20 Movies Better Than The Books They Were Based On
It’s a familiar complaint, whenever books are re-imagined for film, fans and critics always cry that the novel is better than the movie. Well here are 20 cases where the surprising opposite holds true. Most all the books on this list are great reads themselves, so there’s definitely no disrespect intended, the characters and stories simply managed to shine a little brighter on screen.
20. The Graduate
Based on the 1963 novel by Charles Webb, The Graduate was translated into film by Mike Nichols in 1967. Webb had little to do with the film version, which may or may not have helped contribute to the success of the film, discerning readers/viewers would have to make that decision for themselves.. Nichols, with his writing teem Calder Willingham and Buck Henry took everything the novel had to offer, and expanded it to create one of the most iconic films of all time. One reason the movie was an improvement on the book was the pitch perfect soundtrack by Simon and Garfunkel, one of the most recognizable and fitting soundtracks ever made.
The film was selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically signifigant”.
19. Atonement
Published in 2001, Atonement, written by Ian McEwan, tells the story of Briony Tallis, a young girl who’s lies change not only her life, but the life of her sister Cecilia and her lover Robbie.
The film adaptation, released in 2007, received critical praise. Nominated for six Academy Awards, the combination of acting talent (Keira Knightley, James MacAvoy, Saoirse Ronan) and phenomenal direction (Joe Wright) create a stunning visual masterpiece, allowing audiences to truly be transported to the 1940’s British countryside.
18. Schindler’s List
Based on the 1982 novel by Thomas Keneally called Schindler’s Ark, Schindler’s List the film was released in 1993. Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie starred Liam Neeson as Schindler, a Nazi Party member, who risks his life to save 1,200 Jews from concentration camps.
The film won seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, for its heart wrenching adaptation from pen to screen.
17. Big Fish
Based on the Daniel Wallace novel, Big Fish, directed by Tim Burton was released in 2003. Starring Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Billy Crudup and Helena Bonham Carter, the movie was truly, one of a kind.
It tells the story of Will (Crudup), a son trying to make up with his father (Finney), who is on his deathbed. Edward, the father, has been telling will stories since he was a little boy, tall tales about his life. After the death of Burton’s father, he masterfully turned this novel into a fairy tale, allowing the viewer to sympathize with both the son and the father, as well as giving them a clear representation of Edward’s stories. The film received four Golden Globe nominations and one Oscar nomination for Danny Elfman’s original score.
16. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Released in 2000, the Goblet of Fire is the fourth installment in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. The only Harry Potter novel to win a Hugo Award, the 2005 film was the most faithful of the series. Directory Mike Newell, along with writer Steve Kloves and producer David Heyman combined to bring the novel to life.
‘Goblet’ was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Art Direction, as well as winning a BAFTA Award for Best Production Design making it the only Potter film to win a BAFTA award.
15. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Fellowship of the Ring was first published by J. R. R. Tolkien in 1954 and is probably one of the most iconic series of books in the English language. It follows the story of Frodo Baggins, and his journey to destroy the Ring of power. Fellowship of the Ring is the first of three volumes that make up The Lord of the Rings. In 2001, Peter Jackson’s film translation was released, and it was met with rave reviews from fans and critics. One of the most faithful adaptations, Jackson’s film was a box office success, earning over $870 Million worldwide.
It won four Academy Awards and five BAFTAs, including Best Film and Best Director BAFTA awards. The American Film Institute also voted it the second greatest fantasy film of all time.
14. The Virgin Suicides
This 1993 novel was translated to film by writer/director Sophia Coppola in 1999. The novel was met with positive reviews, but it didn’t grow in popularity until after the film adaptation. Starring Kirsten Dunst, James Woods, Kathleen Turner and Josh Hartnett, the movie tells the story of how the suicide of five sisters effects their community. The Lisbon sisters live in Detroit during the 1970’s, and after the suicides, their friends and neighbors attempt to find an explanation for the deaths.
Coppola worked close with author Jeffrey Eugenides to create the best possible version of the novel. Her film is considered one of the best of the 90’s and cemented her career as a successful Writer/Director.
