50 Movies That Were Better Than The Books

Surpassing the original...

50

Comments

    • zackfry

      Nov 19th 2013, 9:10

      I have to disagree with drive being on the list. Personally, although the film was great, its adaptation was dreadful, and including 'playing up the relationship between Driver and Irene' they changed the characteristics of every character in it. Agree with most of the others, though (especially Order of the Phoenix)

      Alert a moderator

    • BobbyTwoTimes

      Nov 19th 2013, 10:06

      Great article, except all this has done has highlight 50 books that i will now never read because they're cr4p! p.s. Drive was sh!t! p.p.s. I love Sons Of Anarchy but that video on the left is giving me a fu£kin brain haemorrhage when trying to read through these articles.

      Alert a moderator

    • dangoodfellow

      Nov 19th 2013, 10:35

      re LOTR "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," -Christopher Tolkien. Couldn't have said it better. I love Jacksons visual style, but i've come to realise that he's an average at best , unoriginal writer and it was a huge mistake to keep the script writing inhouse.You're wrong about this TF, just plain wrong.

      Alert a moderator

    • 2Dglasses

      Nov 19th 2013, 11:12

      No one else gonna point out that Die Hard wasnt made in 1998, and that picture is from 1995s Die Hard with a Vengeance?

      Alert a moderator

    • Mck123

      Nov 19th 2013, 11:52

      The Shining? I can't see it on this list and Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece took a bit of a pulp novel and made it one of the greatest horror films of all time.

      Alert a moderator

    • RaveyDaveyGravy

      Nov 19th 2013, 12:58

      I'd go much further on LOTR. I realise some might crucify me for this, but having read the books, the films are SO much better. I HATED the books. They are far too long, far too detailed and sin of sins REALLY boring. I mean, stop with all the bloody singing!! I can honestly say I have not read a worse set of books. Such a chore. If I'd not been given them as a present I would have not got further than Tom Bombadill. Yawn. What Jackson did, for me, was strip so much chaff and get to the heart of the characters and give us an amazing set of stories, brilliant written and with a drive and momentum that the books simply never had. And they say you cant polish a turd. Peter Jackson polished 3.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheMaguffin

      Nov 19th 2013, 13:49

      Silence of the Lambs 1974??? 1989, I think you'll find. And Stephen King disliked Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining so much he actually remade it himself, so one could hardly include it on a list of adaptations of which King approved. Please get your facts straight.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheMaguffin

      Nov 19th 2013, 13:50

      Silence of the Lambs was 1991, I beg your pardon.

      Alert a moderator

    • gquinn81

      Nov 19th 2013, 14:08

      Still haven't got around to watching The Mist, need to sort that. I would say The Green Mile was better than the book, Carrie as well. I also disagree with No Country For Old Men. Great film but the book was better. P.S Drive was ace!

      Alert a moderator

    • Edwise

      Nov 19th 2013, 16:14

      Nice to see The Painted Veil at #3, one of the most underappreciated films of the last decade. Had to call to make a special arrangement with my local art-house cinema to see it since they were playing it upstairs on their one screen not accessible to my wheelchair. They brought it downstairs for me. Well worth the trouble. Sadly, the theater closed a few years ago and I have my doubts that it will ever reopen.

      Alert a moderator

    • bethanyann

      Nov 19th 2013, 16:35

      I would have thought with the mist at No.1 you would have added The Shawshank Redemption or even The Green Mile in there?

      Alert a moderator

    • Mck123

      Nov 19th 2013, 16:43

      Mr MacGuffin - Getting the facts straight - You are right Stephen King did dislike Kubrick's The Shining (for reasons mostly related to the portrayal of Jack Torrance and also the use of sound stages). However King was wrong and this list is not about whether the author liked it but rather the general film going public. Have a look at King's "approved" films and TV series and you have a massive list of stinkers (Bag of bones, IT, The Stand, Room 237, Dreamcatcher.. the list goes on). The Shining is textbook example of a film better than the novel it is based on and I just double checked it is not on this list which is an oversight.

      Alert a moderator

    • nathanielvsyou

      Nov 19th 2013, 18:37

      Big Fish didn't make it? Really?

      Alert a moderator

    • johnlyle

      Nov 19th 2013, 20:23

      I generally agree with the list as a whole, would deff change the order of a few (Mocking Bird would be no1) but I do have to wonder why 'Hanniball' isnt on the list. a very much anticiapted book that wasnt well recieved by very many people. But the film adapt was amazing, a slight tweek here and there and you had an (almost) worthy sequel.

      Alert a moderator

    • jukeboxjunkie

      Nov 19th 2013, 21:06

      I'm sorry but I'm not buying To Kill A Mockingbird or Girl With The Dragon Tattoo being on that list. The books were far superior. The novel of Fight Club is just as good as the film adaptation with a much better ending..why Hollywood felt the need to change it for that crappy explosions ending is anyone's guess.

