I can name a few times people have commented that the film was nothing like the book or worse than the book but I don't recall hearing that film was better than the book. I saw Twilight with a friend who'd not yet read the book. She was hooked and went on to read and love the series. She even convinced her mother to read it. I was shocked since I didn't think the film did the book justice and thought New Moon was much better. Of course, there are many things to take into consideration in this particular case--budget being the first thing. Director being the second. That is not to say the first director did not do a good job with the budget she was given. At any rate, would love to hear your thoughts (not ncessarily re: Twilight but about films that are BETTER than the book from which they are adapted).
Well, in regards to Twilight, I felt New Moon (the movie) was loads better than the book. It's the only book in the series I have never re-read. Also, The Order of the Phoenix was quite better as well. Both films were better because the novels contain an over-whelming amount of whining in the narrative. I mean I love HP....I do...but if I had to read one more instance of Harry yelling in all CAPS, I would of shot myself. The films did what the book editors did not do----cut out the fluff.
I would have to say I loved Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in film form better. But, it's a completely new story, so that may be why. One major problem I see with adaptations is pacing. Take Percy Jackson for example. It felt like every scene was drawn out to fill up the time slot. Whereas with Cloudy, it was a brand new script, so it was written for film, not to follow along with the book. I also felt Where the Wild Things Are was drawn out too. Some stories just don't take 2 hours to tell.
However, I agree with Tiffany. I enjoyed the New Moon movie more than the book, but I think that was partly b/c I liked Jacob's character in the film better than the book. Let me just say, with the books, I was NOT Team Jacob.