The Agony and the Ecstasy
All the King’s Men
Gone With the Wind
Spartacus
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
The Shawshank Redemption
To Kill a Mockingbird
Ben-Hur
Schindler’s List
Books and movies are very different mediums, so any comparison between a book and a movie is a bit like comparing apples and rock salt. Most of the time if I attempt such a comparison the film comes up wanting. Most of my exceptions are noted above. Give your pics in the comboxes.
Billy Elliot. The novel by Melvin Burgess was alright— and the film is utterly brilliant. Casting, acting, cinematography, soundtrack, writing—absolutely everything came together to make that film a gem.
The movie is NEVER better than the book!
Pride and Prejudice (1995 BBC version – not sure if it counts because it was a TV series- but my classmates and I watched all episodes in one go during our free periods at school. Colin Firth is a brilliant Mr Darcy).
The Power of One by Bryce Courtney was adapted pretty well into a movie with Stephen Dorff and Morgan Freeman.
Romeo and Juliet Baz Luhrmann version (I’m a big fan of all his movies- and very much enjoyed his version more than studying the Shakespeare in High school).
I haven’t read the books however the original The Godfather book will always be overshadowed by the movie.
The Superman movies with Christopher Reeve from late 70’s till 80’s – better than the comics (Apologies to the comic book fans).
The Quiet Man.
Every Harry Potter movie
Lord of the Rings
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
The 1972 Poseidon Adventure movie is IMO much better than the 1969 novel by Paul Gallico, because it eliminates a number of very implausible and tedious plot elements, albeit at the cost of having way fewer people survive the ship’s sinking. (In the book there are other groups of survivors rescued besides the core group portrayed in the movie.)
‘Jaws’: Biggest Differences Between the Book and Film, From Affairs to the Mafia:
https://collider.com/jaws-differences-between-book-and-film/
“The two are oceans apart.”
“After all is said and done, the biggest difference between the two is in theme. … What they share, though, is the desire to entertain their audience, and both mediums largely succeed in doing so.”
=========
Nothing Lasts Forever: Comparing ‘Die Hard’ To The 1979 Novel That Inspired It:
https://www.slashfilm.com/559538/book-that-inspired-die-hard/
“If you hold this movie close to your heart, well, welcome to the party, pal. But the film began its life as something very different…”
=========
The Forrest Gump Novel Was Very Different (Every Change Explained):
https://screenrant.com/forrest-gump-book-original-winston-groom-differences-every/
“There’s certainly enough evidence to say that the movie is better than the book, especially in terms of cultural impact. That said, [it] isn’t a bad book, it’s just an acquired taste. It’s not for everybody, and the only way to really find out if it’s better is to just read it with an open mind.”
I would certainly say Jaws, as well as The Godfather.
Given the distinct differences in the two media, it would probably be more productive to simply ask which film best carried out the intent of the book. This would make allowances for time compression, character consolidation, etc. that are obviously necessary in some film adaptations.
I, Robot the book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot
I, Robot the movie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)
The movie failed to portray the Three Laws of Robotics correctly. It was inferior to the book. Its only saving graces were its special effects and beautiful Bridget Moynahan. PS, yes, I like Will Smith, too. But the movie was a vast disappointment.
I would certainly say Jaws, as well as The Godfather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9S41Kplsbs&t=52s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF30eGXDIVU
Laura, but it’s a bit of a toss-up. OTOH, Wizard of Oz is a miserable, cutesy-pooh insult to the entire Oz series. Fie on’t.
Disney’s “Pinocchio”, much better than Collodi’s book.