      Alert a moderator

    • rolfhawkins

      Nov 19th 2013, 22:20

      I have a feeling you didn't read The Lord of the Rings. JUST HEAR ME OUT. The film adaptations were, essentially, lies. If you followed Peter Jackson and WETA's online posts prior to completion of the first film in the trilogy, he specifically stated again and again how their adaptations simply were not working and that they were returning to the actual written novel for their script. In the end, this clearly never really took place. Without exception, most of the major characters that appeared in the films were turned nearly or entirely 180 degrees from their novel versions. Aragorn was weak and indecisive. Gimli was a crybaby. Theoden was weak and cowardly and self absorbed. Treebeard was jaw-droppingly selfish and slower than molasses running uphill, and, frankly, astonishingly stupid. Faramir was a wretched villain. A VILLAIN?!? FARAMIR??? Where the hell did THAT come from??? Even lines of dialogue were swapped between characters in several key scenes which made absolutely no sense. And characters that didn't exist were included for no reason at all. I could go on and on about individual scenes---like all the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep (WTF???)---and what happened in them that were completely contrary to the original story and reason, but I won't because I'd get grumpy. No, the LOTR films are really and truly awful. The Hobbit films are even worse.

      Alert a moderator

    • StevePotter

      Nov 20th 2013, 3:09

      Really lost me with Les Mis. Anything that was good in the movie was entirely because of the much better stage version it's based on, and has nothing to do with Tom Hooper's clumsy direction or idiotic ideas (of which there are many!) The fact that the movie is watchable is entirely due to the MOSTLY talented cast and the fact that the script and songs are solid. ALSO, if you're trying to convince us that Les Mis is a good movie, you probably shouldn't use a picture of Russell Crowe, aka the WORST part of the whole damn film.

      Alert a moderator

    • RaveyDaveyGravy

      Nov 20th 2013, 9:48

      rolfhawkins - really, you need to get outside more, seriously mate. Let it go.

      Alert a moderator

    • Porus

      Nov 20th 2013, 10:37

      May I add the new TV series (yes I know it's not a film!!) Dracula to this list. The novel is quite average, however this new adaptation with its various subplots is thus far superior to the novel. (Ofcourse Coppolla's version should have got a mention too.)

      Alert a moderator

    • Andee

      Nov 20th 2013, 13:33

      Oh TF, I'd expect the average Joe to flagrantly mis-quote Jaws, but you not you (unless your quote was intentionally quoting a mis-quote...)

      Alert a moderator

    • apo1978

      Nov 20th 2013, 13:42

      I'm with RaveyDaveyGravy. The LOTR films improved on the books in my opinion (and I loved the books). @rolfhawkins, how did you conclude Faramir was portrayed as a villain? Did you even watch the films? It heightened the ring's power that even he could be corrupt, but he chose not to and let Frodo go. In the books he was too much of a goody-two-shoes.

      Alert a moderator

    • Seedorf

      Nov 20th 2013, 15:06

      I love LotR in book and film form, but the books are far better in my opinion. Jackson made changes that weren't so good, but as they are films and have to appeal to a wider audience than just people who read the book/s, those changes had to be made. Books and films are two completely different mediums, and in most cases appeal to very different groups of people, although you do get people who like and appreciate both. Agree with apo1978. Faramir a villian? My word.

      Alert a moderator

    • joanjbradley

      Nov 20th 2013, 22:23

      My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I .....,,,WWW.Day35.COℳ

      Alert a moderator

    • joanjbradley

      Nov 20th 2013, 22:25

      My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I .....,,,WWW.Day35.COℳ

      Alert a moderator

    • hisherecur1

      Nov 21st 2013, 4:12

      Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,,,,, WWW.ℬay95.COℳ

      Alert a moderator

    • hisherecur1

      Nov 21st 2013, 4:13

      My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I .....,,, WWW.ℬay95.COℳ

      Alert a moderator

    • tbrennan999

      Nov 21st 2013, 13:02

      ALBERT Bloch wrote Psycho? Did David Hitchcock direct it?

      Alert a moderator

    • mehulved

      Nov 25th 2013, 12:49

      I do not agree with you on the Harry Porter and the Order of the Phoenix part, I completely agree the book was really big again but the story of the book was not told properly in the movie. The movie missed lots and lots of the main plot from the book as was the case with the sixth part. Although completely agree with you on LOTR and Godfather, they were exceptional. LOTR book was really good but movies were fantastic except the Hobbit I must say, dividing it into 3 parts made it slow and somewhat boring. I have watched all 3 LOTR movies numerous times but Hobbit I could not watch it again after enjoying it once.

      Alert a moderator

    • ZaraK

      Nov 30th 2013, 2:53

      I absolutely would suggest the LotR films were better Tolkien's "master piece." His pedantic, mind numbingly boring master piece. The movies did a great job of cutting all of that out, they were fantastic, but the books are the most overrated piece of trash fiction in modern culture, even more so than the starship troopers novel.

      Alert a moderator

    • mikecoppard

      Feb 27th 2014, 3:09

      I can't believe The Wizard of Oz is not in the top 50. For me it would be number one for this list.

      Alert a moderator

    • doctorisrealin

      Mar 20th 2014, 11:39

      Any list like this that leaves out the Michale Mann/Daniel Day Lewis "Last of the Mohicans" has: a) Never seen the film b) never read the novel

      Alert a moderator