14 Movies That Were Better Than The Book
In general, it’s a pretty safe bet that when a movie comes out based on a book, the original was better. However, that’s not always the case. It might be because the novel was bad, or because the director was amazing, but every now and then we see a film version that handily surpasses its origins, and these are 14 such examples.
14. Bourne Identity
Don’t get me wrong, the Bourne Identity is a good book. It’s a great spy novel, packed with plenty of action. However, when it went to the big screen, it was tightened up substantially, a subplot with Carlos the Jackal was removed, and it added a crucial theme: that Bourne could be guilty for all the things he was accused of. It added a slightly darker twist to the character, and one that was executed brilliantly, with Matt Damon playing remarkably against type. We do have to hate the movie a bit for one thing: it made shakeycam incredibly popular.
13. MIB
The Men in Black films were incredibly comedy-action combos, that were mega-blockbusters for a reason. There’s a third one in the works, with Jemaine Clement as a villain, which is possibly the greatest idea ever. The comics? Thoroughly, thoroughly disappointing. Banal, edgy for no reason, filled with violence, and without any of the charm or wit that filled the films. They languished in development hell before being picked up by Marvel, and it’s surprising they were ever turned into movies. But man, what an improvement.
12. The Shining
Stephen King famously hated The Shining when Kubrick’s adaptation when it hit the screens in 1980, which is fair enough, because Kubrick improved on the story immensely. In the novel, Jack is essentially an author self-insert, who never really does anything bad, and is redeemed by the end. The film version significantly builds on the character, creating a far more sinister creation. Since it’s Kubrick, the sheer density of content is phenomenal, with each scene have meaning, layer upon layer. If you watch the mini-series from 1997, you see just how banal a faithful adaption is, when compared to a work done by someone who really knows what they’re doing, and can add enough to make a good plot into a great one.
11. Wag the Dog/American Hero
The major change between Wag the Dog and its parent novel American Hero (apart from it being much, much funnier), is that they took the film a step away from the real world. The satirical novel is based directly on real people and events: George HW Bush is the president in question, and that the first Iraqi war was faked, which leads to it happening. The movie gets to have much more fun with the premise, partly due to the unnamed president, and the fact that Albania was chosen as the source of war. The film ended up not getting the respect it deserved, as it was a wonderfully crafted black comedy, and a biting critique of how the media handles war and politics.
10. The Prestige
I’m probably alone in thinking the Prestige was much better as a film than a novel, but I think there’s a number of reasons for that. Partly, it’s due to the cast. Every character in the film was perfect, and the actors were all seasoned vets, who made their experience clear in each scene. The novel tends more towards horror than the film, and is also bookended by a rather unnecessary literary device, which slows the whole thing down. The fact I disliked most about the book, was that Bordon’s trick was given away extremely early, where in the movie it was left till the last moment, in order to keep the suspense up. Plus, the additional horror bit at the end felt really tacked on. Honestly, I would have been much happier with both the film and the novel if they had managed to explain the final trick without resorting to introducing the impossible.
9. Psycho
Robert Bloch’s Psycho formed the basis for what is arguably the most iconic thriller of all time. Bloch was a huge fan of the film, and for good reason, it tightened up a lot of the plot, and changed much of the focus. In the novel, Mary Crane (Marion in the film) had very little introduction, and was killed quickly. The movie focused much more on her, creating a far more alien, unsympathetic Norman Bates. The novel also dwelled on Bates’ alcoholism as a method for explaining switching personalities, plus was far more violent, yet lacked the iconic horror of the shower scene. It wasn’t a bad book, but the movie made it just that much better.
8. The Iron Giant/The Iron Man
The Ted Hughes novel was radically different to the film it spawned, with the giant arriving and destroying large parts of Britain, before befriending a boy, and defending Earth from a space dragon. Yes, a space dragon. The movie was directed by Brad Bird, the guy behind The Incredibles and Ratatouille, so you know it’s gold. If you haven’t seen the cartoon, you owe it to yourself to do so, because it’s an absolutely amazing movie, and a brilliant look at cold war paranoia that belies the the common assumption that cartoons are for kids. If the final action scene doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, then you’re a heartless excuse for a human being. You know Vin Diesel voiced the giant?