13. Stand by Me
This coming of age story is based on the Stephen King novella, The Body. The film is narrated by a grown-up Gordie LaChance, the main character who is a writer penning a memoir about his youth. Gordy and his 3 friends set out an adventure to find the body of a classmate, Ray Brower, who was killed in the woods. In their quest to become famous for locating Ray’s body, the boys have life changing experiences.
Directed by Rob Reiner, Stand By Me combines a very talented young cast, (Jerry O’Connell, Keifer Sutherland, Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Cory Feldman) and the amazing expansion of the Stephen King novella to create a classic boys story. Rob Reiner took what Stephen King created and made it relate to every young man in America.
12. Psycho
Based on a real life story, Psycho was first published in 1959. Robert Bloch based the novel off of Ed Gein, who was arrested in Plainfield, Wisconsin for murdering women and making furniture, silverware and even clothing made out of body parts, in an attempt to make a “woman suit” to pretend to be his dead mother. Bloch’s novel was made into a film classic in 1960 by Alfred Hitchcock. Starring Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, the film used an extensive promotional scheme (not allowing people to enter the theater late and no advance screenings) so that the twist ending would remain a complete surprise to viewers.
Psycho is said to be one of America’s scariest films, earning first place on the American Film Institute’s list of 100 Most Thrilling Films.
11. The Postman Always Rings Twice
A very successful and notorious novel, The Postman Always Rings Twice is probably one of the most important crime novels written in the 20th century. Its use of sexuality and violence was cutting edge for its time. Where the movie outdoes the novel is character development. When you see the 1946 film, you feel a strong connection to the characters, and you really understand them. ‘The Postman Always Rings Twice’ has become an instrumental piece of film noir.
10. The English Patient
The English Patient is an amazing novel (by Michael Ondaatje) about a critically burned English man, his Canadian nurse, an Italian thief and an Indian Sapper in the British Army living out the end of WWII in Italy. The novel won several awards and was translated into over 300 languages, but perhaps its best translation was when it became a film in 1996. Directed by Anthony Minghella, the film won 11 Academy Awards.
9. The Princess Bride
The Princess Bride has become such a huge cult classic over the past 20 years, that many people don’t even know it was a novel before it was a film. Written in 1973 by William Goldman, the book combines adventure, comedy, romance and fantasy to create a very special world. The film shows perfectly how seeing can be believing. Although the book is cleverly written, several readers complained of their inability to picture certain things.
The movie shows an amazing amount of creative genius, and although it was met with poor critical reviews at first, it has quickly became an American fantasy classic.
8. Ben-Hur
Directed by William Wyler, this 1959 epic was based off of the 1880 Lew Wallace novel, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. The film went on two win 11 Academy awards, which is due in part to the creative decisions to change certain things in translation from book to film.
Almost all of the differences between the novel and film make a dramatic difference, adding the perfect twists to make the movie a huge success.
7. The Wizard of Oz
Based on the 1900 children’s novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz is one of the most iconic films in the history of Hollywood. Starring Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Bert Lahr and Frank Morgan, the film tells the story of a small-town girl who is transported to an enchanted world.
Released by MGM in 1939, the film follows Dorothy Gale along her journey to Oz, her encounters with witches, scarecrows, tin-men and much much more in order to return home to her family. The film gained much of it’s popularity when it began being telecast in 1959 and became an annual tradition for nearly 40 years. The film was nominated for multiple Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Song (Over the Rainbow).
6. Gone with the Wind
This classic American story tells the tale of Miss Scarlett O’Hara in Atlanta, Georgia during the Civil War. Based on the Margaret Mitchell novel, Gone With the Wind is one of the most celebrated and honored films in American Film History. The novel wasn’t short for awards either, winning the Pulitzer in 1937, but the film changed everything about the movie industry.
Starring Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Leslie Howard, and Olivia de Havilland, the 1939 film adaptation was nominated for ten Academy Awards, as well as sold more tickets than any other film in history.
