I think I'd throw out "The Shining".

 

First one I think of when I see this question. I really like Stephen King but there are several movies based on his work that are better than the original material. In truth, it's a testament to the quality of the narratives and stories he's created over the years.

A Christmas Story

Prince Caspian the movie is better.

 

I enjoyed the The Princess Bride movie more than the book, but the book goes into some more background

The Green Mile was better than the Novelettes it was based on

 

Really? I read it in serial form as the novelettes were released. I still have all six of them on my shelf. I thought it was one of the most accurate adaptations of a book to a movie that I can think of...but I still liked the novelettes better than the movie.

I really like Nick Hornby's book High Fidelity, but the movie beats it. I really REALLY liked the book, but with Jack Black and John Cusack combined, the movie wins.

 

James Ellroy's LA Confidential is too over-gratuitous in a lot of ways. The movie did it better (although it was still 138 minutes long).

 

I'll toss I Am Legend out there too. I think the 2007 movie wins, but that's largely just because it's a modernization of a 1954 horror/science fiction novel. They were able to take some of the dated fifties-ness out of it when they made the movie.

I really like Nick Hornby's book High Fidelity, but the movie beats it. I really REALLY liked the book, but with Jack Black and John Cusack combined, the movie wins.

 

James Ellroy's LA Confidential is too over-gratuitous in a lot of ways. The movie did it better (although it was still 138 minutes long).

 

I'll toss I Am Legend out there too. I think the 2007 movie wins, but that's largely just because it's a modernization of a 1954 horror/science fiction novel. They were able to take some of the dated fifties-ness out of it when they made the movie.

Totally disagree. Like the movie but the book was excellent.

Really? I read it in serial form as the novelettes were released. I still have all six of them on my shelf. I thought it was one of the most accurate adaptations of a book to a movie that I can think of...but I still liked the novelettes better than the movie.

I loved them also, I just think the movie did a really good job of bringing those books to life. While the movie is very close to the story I think that the added visualization of the movie really stands out in this case.

I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy much more then the books. In fact I bought a boxed set of the books and struggled to read the first one. Didn't even start the others. I am also a HUGE fan of A Christmas Carol and have read the Dickens book. I much prefer the movies. In both cases though I'm sure it's because I'm not a big fan of either Tolkein's or Dickens style.

Problem with movie adaptations is the writer has to put his "spin" on the book. Why change the story if the book was, you know, a best seller??

 

The Sum of All Fears was a perfect train wreck of bad re-writing and casting, Affleck was a light weight.

I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy much more then the books. In fact I bought a boxed set of the books and struggled to read the first one. Didn't even start the others. I am also a HUGE fan of A Christmas Carol and have read the Dickens book. I much prefer the movies. In both cases though I'm sure it's because I'm not a big fan of either Tolkein's or Dickens style.

 

Definitely agree on LOTR.

I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy much more then the books. In fact I bought a boxed set of the books and struggled to read the first one. Didn't even start the others. I am also a HUGE fan of A Christmas Carol and have read the Dickens book. I much prefer the movies. In both cases though I'm sure it's because I'm not a big fan of either Tolkein's or Dickens style.

 

Definitely agree on LOTR.

 

No way. The movies were good. The books are beyond fantastic.