7. Forrest Gump
The novel of Forrest Gump was vastly different to the screenplay, creating a significantly different character than the one that took out so many Academy Awards. Book Gump is fatter, a savant with mathematics, doesn’t lose Jenny or his mother, and owns a monkey. The tragedy aspect of the film is played up considerably, with Jenny’s death from AIDs, and Lt. Dan’s role altered. The film also only covers the first half of the book, ignoring the further adventures of Forrest. Unfortunately, the writer of the novel got screwed over by the film. He was contracted to get 3% of the film’s profits, but due to dodgy Hollywood accounting, the company said the movie lost money — despite Tom Hanks getting $40 million by getting a cut of receipts rather than profit.
6. Jaws
Another good book that just cannot compare to the quality of its film version. Jaws is such an iconic flick, that even though the book is still a tense action story, it just can’t hold a candle to the grandeur of Spielberg’s story. When you start dissecting the differences, you would think that the book had more going for it, with sub-plots tying the Mayor to the Mafia, Brody’s wife and Cooper having an affair, and a more fatalistic ending. The major issue that the book had, was that the characters were fare less likable than the film, Spielberg is even alleged to have said that he disliked them so much, that he was rooting for the shark.
5. Children of Men
The film version of Children of Men varied radically from the novel, but kept much of the same in terms of tone, with the belief of hope triumphing over hopelessness, and the oppressive government over the apathetic. There is also a strong usage of Christian imagery and themes in both versions, though it’s far more overt in P.D. James’ novel. However, the story itself is radically different. The immigrant camps which are such a major part of the film are nowhere to be found in the books, and the written version has the infertility’s blame rested on the men rather than the women, not to mention countless changes of characters and locations. It’s hard to imagine the story without the intense, single-shot action scenes that became its hallmark, or in fact without the importance of the journey to the characters, as there’s far less travelling in the book version. The creepiest difference? The movie Quietus is a suicide pill. In the book, it’s when they drown you.
4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Who Censored Roger Rabbit was a thoroughly, thoroughly mediocre novel. It bares only a passing resemblance to the film, which harvested it for the basic premise, character names, and that’s it. The novel is about comic strips rather than cartoons, is more or less contemporary rather than historical, is filled with stupid plot twists and red herrings, and has a completely out of nowhere ending. Hell, the titular character is dead for most of the story. The movie version just kept the characters, the name, and the humans interacting with cartoons, and from that crafted and amazing story with a villain designed to terrify children, and enough innuendo to cause Disney mountains of trouble.
3. Silence of the Lambs
This one’s very much a personal choice, as I think the novel had a huge amount going for it, but the movie just surpassed it in every way. Where the book had a tendency towards plodding and methodical storytelling, the film was suspenseful and gripping. A huge amount of the movie’s superiority over the book boils down to the actors, without Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, it wouldn’t be half as good as it was. When you’re adapting an already impressive work, who you get to play the characters make or break it, and the mental image we all have of Hannibal Lecter is inseparable from Hopkins. Without his mad genius, Lecter would have just been another boring onscreen psycho. Instead we have a killer who’s only onscreen for 20 minutes, yet has become anchored in the psyche of a generation.
2. One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
There was one major change between the book and screen version of this story, and that was loosing Chief Bromden as the narrator. While it did make the eventual end of the film seem a bit out of nowhere, it overall made the story far more approachable. Bromden’s perspective was so utterly entrenched in his own delusions and hallucinations that it often derailed the plot. Sure, it was great to peer into the mind of someone who was mentally disturbed, but it pulled away from the real story. When you think about it, Bromden was just about the only person in the entire asylum who was actually insane, and should have stayed there.