5. The Bourne Identity
Based on Rober Ludlum’s popular books, The Bourne Identity is one of the most successful spy movies franchises ever made, right up there with the James Bond’s of the film world. The film follows Jason Bourne, an outlawed ex-CIA assassin, who is trying to put his life back together and discover his true identity.
Where the Bourne movie comes out on top is the high caliber of actors on the project, as well as the excellently and impressively filmed action sequences that make the film a much more visceral experience than the novel.
4. Forrest Gump
Directed by Robert Zemeckis, Forrest Gump, is leaps and bounds different from the novel on which it is based. The film features A-List stars like Tom Hanks, Robin Wright Penn, Gary Sinise and Sally Field. It tells the story of Forrest Gump, a simple boy from Alabama, and his cultural experiences with events throughout the later half of the 20th century.
Based on the Winston Groom novel by the same name, the movie takes a more optimistic approach to telling Gump’s story, not quite as rushed and occasionally demeaning like parts of the book. The film was nominated for numerous Academy Awards, Golden Globe Awards, People’s Choice Awards, and Young Artist Awards.
3. The Shawshank Redemption
Another rare example of a Stephen King adaption done right, the film adaptation follows Andy Dufresne and Ellis “Red” Redding as they live their lives in prison. Directed by Frank Darabont, the movie shows Andy (Tim Robbins) spending two decades in Shawshank State Prison and his growing friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman), another inmate.
The movie was something of an under performer in theaters, but became a massive success when it hit DVD and cable television, to the point that it’s now IMDB’s top user rated film of all time. Frank Darabont made several changes from the novel, including changing Red’s ethnicity (from Irish to African-American), including Brooks Halten as a major plot point, and giving the film a sense of finality with the beach scene at the end of the movie.
2. Fight Club
This David Fincher film was adapted from Chuck Palahniuk’s 1996 novel by the same name. Edward Norton stars in the film as a white collar everyman who is unhappy with his life. He decides to form a fight club with Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt). While this is probably Palahniuk’s best novel (which is hard to say since they all kind of run together and kind of stick to the same nihilistic themes) the film actually allows some rays of hope and optimism to shine through, which isn’t really a bad thing in such a dark piece of work.
1. The Godfather
Based on the 1969 novel by Mario Puzo, ‘The Godfather’ was directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1972. The movie had a full roster of A list talent of the time, including Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Sterling Hayden, John Marley, James Caan, Richard Conte and Diane Keaton. The story chronicles the Italian-American Corleone family. The film was very closely adapted from the novel, however the biggest change made by Coppola was in the ending, which was made significantly more dramatic for the big screen.
The movie was nominated for 3 Academy Awards, 15 Golden Globes, Six Grammys and spawned two sequels, one of which became the only sequel to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The book was a piece of fairly run of the mill crime fiction, while the film is a true masterpiece that will be watched and discussed as long as people are watching movies. For that reason we feel pretty comfortable giving it the top slot in our list of movies that made improvements on the books on which they were based.
What's Hot at PopCrunch?
Related Articles:
- Lauren Conrad Book Deal: HarperCollins Lauren Conrad Fiction Books
- John McCain Barack Obama Comic Book Biographies
- “Twilight” Spinoff
- Paris Hilton Cell Phone Game Debuts In India (”Paris Hilton’s Diamond Quest”)
- “Twilight” Dolls
On October 28th 2009, Mark W wrote:
This list is extremely disappointing. The author failed to provide any justification for why any given film was better than it’s written form.
Saying a film won countless awards and starred talented players doesn’t justify why it was better than it’s book.
On October 28th 2009, I. Ali wrote:
Disagree on LOTR: FOTR that the movie was better. It was good, but the book is still better. The rest of the list was right but missing “Hunt for Red October” which had a much more interesting premise than the cold-war oriented book.
On October 28th 2009, TG wrote:
You forgot to mention the Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining”. All though Stephen King’s Novel is a a great work of literature, Kubrick understood it’s cinematic limitations, and ended up creating one of the Best Suspense/Horror Movies of all time
On October 28th 2009, Zach wrote:
2 sequels have won best picture. godfather part 2 and return of the king
On October 28th 2009, Osvaldo M. wrote:
Are you for real? or plainly had nothing to write about and while watching a movie you came up with these absurd post?. I have seen quite a lot of ignorant posts, but boy I do applaud yours!.
