Movies That Are Better Than the Book

Movies That Are Better Than the Book

Movies That Are Better Than the Book


Ugh. It took me an entire summer, and half a dozen books as "breaks" to get through the trilogy. Tolkien's epic prose was foreign to my modern fantasy reader's ears. How long before I realized Sauramon and Sauron were different characters? (That explained a lot...) And speaking of names, holy crap! So many look almost exactly alike. Where was the storyteller's voice from The Hobbit? I felt like I was slogging through a textbook of mythology.


Whoa, there! Back up a minute before you pounce on me. Before anyone says anything about stories being about learning and transmitting cultural ideas, think back on most of your classroom experience. If the teacher didn't entertain you in some way, you didn't learn anything. All storytellers, no matter what the form, MUST entertain or every bit of learning is for naught. As a storyteller myself I am desperate to share the worlds in my head, but if I can't entertain while I'm doing it, no one will listen. Tolkien failed as an entertainer for me, regardless of the fact that his world and characters were so rich. Jackson had me enthralled, my imagination sparked after the house lights came on, and I even obsessed about the character of Frodo (or maybe it was just Elijah Wood...)


Reading The Count of Monte-Cristo by Alexandre Dumas is like going on a date with a brilliant, charming, handsome man who keeps slapping you in the face. The Count of Monte-Cristo is the ultimate revenge tale, and done very, very well. There is a reason it is a classic. However, when it comes to women, Dumas is a jerk. The only good women are ones that behave like dogs: loyal (even if your master is dead), obedient (never ask questions!) and at best, stay in your room pining for when he’ll visit again with no other social contact. Jay Wolpert wrote the screenplay for the 2002 adaptation. He kept the heart of the revenge tale, while narrowing it down to fit into a movie time frame. And he re-wrote the ending in a HUGE way, especially how it reflects on the main female character. Yay!

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer was a badly written book. I mean, the English was poor (and I've read plenty of YA novels that are written beautifully.) I like vampires, I like romance, but I was frustrated by the heroine, and not interested in the main guy at all (boooringly perfect.) My full opinion on it can be read here (along with a song). But the movie was fun! I went by myself on the spur of the moment because I was curious. I liked the cast, and it didn't pretend to be anything more than a teen romance story. Completely entertained for two hours. Catherine Hardwicke directed it. Much better than the book.

I asked the GeekMom community for their own opinions on movies that were better than the book. Lots of discussion and debates on a variety of books and movies ensued – including a big one about True Blood versus the Sookie Stackhouse novels, but since TV series are a different venue, I decided not to include it. There was also some chat on liking books and movies equally. Here are the ones mentioned where the movies were liked better, and why. I think the "why" tells more about the person being entertained than the storyteller. I included the producer, director, or screenplay writer when mentioning the movie. There is so much collaboration in making a movie it is hard to point at once person (like a book's author).

Curious George: In the television show on PBS and in both movies (2006, 2009), directed by Matthew O'Callaghan, George is inquisitive and curiosity is portrayed in a positive light. In fact, I've written about Curious George before and how we love it for using curiosity as an introduction to the scientific method. Whereas in the original books (published in 1940-1960), George's curiosity always got him into serious trouble. I bought a couple of the original books digitally but only read them to my daughter once. I felt they were sending the wrong message. The original books portray curiosity with a negative connotation, enforcing the "curiosity killed the cat" mentality.

The 39 Steps (1935) by John Buchan: Hitchcock's film is clearer and more suspenseful, and we attach to the main characters. Buchan doesn't have women. Or hugely dramatic theater scenes.

Princess Bride by William Goldman: Lots of people love the novel, but my love is for the movie (screenplay by William Goldman, directed by Rob Reiner). I just could never engage with the novel but I am not sure that amounts to "better/worse." Toss it up for discussion.

Princess Diaries Series by Meg Cabot. The changes in the movie, The Princess Diaries, produced by Whitney Houston, made the story flow better and you felt more for the characters situation. Mia was obviously going through more with her dad being gone and her grandmother's attitude was significantly better. In the books, both the dad and the grandmother irritated me. In the movies, I fell in love with them both.

A Beautiful Mind, screenplay by Akiva Goldsman, because Sylvia Nassar's book went flying over my head. And my husband's (someone who reads Richard Feynman for fun). The movie simplified the math and science dialogue considerably.

Red directed by Robert Schwentke: The movie is incredibly well-cast and charming! Helen Mirrin is awesome and there are a couple of moments that made me go "Daw...." :) The comic mini-series by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner, is much darker and intense. I like the movie better.

The Bridges of Madison County, the movie produced by Clint Eastwood, was better. Captured the longing of a housewife not certain she had made the right choice all those years ago. Of course, it had the advantage of Meryl Streep, which the book, by Robert James Waller, did not.

I have to add Fight Club directed by David Fincher. You know how a book will fill in the details left out by the movie? Reading Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, I felt like the movie filled in the details left out by the book. That was a thin book made into an awesome movie.

I like the Diary of a Wimpy Kid movies directed by Thor Freudenthal better than I like the books written by Jeff Kinney. There, I said it. The movies are more enjoyable as a parent, especially because the actors are all so marvelous, but I believe my daughter likes the books more.

Stardust: Saw the movie by Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman first, and found the book by Neil Gaiman extremely dull in comparison.

The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger was almost unreadable. The movie had wonderful characters played by Meryl Streep, and especially Stanley Tucci.

Here's one, the novelization of the second X-Files book, it WAS the worst thing I'd ever read, until I started 50 Shades of Grey! Seriously I took pictures of some of the pages to remind myself how not to write a book. It's a shame as I love many of the X-Files books and this one included details the film by Chris Carter didn't have time to include, but the writing was atrocious.

Now to come full circle with my story of books versus movies for Lord of the Rings, I love the books now. Maybe not as much as the movies, but pretty darn close. What changed? Reading them out loud with my kids. My good friend Amy is a huge fan of the books and offered to read them aloud to all our children. It has been three years and we're in the second half of Return of the King. What a difference! Reading out loud with a group slows things down, discussion happens, jokes come up, passages are reread. We have been on this epic journey with the characters and each other for so long now, I'm dreading the ending, even though we're all cheering everyone on.

I still believe some stories make better movies than books, but if a movie is really good, it's worth it to give the original book a second chance. What about you? Do you agree or disagree with our opinions on the books mentioned here? Other movies that you found better than the books?