be due to my love for Michael Chabon’s writing. I felt the movie was a little lazy, though they did a pretty good job bringing Chabon’s incredibly dense and witty style to the screen.

And to the guy who said Fahrenheit 451…seriously?!

Other film adaptations better than the original books: Fletch, Cujo, Rising Sun, Out of Sight, Hannibal, Critical Care, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (the original 1974 movie, not the insipid remake).

The Prestige with Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. Even book writer Christopher Priest admitted the movie was better, and he watched it twice at theaters!

Both The Natural and Forrest Gump were MUCH better as movies. Disagree about The Godfather, Princess Bride, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Though they were all great movies, the books were good too.

Gone with the Wind, absolutely.

What about Goodfellas? Wiseguys was good but a much better movie came from it. Payback was also better than The Hunter.

I take exception with the inclusion of Cuckoo’s Nest on this list. I believe that if someone first read the book and then saw the movie as I did they would favor the book, while enjoying both mediums. Nicholson’s performance was fine, but he in no way physically resembled McMurphy. McMurphy’s size was an important quality to his character and his threat to Nurse Ratched and her orderlies.

I definitely agree with The Firm. The book was just incomprehensibly awful, but the movie tightened it up and made it more palatable, if fluffy.

I’d add “The Mouse that Roared.” It was a moderately funny book, but hilarious movie. Good call with “Princess Bride” and “Stand By Me”/The Body. Both were excellent books but far superior movies. Also, I liked the addition of “The World According to Garp.” Great book, but made me squirm in places; the movie was much more enjoyable.

Coppola’s film is in fact great and nearly seamless—the first sequel is good but merely authentic, and the second sequel did not happen—but still one must note its lack the book’s fifty or so pages (or so it seems in retrospect) devoted to the details of pelvic floor resectioning.

And it completely cut out Tom Bombadil, too.

the wizard of oz; no ruby slippers in the book. she actually goes back inside the house and packs a bag before following the yellow brick road.

I fell in love with the movie “The Unbearable Lightness of Being,” which I happened to stumble across on TV one day. I didn’t read the classic until I’d seen the movie twice, so perhaps that is why the novel was a disappointment to me. Perhaps most of the literary world would disagree with me, but the movie grabbed my heart too soon.

Don’t forget Stephen King’s Misery.

Freaky Friday any version. But mostly Jodi fosters

“The Shawshank Redemption” was better than “Stand By Me”…both very good films, though. I agree with the “Lord of the Rings” take here…Jackson condensed time and paced the movie wisely instead of sprawling it into an epic that took years to accomplish in the book…also, I did not need exhausting lectures on various Tolkien languages or need to hear various songs and poems elaborated on in the books. I loved “Ghost World” on film more than I loved it in a graphic novel.

I second any movie made from a Brett Easton Ellis novel. I hate his books but love the movies based off them.

“The English Patient”
“The Poseidon Adventure” (1972 original)
“To Live and Die in L.A.”

The movies I always think of when the subject of Movies Better Than Books comes up.

The Exorcist

I enjoyed Atonement more as a film than a book (I read the book first). The Dunkirk part in the middle just seemed to drag on to me, in the film it was what it needed to be. I also though not changing the ending, but how it was displayed, from the party to the interview, was very clever and more effective.

The Bible, directed by John Huston, which covered only the first 22 chapters, is entertaining enough…the book version meanders, has multiple, rambling plots and far too many characters to keep track of…

Sorry to the posters here –Wizard of Oz the book is better than the movie.

We Were Soldiers. Amazing film, but the read is very dry and academic.

Wizard of Oz the book goes on for entirely long and doesn’t know when to give it a rest. I actually hate the movie (I know, I know) but it is more cohesive and much better than the book.

Why not paginate your comments, vs paginating your article? I never realized how annoying it was until another commenter said something about it.

I absolutely DISAGREE about One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. I have never been so disappointed in a movie. That book was phenomenal. The movie missed key tensions and characteristics. It may have been a fine film if I’d never read the book.

[...] Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. by Jason Bailey (Flavorwire)The Princess Bride (1987)One of several slight disappointments at the box office last week was The [...]

[...] chief problem with Jason Bailey’s “10 Movies That Were Better Than the Book,” aside from his patchy literary and cinematic taste, is that he never defines his aesthetic [...]

Re: Under the Tuscan Sun, GAWD NO. The book is great fun; the movie was one big fat cliche.

Deliverance: I think the movie AND the book are equally good, which is a rarity.

Got to add this again about Wizard of Oz–the book is better than the movie. The storyline and plot of the movie make no sense! Won’t Miss Gulch just come back and get the dog? Why would Glinda send Dorothy on her journey because “she wouldn’t have believed me”? What does “if I ever go looking for my heart’s desire I won’t look any further that my own backyard, because if it isn’t there I never lost it to begin with….” mean? None of this nonsense is in the book.

The Day of the Locust by Nathaniel West!! great film!

Hahahah. I give a wholehearted vote against the inclusion of “Dune.” Aside from the fact that the movie is only really enjoyable to people who read the book, the movie misses out on lots of stuff there and, IMHO, adds nothing.