On October 28th 2009, Bruick wrote:
You forgot “A Clockwork Orange.”
On October 28th 2009, Alan wrote:
It would have been better if you had focused on how bad some of the original novels were like Forrest Gump. And just because a film won a few oscars doesn’t make it great, are you really saying that The Fellowship of the Ring movie was better than the book?
On October 28th 2009, Rosencrantz wrote:
I have to question the logic behind this list. Was all it took to be considered “better” the number of awards the movie won compared to the book? Frankly, the book version of English Patient was way better than the movie and way more interesting too. The movie basically took a handful of pages from the novel and made it seem like that was the entire story. Meanwhile, a story about HUMAN relationships and how they are torn apart by war and nationalism is lost. Also, I love the hell out of Shawshank the movie, but at the same time I felt like the short story was a little better. It certainly did a better job than the movie of showing the changing of time in the outside world compared to inside the prison, and how the main character was able to bring the outside world IN with him.
On October 28th 2009, No Shame Auctions wrote:
You forgot to mention JAWS. The movie is better then the novel.
On October 28th 2009, judd wrote:
this lowered my intelligence at least 19 levels. are you serious with this list? the bourne identity book had a completely different plot than the movie. the two cannot be compared!
On October 28th 2009, RR wrote:
‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ > ‘Bladerunner’ deserves mention too…
On October 28th 2009, Ray Trygstad wrote:
I interviewed Robert Bloch, the author of Psycho, when I was in college, and he himself thought that Hitchcock’s adaptation of his book was brilliant, particularly the shower scene, which he said he sort of just hinted at in the book. (I have not read the book.) Interestingly enough my favorite Robert Bloch story was his as well, “That Hell-Bound Train”. It’s just crying out for someone to make it into a movie; it would be killer good with the right cast and director.
On October 28th 2009, EMily wrote:
This list is bullshit. You do not provide any argument or justification for why the movie is better than its source material.
Go back to college you dumb fuck. Your writing professors are weeping right now.
Btws, Harry Potter the movie better than the book? FUCK NO
On October 28th 2009, Thomas wrote:
This list largely sucks. Have you *read* these books? Your reasoning on Fight Club is depressing in and of itself.
On October 28th 2009, SLEZE wrote:
Are you serious with Goblet of Fire? The most faithful of the series? That movie literally cut 100 pages from the book by eliminating characters, plot lines and incredibly important events. Upon release it was the WORST of the movies…until HP5 came out.
Other than that…pretty good list.
On October 28th 2009, Pat D. wrote:
I disagree that the book Harry Potter and the Goblit of Fire was not as good as the movie. Anyone who hasn’t read the books misses many important points that collect as the series goes along abandoned by the films but very important at the last bringing all parts of the whole together in the last book .
They have skipped many important details in all the movies hinting that the last film if it cannot bring it all together could be very confusing to anyone who hasn’t read the books.
On October 28th 2009, anonymous64 wrote:
What are you talking about every movie on this list I saw and read the book on your completely wrong about. The only reason I read this list was because the book is almost always better than movie and I wondered if you could up with any. All the Harry Potter books are better than the movies the movies all pretty much suck. The Fellowship of the Ring is a classic book and while the movie is well done your going out on a pretty big limb here. As far as fight club goes it would seem the Movie stands a pretty good chance of being better than the book but if you actually read the book you’ll realize your wrong here too the book is far deeper than the movie and is very well written. Those are the only three here I’ve read the book for but if you talk to real fans of these stories I’m sure most will agree with me wholeheartedly.
On October 28th 2009, noumuon wrote:
Anyone who thinks LoTR: FotR is a better movie than book must be illiterate and thus never have read the book. Compared to the book, FotR is acceptable, at best.
