close
close

5 times the movie was better than the book

Everett Collection

When it comes to movie adaptations, everyone always says, “The book was better!” But sometimes that's just not true. Here are a few examples of movies that surpassed the quality or popularity of the books they were derived from.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: TWO TOWERS, Elijah Wood, 2002,

New Line/Courtesy of Everett Collection

This is perhaps the most notable case of “the movie is better than the book” that I can think of. I have read all of Tolkien's novels. Lord of the Rings series in high school, and I liked the movies much better, which were a HUGE success. (It was the game of Thrones of his time.) Director Peter Jackson later tried to repeat the success of this trilogy with his prequel, The Hobbitbut it was nowhere near as good as Lord of the Rings (both the book and the movies). I didn't even know there were three of them!

I would say the same about the hunger Games Series like the Tolkien universe (only more so) – skip the books and just watch the movies. Tolkien is at least readable, if not overly long and detailed, but it was a product of its time; the Hunger Games The books are simply not good and urgently need to be edited.

THE FAMINE GAMES, Jennifer Lawrence, 2012.

Murray Close/Lionsgate/Courtesy of Everett Collection

The film's production team did a great job of cutting out some of the book Katniss' over-the-top, overly sentimental monologues and making her much more likable, especially with Jennifer Lawrence in her role. Now Lawrence is so famous, everyone has probably forgotten that this was her breakout role!

GANGS OF NEW YORK, Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Henry Thomas, 2002, (c) Miramax/courtesy Everett Collection

Miramax./Courtesy of the Everett Collection.

Criminal organizations of New York is considered one of the best movies of all time (which I fully support), but the book it's based on is very, very long (well, it feels very long; it's actually only 366 pages) and far less engaging, probably because it's a historical summary. I'm a bit biased toward fiction, though, so maybe that's just me.

GANGS OF NEW YORK, Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, 2002,

Miramax/courtesy of the Everett Collection

Set in the 19th century, with a very Count of Monte Cristo The plot revolves around a young Irishman (Leonardo DiCaprio) who returns to his gang-ridden New York neighborhood after years in an orphanage, driven by a desire for revenge against the man who killed his father, Bill “the Butcher” Cutting (played by Daniel Day-Lewis in perhaps his finest work). Scorsese directed the hit drama, which was nominated for 10 Oscars.

CARRIE, from left: Sissy Spacek, William Katt, 1976

Courtesy of Everett

I know I'm in the minority here, but I just don't like Stephen King's writing style at all, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that all the film adaptations are probably better than his books. I haven't read a whole novel by him, including CarrieSo this is just an educated guess.

THE GODFATHER, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, 1972

Courtesy of Everett

What more can be said about Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather Series? It stars Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and is one of the best film series of all time. I haven't read Mario Puzo's novels so this is just an educated guess as I can't judge their quality but given the quality of the films and the few people who have read the novels I'd say the films win here.

Which movie do you think is better than the book? Let us know in the comments!