In your opinion which movies adapted from books that is either 100% faithful to the source material or even better than the source itself?

Sadly for me I have never read that many books than watched the movie version.

Only one I do know is this old spanish book entitled: "No one writes to the Colonel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Writes_to_the_Colonel

Than watched the movie adaption which sadly falls in the category that the book version is better (Not to say the movie was bad)

Which is why I made this thread to ask is there such a adaption that is better than the original book?

Everything is Illuminated, the film was a pretty good tale about racism and father-son relationships among other things, it had some flaws but I found it to be enjoyable.

The book... was basically jews having a lot of really weird sex. I couldn't even finish it.

Blade Runner*

Lair of the White Worm*

Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge

*these book were shit and the movies outdid them by NOT staying close to the source material. No offense to either Stoker or Dickey, they are both legends, but those books were not their crowning achievments by a loooong shot.

The Godfather.

This.

I've got the book literally just a few feet away from me collecting dust. Is it worth reading at all?

Oh, and at the risk of getting political let me throw in "Starship Troopers" if for no other reason than the book was nothing more than a load of pro-war Macarthyism bullshit and the movie was actually making fun of all that.

Really? I found Androids to be substantially more interesting and deep than Blade Crawler, especially in the later edits where Scott is forcing the "everyone is a replicant!" hogwash down everyone's throats.

While the Princess Bride is a book that's a good book, the movie is much better as a movie. I think the Peter Falk framing device works a lot better than the "good bits" metafiction framework, and the casting agent for the film should have gotten a damn medal.

Yeah, I was hesitant to add that because the book definitly has it's fans. I think ultimately it just goes to show how subjective this whole arguement is. I definitely prefer the movie but I would never hold it against anyone for feeling the exact opposite.

Shining. Kubrick's is far better than King's.

Time Masters. Laloux' is far better than Wul's.

Haven't read Len Deighton yet, but I wonder if his nameless spy manages to be as cool as Michael Caine's HarryPalmer.

And I THINK I have read Thompson's Pop 1280, but it really didn't strike me as much as Tavernier's Coup de Torchon (one of my favorite movies ever).

Not a movie, but I've heard that the Dexter novels aren't as good as the TV series. And they adapted only the first book, since the sequels were so weird (I think something with aliens?), and if I'm not mistaken, the author was still pleased with the changes in the series.

I still haven't read the book myself, but many people have said that the Clocwork Orange is better movie than a book. Also Apocalypse Now.

The True Blood HBO series is about 1000 times better than Catherine Harris' books, because Harris is actually a fairly terrible writer (I'm sure she's a nice person and tries hard, her writing is simply tragically bad).

Caveat emptor: I haven't watched the True Blood series in several seasons, it could be ass now, it started out great, though.

How about No Country for Old Men?

Also, in the "haven't read" category, Benchley's Jaws is supposedly awful, compared to Spielberg. (And the source to Dr Strangelove is said to take itself very seriously, with none of Kubrck's irony and subversion).

As for james bond, I really liked the movie The Spy Who Loved Me better than the novel. And The Man with the Golden Gun too (except for the beginning, nicely concluding the Blofeld cycle with Bond attempting to murder M).

"So, how is her writing?"
"Well, I am sure she is a really nice person"
Beautifully devastating, neither going to read the book nor watch the series thought.

I guess I am going to draw a bit of heat for that, but I would consider listing Lord of the Rings...
I read only 1 1/2 of the books and stopped about half way into book two because at the time it felt like it was just dragging out. I was rather young back then thought and would not really insist on this evaluation, I might just have been a lazy reader at the time.