On October 28th 2009, SS wrote:
Not to be a huge nerd here, but how in the world is HP: Goblet of Fire the most faithful to the book, let alone better than it? I remember watching it after reading the book and thinking, holy crap they left out a lot of things and even changed some pretty major details. I thought it was a great movie before reading the book, but after reading the book, I didn’t think it compared. I understand the book was pretty long and that the movie can be viewed as a “best of” of the book, but I just don’t see it as better than the book. Personal opinion I guess.
On October 28th 2009, Omar wrote:
I really don’t think you’ve read some of these books and just went off by what they were awarded or what others have said. Especially with the Goblet of fire entry. You could have said Prisoner of Azkaban and that would have made more sense. It’s just kind of obvious you hadnt when you picked it. Same goes for LOTR.
On October 28th 2009, whoa wrote:
Seriously? Your dumb is idiot
On October 28th 2009, WTF wrote:
Atonement! Are you serious?!! The book that McEwan should have won the Booker for. This list was obviously composed by a semiliterate dunce who just does not read books, let alone any of the books on this list; probably thinks books are icky…
On October 28th 2009, Matt wrote:
You’re SERIOUSLY suggesting that Peter Jackson’s film version of The Fellowship of the Ring is better than J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary masterpiece, widely considered the greatest ever work of fiction? Are you fucking HIGH?!
I mean, sure, it’s an excellent, excellent film, one of my favourites of all-time. But to say it’s better than the book suggests to me that you haven’t actually read the book, or for that matter, any book.
On October 28th 2009, Branson wrote:
This is not a very good list. The Fellowship of the Ring is a great movie, but it is still not as great as the book it is based on. The characterization is by necessity less full, they cut out some fascinating parts, and they dumbed down Tolkien’s original slightly (not much, but they certainly did).
It seems to me from Fight Club’s place on this list that the authors of the list have not read the books. Fight Club is certainly no worse than the film adaptation. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is great, but the book is still better.
The only way, in fact, that several of these movies are better is that it takes less time to read a book. If that is the only criteria, then it is better to jack off than meet a woman.
On October 28th 2009, cjcox wrote:
Julie and Julia. Movie is a gazillion times better than the “potty mouth” book.
On October 28th 2009, John David wrote:
What about Jaws?
On October 28th 2009, Zooop wrote:
Silence of the Lambs was also a sequel, of a movie called “Manhunter”, which was remade as “Red Dragon.” Coincidentally, the movie version of either of these is preferable to the books, and also not on this dumbshit list.
On October 28th 2009, wuwei26 wrote:
I believe it is clear that the “author” of this post did not read any of the books that were supposedly inferior to the movies. From some of the descriptions, I am not sure he even saw the movies…
On October 28th 2009, mulufuf wrote:
No, no, no. Some of these are terrific movies, but have you read the books? Just because you like movies better than books is not a valid selection criteria. Better than the book? Fight Club – No, The English Patient – No, Wizard of Oz – No, Fellowship of the Ring – No. Not even close on any of these. Here’s a movie that’s better than its book – A Wonderful Mind. The book had a lot of detail, but was poorly edited and very episodic – there was no sense of intimacy with the characters. Whereas the film was bold, intelligent and disturbing, it contributed things to the story that the book was unable or unwilling to attempt. None of your examples here (of those i’ve read) meet this criteria of contributing more to appreciation of the story than the book. Princess Bride is one of the great reads of all time and the movie does a great job of reinforcing that, but it doesn’t bring much that’s new to the story. A list compiled by a cineast with literary aspirations and a cineasts bias. A fine premise so clumsily executed as to be meaningless.
On October 28th 2009, Junk wrote:
Goof. You’ve never read these books, have you?
On October 28th 2009, Jim wrote:
You also forgot another Kubrick film, Lolita, which is clever and witty yet dark and almost Britishly lewd.
Far better than the book which is borrrrrring.
On October 28th 2009, Darkray16 wrote:
I have the feeling that the author of this article hasn’t actually read most of the books in the list and hadn’t done much research into the novels and their reception which he deemed inferior to their film adaptation.
