What Movie Is Actually Better Than the Book? Here’s What People Said.
by Matthew Gilligan
It’s pretty commonplace to hear that people like a book better than the movie version, but today we’re going to flip that old adage on its head and we’ll hear from AskReddit users about movies they think are actually better than the book.
Y’all ready for this?
Get started now!
“Who Framed(Censored) Roger Rabbit.
The books plot is very different, and the characters are all unlikeable. Eddie isn’t a tragic character who’s dealing with his brothers death by drinking his life away and alienating all the toons he used to befriend.
He’s a hard bitten, hard drinking a**hole just because. Roger is dead, and the character who ki**ed him doesn’t really make any sense.
The producers of the movie took the idea of a world with toons and humans and threw away the plot. They made the right choice; the movie turned out amazing.”
“Jaws, in my opinion.
The book is not bad, don’t get me wrong, but the characters in it are extremely unlikeable. I think Spielberg was right to eliminate some of the subplots and to buff the characters up to be more likable/relatable.
Also, the end of the book kinda sucked. I won’t spoil it, but compared to the movie it’s extremely anti-climatic.
I still like both, the book is still a very good read and I understand why it was such a phenomenon, but I’ll always say the movie was better.”
“Goodfellas (based on the novel Wiseguy by Nicholas Pileggi).
Wiseguy is actually pretty interesting, it’s basically Henry Hill telling his own story.
But Goodfellas is a masterpiece.”
By Stephen King.
“The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me, and Apt Pupil, which were part of the same collection as Shawshank.
The stories made great frameworks for a screenplay but weren’t fully fleshed out in the book.”
An offer you can’t refuse…
The book was obviously a best seller but it had some really – REALLY — cringey side plots (involving huge di**s and huge va**nas; Puzo seems to have had a fetish about outsized s** organs) which Coppola wisely dropped in the film.”
Flew under the radar.
“The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
The original text is a depressing short story of a guy dreaming of being greater than his actual tedious life.
I love that movie even though it isn’t terribly popular.”
The book is better for most of it, but the ending in the movie knocks the socks off the book ending.”
The book really goes deep into Patrick’s obsession with fashion and dining culture.
It gets a little tedious.”
The first rule…
While the book and movie are very similar, Brad Pitt brought a level of charisma to Tyler that he doesn’t have in the book.
In the book, Tyler isn’t likable at all.”
What a score!
“The Last of the Mohicans.
The score for that movie is one of the best I’ve heard in my life.
Without it, the movie would still be good, but not even close to the movie with it.”
R.I.P. Cormac McCarthy.
“No Country For Old Men is the best literal film representation of any book I’ve ever read.
Both are masterpieces.”
“Children of Men.
PD James is a fantastic author but the movie managed to make the general story (with heavy alterations) and premise work so goddamn well.
The movie was able to build out the setting better than the book, or most other books, since Cuaron packed so much detail into the background (down to the newspapers that they use to cover up windows in one scene!). There’s so much information presented in a way that doesn’t damage the pacing at all.
I agree that American Psycho is tedious. The movie is MUCH better.