It's tough, but one that comes to mind is Dracula (the Hammer version) is better than the original by some way.

Nosferatu?



Never seen it.



Its similar with books and films - I struggle to think of (m)any where the book is beaten by the film.

I agree mate many have tried and failed although i think the lotr trilogy did ok.

Yes and no in my opinion.



It left out those god awful songs and was a very enjoyable trilogy but it also changed or left out other bits that I'd enjoyed.

You enjoy the film more if you watch it before reading the book. It's what I did with LOTR and Harry Potter, and I was able to enjoy both.

Decent, yes. Better than the original, no.



For decent, try:



Desperado - Remake of El Mariachi

A Fistful of Dollars - Yojimbo

Magnificent Seven - Seven Samurai

12 Monkeys - La Jetee

Red Dragon - Manhunter

Casino Royale (Though this one might actually be better than the original!

)





Most disapointing films for me would be:

The Haunting - The original was so good and the remake was so bad!

Get Carter - The original is the best ever British gangster film, whilst the remake is the worst movie Stallone has ever done. In fact its so bad it makes Judge Dredd look like Star Wars!

Nosferatu isn't bad. It's just dated a bit . (Well, being a silent movie from 1922 its not that surprising!)



As for films that are as good as the books they came from, I'd say that following were as good:



Naked Lunch

To Have And Have Not

Paperhouse

The Maltese Falcon

Brighton Rock

Candyman



whilst The Big Sleep and any Mike Hammer movie are better.

(Admittedly, the only reason I include a carte blanche on any Mike Hammer movie is that Mickey Spillanes writing was so lousy!

)

Brighton Rock is the only one where I've read the book





A very credible effort but for mine the book still edges it but I do start from the position of favouring the books anyway - though Mahone's point about the order of viewing/reading is very valid.

i far prefer reading the book to watching the film.

war of the worlds is a classic, far better than the lame offering with tom cruise, a guy who isn't fit to be labelled an actor

Generally I would agree with you. However, there are oddities out there (Like Naked Lunch) which, whilst being good, are not particularly pleasant to read.

Having never read the book, am I allowed to say I enjoyed the film?

What about the laughable remake of 'The Wicker Man' ?

Nothing could ever beat the original, especially [ithat[/i scene with Britt Ekland

Well, I've never seen the remake.



But when I do, I expect it to take its rightful place on this list!

Go to touyube and look up the Whicker Man's funniest bits. It's hilarious.

Waterworld and willy wonka remake!!

Westworld starring Yul Brynner

Howard-A New Breed of Hero....was the only film I left the cinema before it finished.

There making a new version of the Stephen King novel "It". I saw the film before I read the book and theres alot of differences. Apparently the new version is gonna be just like the book so should be good

classic film, i liked that

HSM 3

Just watched Iron Man and was a bit disappointed. Downey's good, but I always thought Iron Man was a bit sh*te as a kid, so maybe that's the problem.

It probably doesn't help!

Any one between:



Sixth Sense

Signs

Unbreakable

The Village

Lady in the water

i far prefer old films. clint eastwood,gregory peck,burt lancaster all these guys could act.

modern films have such brilliant special effects you sometimes forget about the acting.

the war of the worlds has great special effects but the acting,dialogue and such is shockingly bad. tom cruise,for me, is a very poor actor. he's not the only one though by a long way