TV - Movies
Five Times The
Movie Was
Actually Better
Than The Book
Full of unforgettable plot twists, cinematic prowess, and that infamous shower scene, Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" is a suspenseful masterpiece that remains a horror movie staple to this day. While Robert Bloch's original novel is good, the book doesn't have the same cultural status as the movie, which, in this case, is hands down superior to the written word.
This film introduced the world to the action heroism of Bruce Willis, and the villainous talent of Alan Rickman all while lovingly creating tension that made it an iconic pop culture classic. On the other hand, its source material, Roderick Thorp's 1979 book "Nothing Lasts Forever," is a grim affair that lacks the movie's signature smirk, and its twists and turns are far more tragic.
Die Hard
Another novel that has been somewhat steamrolled by the classic movie it was adapted into, "Jaws" began as a 1974 thriller by Peter Benchley. Critics didn't love the book, pointing out various writing and narrative flaws, though it was well received by the public. The success of the shark book, of course, warranted a shark movie — a movie that blew the book right out of the water.
With Tom Hanks' touching performance and six Academy Awards, Robert Zemeckis' 1994 film “Forrest Gump” reigns supreme over Winston Groom's 1986 book of the same name. The book’s version of the titular character is more rough and imposing and has far grittier storylines, which include things like cannibals, space missions, and pro wrestling.
Forrest Gump
Frank Darabont's film is a classic, and Stephen King, the author of the original novella, "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption," shares the same opinion. Calling the film an “American icon,” and “one of the best movies ever done from [his] work,” King affirms that it’s fair to say that the film version has quite comfortably surpassed the source material.
Shawshank Redemption