On October 28th 2009, Stubby Boardman wrote:
Yes, I am a die-hard Harry Potter fan but that status isn’t required to be able to tell that Goblet of Fire was an awful adaptation of the book. Dozens of plot points, characters and conversations are missing that are critical to the series. The acting was also dreadful, the whole film felt rushed and many of the interpretations were silly or stupid.
On October 28th 2009, Stop that, it's silly! wrote:
This is the worst list of this type I have ever read. Not only is there zero justification he also chooses titles that are giants in their genre so he is certain to have opposition. This list was made either by a child/idiot who likely hasn’t even read the books in question or this person is simply a troll trying to generate the crazed reactions he has gotten from the people who have commented.
On October 28th 2009, Meagan wrote:
William Goldman didn’t write The Princess Bride, he abridged it. The book is tons better than the movie – of which he wrote the screenplay. Obviously whoever wrote this has not read these books.
On October 28th 2009, Stop that, it's silly! wrote:
@ Meagan: William Goldman did in fact write the Princess Bride novel. The “abridgment” claim and the introduction are both false. They are just literary devices he uses. No “S. Morgenstern” ever existed and he actually doesn’t even have a son as he claims in the intro.
The are lots of writers who use this trope, possibly most notably (or at least relevant to the Princess Bride) is Cervantes. See the wiki for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride
On October 28th 2009, Wayne Huling wrote:
While I disagree with most of the list, as alot of commenters have stated… I am 100% in agreement with you about Forrest Gump… The movie pushed the limit with Forrest’s accomplishments… the book… I nearly threw it away when he was shot into space….
On October 28th 2009, Jamie wrote:
The film version of Goblet of Fire was terrible. It left so much material from the book out that parts of it made no sense. For example, the film never made it clear why Harry was so angry throughout. Of all the Potter films, the only one that approaches being better than the book is The Prisoner of Azkaban.
On October 31st 2009, Jjjjrshabbadoo wrote:
Wow. Missed the boat completely on LOTR and Princess Bride. LOTR was well done, but completely full of holes in the narrative, leaving out huge chunks and changing the focus of the story. Princess Bride was a fun film, but a once in a lifetime read. You should actually read the books you are comparing to their counterparts on film.
On November 4th 2009, Justin wrote:
Like a few others, I’m also going to ask “where’s Jaws?”.
On November 4th 2009, Scruffy wrote:
The only movie I’ve ever seen that was better than the book? Firefox with Clint Eastwood.
Books rock.
On November 4th 2009, Will wrote:
The Godfather is a terrific book! It’s just as good as the movie and adds even more depth to the story. “Run of the mill crime fiction?” Get real.
On November 4th 2009, BobaFett wrote:
Better movies than books:
The Silence of the Lambs
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy
Get Shorty
On November 5th 2009, apreason wrote:
Neverending Story huh?
On November 5th 2009, Jordan wrote:
Not a single positive response in these comments, author “William”. This is what happens when you have NO idea what you’re talking about.
Putting aside the complete ignorance that is your opinion on Lord Of The Rings (Jackson better than Tolkien? Are you effing kidding me?) and Harry Potter 4 (as per fan reaction, still the most inaccurate and ill-received film in the series)…
Have you read ANY of these books?
On November 5th 2009, Corey J wrote:
What a HORRIBLE
On November 5th 2009, Corey J wrote:
What a HORRIBLE list!
Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Lord of the Rings, Goblet of Fire and the Wizard of Oz are ALL books far, far better than the cinematic equivalents.
I have to echo one of the above posters- Did you even bother READING these books or just read their Wikipedia entries?
Such a bad list. I’ll be sure to avoid popcrunch.com from now on.
On November 17th 2009, Jim Polichak wrote:
Like most people these days I saw Judy Garland’s Wizard of Oz before I read the original book {s} but I have to say that while the movie kept Mr. Baum’s widow more comfortable than his writing did “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and its sequels were far richer and amusing that the Garland movie and any of the attempts at sequels.
I do have to admit that her movie was much better than the silent on the Baum produced.