1. Godfather
Man, I’m going to get a lot of flack for this one, I can just tell. The novel was a decent read, and obviously Puzo’s time as a reporter gave him a lot of insight into crime in New York, but it was…pulpy, for the lack of a better term. There just wasn’t much there, no real depth. Interesting, but aggressively straightforward. The first two Godfather films were both based on the book, and together make up what is arguably the greatest story in American cinema. It was one of the first films to portray gangsters as flawed, relatable, even good, rather than two-dimensional cutouts. So much of the movie has seeped into our consciousness that just about ever scene can be identified instantly, and has been parodied a million times. One of the greatest movies ever, and the book just can’t live up to that.
Written by Tim on September 22nd, 2010 | Tagged as: Popular Culture
On September 22nd 2010, Ben wrote:
Great list, but I’d also put The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me/The Body on this list.
On September 22nd 2010, Duglarri wrote:
You missed the greatest book improvement film of all time: Blade Runner. ‘Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep” is kind of a mess; the ideas in the film are there, but scattered around and hard to follow. Even Phillip K. Dick said the movie was a vast improvement on his book.
On September 22nd 2010, Vadeem wrote:
Blade Runner was better than the novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” (although the novel was indeed great).
On September 22nd 2010, Vic Grants wrote:
Good dissection between the book and the film. Very good writing and review in a nutshell. However, there are many more titles and movies to list, I urge you to write more on others as well.
On September 22nd 2010, steven wrote:
I’ve only read three of these. The Shining – I like the book and the movie. Both different but good in their own ways. But numbers one and two? Completely and utterly backwards. They definitely follow the rule that the book trumps the movie.
On September 22nd 2010, enkidu wrote:
I’ll add just one more to the list (and I agree with most of your choices): Bernard Malamud’s book, The Natural vs. Barry Levinson’s movie, The Natural with Robert Redford in one of his iconic roles. The book was an ok story with a different take on the characters and a more complex and ultimately unfulfilling plot and ending. The movie, on the other hand, follows a simpler, classic storyline to much better effect. And Randy Newman’s great score helps a lot also.
On September 22nd 2010, Td wrote:
Your are missing the absolute nº
The Name of the Rose
On September 22nd 2010, Are you serious? wrote:
Ok, look. I stopped on the “Bourne Identity” entry. The Jackal wasn’t a subplot. The Jackal was the primary antagonist of the novel. Anybody who’d ever read the book would automatically know that. I don’t normally nitpick on things like this, but I can’t possibly believe that the author of this list read the book with a screwup that big, so why the hell should I care about any of the opinions to follow?
On September 22nd 2010, Floyd wrote:
By taking out the Carlos factor The Bourne Identity became a simplistic action movie for children. Why not remake “The Day of The Jackal” and leave out The Jackal? Hollywood movies now assume the audience can’t hold two thoughts simultaneously so they leave one out.
On September 22nd 2010, CThomas wrote:
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Just kidding. Good list. I agree with Ben — The Shawshank Redemption should be here, even though I didn’t read the book.
I’m curious what people think about this one: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
On September 23rd 2010, Will wrote:
No Fight Club?
On September 23rd 2010, Chris wrote:
I will add “Wanted” to the list. The comic book though good in itself, is nowhere near the premise of the film. I welcome the change though as the characters in the comic are less likable. Plus Angelina Jolie kicks ass over what appears like Halle Berry in the comic book.
On September 23rd 2010, jwitholenchest wrote:
Good list. I would actually add “Big Fish” and “A River Runs Through It” to the list. Both phenomenal movies with great performances by Ewan McGregor and Brad Pitt that far surpass whats contained in the books.
On September 23rd 2010, smileyleeann wrote:
I read the shining as an older teenager, when my imagination was still hyperactive. That book is so much better than the movie. Although I am still scared every time I see Jack N!
What about Jurassic Park? The book was great, but the move was amazing.
On September 23rd 2010, Greg wrote:
I second Fight Club. I am utterly disappointed that it’s not on this list.
On September 23rd 2010, Mike wrote:
No! No! NO! One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was a great movie, but a way better book. The movie could not capture the amazing prose of Ken Kesey and the unreliable narration of Chief Bromdon was genius…it added so much to the book. His hallucinations were more real than reality, and were needed to confront the whole surrealism of the situation…the movie was great, but comes nowhere close to the level of the book.