No one has mentioned “Sideways”. I think that the (very inferior) novel which the film was based on only got published because of the success of the movie.

I’ve read all of Michael Connelly’s books and of them all The Lincoln Lawyer is the least. Connelly is, contrary to what one wanker above said, one of the best crime beat writers working because he began as a crime beat reporter. His work is top notch, the Bosch novels in particular. The Lincoln Lawyer, Bosch’s half-brother, was an attempt to broaden the scope of his work and it failed, in my opinion.

My vote’s for “Girl Interrupted.” The movie was so good and I was so disappointed by the book.

‘Chocolat’- the film version of Harris’ book condenses the characters and creates a tighter setting for good and evil. Depp also manages to make the gypsy character more endearing than his literary counterparte.

The Right Stuff, which is one of the great neglected American classics. Even better than the Tom Wolfe book, and that is really saying something, because the book is excellent.

Terms of Endearment…much better than the (boring) book.

Not an intellectual gem by any means, but “The Devil Wears Prada” as a book sucked! With a major re-write and sublime casting of Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci, BRILLIANT and, as a result, lost the chick lit schmaltz to boot!

[...] I love seeing movies that were first a book. And then reading the book. Or visa a versa. Here are 10 Movies That Were Better Than the Book. [...]

Disagree about High Fidelity. I thought the book was much better.

Really??? Nobody is going to say the obvious? Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies were FAR, FAR superior to the books. The editing out of characters and scenes that went nowhere (Tom Bombadil, anyone?) as well as the restructuring of the story lines to run more concurrently, as opposed to how Tolkien serialized major sections of the books, made for a vastly more enjoyable experience.

I know a lot of people feel the books are perfect, but I think the movies proved that to be wrong.

I disagree with Princess Bride. I love the book as much as I love the movie, and both are infinitely quotable.

As for ones that should be on this list, Gettysburg is near the top of my list. Decent book, but great film. Also, I hate anything Twilight, but I prefer the movies simply because they do not require me to reside within the mind of an incredibly whiny teenage girl.

And I must vehemently disagree with Lord of the Rings and Atonement. While I very much enjoy and love the LOTR films, there were so many times that information was left out that I found it choppier and a little harder to follow than the books. Yes, the books are incredibly dense, but that is due to the incredible thought and amount of detail included and they are wonderful.

The film and book versions of Atonement are incredibly close and I adore them both. I think the film was well-written and incredibly well-cast. However, Ian McEwan’s book is one of the most beautifully written stories of more recent times I have come across in years. I do not often read general fiction targeted at adults that has been written in recent years because the writing is atrocious, the characters are flat, and the writer is trying so hard to be different and introspective that the story ends up being a jaded and trying read. Atonement, while starting out somewhat slowly, is none of those things. The book is great for all the same reasons the movie is great with the added bonus of Ian McEwan’s beautiful prose. In my opinion, they are about equal.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas!

What a daunting task to make a film adaptation that even came close to being as great as the book — but it totally delivered and then some.

[...] would add To Have and Have Not, but then this list seems to be focused on more modern films that a wider audience may have seen. (Hat tip: Thirty [...]

[...] (as we’ve noted) the notion that “the book is always better than the movie” doesn’t always hold water, [...]

I’m suprised they didn’t mention McConaughey’s original turn at playing a lawyer in a move that outshone the book: A Time To Kill.

I have to disagree with a couple of comments though: “Little Children” was better as a book, and that’s coming from someone who absolutely loves Kate Winslet. And while the Anne of Green Gables PBS movies were impeccably cast (I’ll always envision Matthew Cuthbert looking like that), the books both capture and utilize imagination – the very crux of Anne – in a way no movie ever could.

“No Country for Old Men.” The book is this kind of bland documentation that never really feels like it takes off anywhere, including during the bouts of explosive violence. (I wouldn’t go as far to call them action scenes.) The adaptation placed and visualized this, added a wide scope and scenery, and Chigurh comes to life far better when there’s an actor moving him than through words. (Probably because he’s flat and so the facial features Bardem gives him help make him even more terrifying. LIkewise, Josh Brolin and Llewelyn Moss.)

The book of the princess bride is way better than the movie- and I love the movie. I think that’s the number one BIG MISS on this list.

It is rare indeed that a movie is better than the novel that inspired it but I would have to add “The Horse Whisperer” to this list. The book had such a dark, unsatisfying end while the movie was able to capture the intensity of the novel, while providing breathtaking cinematography and a decent ending that did not end in tragedy.

Forrest gump should be at least in the top 5. The movie has him in his innocent character role which we’ve grown to love and if you read the book he gets hooked on drugs and cheats on jenny.

Cape Fear belongs on this list. The book was far too ready to wander off into pointless digressions.

I would also add Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The book is almost unreadable.

princess bride book is much better than movie

[...] Ten movies that were better than the book. [...]

Sorry, nerds . . . Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[...] a few rare exceptions, most people tend to agree that the book version of a story is always better than the movie. But [...]

Last of the Mohicans. Awesome film, boooooring book.

Every film that was ever based on a book is better than the book, with only a few exceptions.

Daniel, go watch some of the less good adaptations of stephen king’s work

i think that stephen kings it is way better in the movie than the book.