On September 23rd 2010, Troy wrote:
The Borne novels can not be compared to the movie because they are nothing alike. Besides names nothing was taken from the book to the movie, he wasn’t a vietnam vet, he didn’t lose his wife and kids, etc. even the women who worked for the canadan gov’t was changed. And the whole plot of the movies was just a subplot in the books. If they one day actually make a movie out of this book series then you can compare.
Also the Silence of the Lambs was by far a better book
On September 23rd 2010, Fulmer wrote:
Jaws & The Godfather seem to make most related lists. My sister mentioned an obvious, but commonly overlooked one; The 10 Commandments (snicker).
On September 23rd 2010, Rai wrote:
I have to disagree with your take on “The Shining.”
The novel is far superior compared to the lame movie, imho.
On September 23rd 2010, evosero wrote:
I wonder how for most people it matters which they’ve seen/read first, the book or the movie.
I know for myself, it’s essentially universal that if I’ve read the book first I’ll be disappointed with the movie, yet if I see the movie first I’m more likely to at least like both if not like the book better (assuming I liked the movie to begin with).
On September 23rd 2010, Yakahoola wrote:
I would add the Lord of the Rings trilogy! The books are good, but way too verbose. The movies did a great job of editing out the superfluous stuff.
On September 23rd 2010, ryan wrote:
The author of Fight Club said the movie ending was way better than his own
On September 23rd 2010, Para wrote:
I agree on the Bourne series, read them all. Despite being totally different from the movie, they aren’t very good. They tend to ramble and lack any compelling drive.
I was surprised American Psycho wasn’t on the list. While the book has the fascinating pop culture obsessions mixed with the grizzly violence, it lacks the humour of the movie and the outstanding performance by Bale.
On September 23rd 2010, Doug wrote:
Um, shakycam wasn’t even in The Bourne Identity movie. At all. It was Paul Greengrass who littered that series with shakycam when he took over the franchise with “The Bourne Supremacy.” That’s why “Identity” is the best of the films – you can see what the hell’s going on thanks to director Doug Liman.
On September 23rd 2010, Sam wrote:
Did you actually read the Shining? *SPOILER ALERT* Jack Torrance, upon realizing the hotel is about to explode due to the machinations of his son and wife, runs back in to save it. He isn’t redeemed. And he certainly doesn’t freeze to death in one of the lamest ways possible. The movie doesn’t hold a candle to the novel, though it’s better than that god awful remake.
On September 23rd 2010, JT wrote:
Couldn’t be more wrong about the Shining. The book actually made sense. In the movie, the fact that Danny was psychic didn’t have anything to do with anything, while it tied the entire thing together in the book.
On September 23rd 2010, Ponholio wrote:
“The Razor’s Edge.”
Bill Murray didn’t phone in his role as he usually does? A decent movie.
The book,not so much?
On September 23rd 2010, Lord Whorfin wrote:
CThomas wrote:
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Just kidding. Good list. I agree with Ben — The Shawshank Redemption should be here, even though I didn’t read the book.
I’m curious what people think about this one: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
No, but they do count them to help fall asleep.
On September 23rd 2010, Lord Whorfin wrote:
BTW- What about King’s “The Stand”
On September 23rd 2010, Fen wrote:
Are you kiddin me? The Godfather book was infinetly better. The movie didn’t really cover much of it, and it was ok, but once you got the gist of everything it’s brilliang!(the novel, that is).
Then again, i was pissed off at the movie for not saying anything about the garganto-cock. It did imply it sorta, if you already knew the detail(at the wedding there’s a scene with the girls being amazed at something big), but without the garganto-cock half the storyline loses its sense.
On September 23rd 2010, musicgeekmusic wrote:
Love Kubrick, hated his travesty of The Shining. Kubrick never even read the book, just used a one-page synopsis written by an assistant. Jack Nicholson was completely wrong for the part. The story is about a normal guy who goes crazy; Nicholson is a crazy man who goes crazier.
Silence of the Lambs bored me as a movie. Book was far superior.
And don’t get me started on The Stand. Hated the book AND the movie. Earth ends, bunch of people walk a long ways, get to a place and do nothing.
On September 23rd 2010, jpalmiotti wrote:
good list except for the Prestige…which was a mess of a movie.
On September 23rd 2010, Harmless Fuzzy Bunny wrote:
@musicgeekmusic: I understand not liking the mini-series of “The Stand”, I wasn’t overly impressed either – but not liking the book? One of King’s most immersive works, with a background and cast more expansive than Gaiman’s “American Gods”. Think of it as Oz without the flying monkeys, but with a really wicked witch.
On September 23rd 2010, maths wrote:
Man, the Stephen King defense force is out in full effect!
On September 23rd 2010, Benson wrote:
The kids won’t know this one, but The Loved One (1965) was a devastatingly sarcastic film. The wit is only sometimes subtle but always razor-sharp, the direction (Tony Richardson) skewers absurdity after absurdity, the performances are outrageous (Dana Andrews, Rod Steiger, Johnathan Winters, Robert Morse, Anajette Comer, James Coburn — wow), the memorable scenes and lines are innumerable, and the fun is endless. Then I read the book…..oh.
On September 24th 2010, drew wrote:
Trainspotting was pretty great; it clarified what the book took too long to say. Still a good read though.
On September 24th 2010, Mucho wrote:
Good list don’t agree with all of it but who would. Saw Trainspotting and read the book. I gotta say the book was about trainspotting and the movie was about drug addiction. Any director would be hard pressed to relate the themes of the book in 2 hours and still have a marketable product. I like McGregor but not a good pick for the part and all of the Connery was lost when sick boy was not accurately portrayed as psychotic and nazi hater. Why did they take out the part where the nazi got mauled by his own pit bull only to watch the horror of sick boy strangling the dog? Hollywood! Movie and book share very little except for the title. Toilet scene in book revolting and in movie just plain stupid. Movie based on characters portrayed in book at best.
On September 24th 2010, Jeff wrote:
I’m surprised no ever mentions The Princess Bride on these lists. Decent book, but Goldman outdoes himself with the movie. With the stellar cast, the characters are so much more alive and lovable.
On September 27th 2010, Steve wrote:
I’m not sure that The Godfather was a better film than book, but Goodfella’s definately was.
On September 28th 2010, Walter wrote:
You never read The Shining, did you?
Jack Torrance was a VERY flawed character. Even without the ghosts, he had a pretty large amount of skeletons in his closet. He was based off of King only because King was struggling with alcoholism. Nicholson’s character was a farce.
On December 31st 2010, Sallyyy wrote:
I really enjoy books more than most the movies but The Shining was the best I’ve seen of Steven King’s books on screen or TV. Silence of the lambs and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest are my favorites on this list. I want more Hannibal Lector and I want Anthony Hopkins to read anything to me every night. Anything.
On January 9th 2011, Mary Lu wrote:
Enjoyed your choices and reasoning–I’m a huge movie fan, but I’ve read few of the novels to comment specifically; the ones I have read have been a number of years ago.
On January 9th 2011, Mary Lu wrote:
I enjoyed your selection and reasonings behind it–I’m a huge movie fan. I’ve read a few of the novels, but most were several years ago, so I can’t comment very specifically. Great list idea!
However, being the Aging Boomer that I am, I must mention that much of your text contained grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors! An article is always taken less seriously when it contains such errors. A few minutes of proofreading (or Spellcheck) are well worth it.
On January 16th 2011, Penny wrote:
I am a longtime fan of Stephen King, but feel the film ‘Dolores Claiborne’ is far better than the book. The casting is great. The themes are more disturbing in the film, and I got more insight into Selena’s problems that resulted from the traumatic experiences in her teens. The novel is almost entirely Dolores’s dialogue during a murder inquest. The film brings Selena back to her childhood home to deal with her mother’s charges, and while there she unwillingly faces her past and realizes her mother’s love through a series of flashbacks.