Casino Royale (2006)
Directed by: Martin Campbell
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis
Based on: Casino Royale (1953) by Ian Fleming
Why it’s better: For all its ups and downs, the James Bond film series has left a much more lasting impression than Ian Fleming’s novels. Bond is a cinematic icon — and he’s at his best in this quasi reboot, which allows for a more complex iteration of the character. In particular, Bond’s (Daniel Craig) reaction to the death and duplicity of Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is more honest and relatable onscreen.
The movie sucked
#25... I don't think better as such, but more so, brilliantly capturing the true essence of the books, yet Mr Tom bombadil is much missed
The movies are weak on it's own, but they are crap adaptation. It's plastic-cheap game cutscene-level, which is way more obvoius when you (try to) watch The Hobbit.
Overall you have very little idea on what makes movie better than book. Cutting things and simplyfying plot does not make them better story teller.
About the other books and movies that I've read and watch:
Godfather:
Both movies are great on it's own but it does not make them better than books.
The Prestige:
The book seems to be good until finale which is crap.
Movies are typical Nolan-like pulp, he's crappy storyteller.
Jurassic Park.
Movie is great on it's own, but book is much wider and Spielberg have to cut good part of it to make reasonable size movie. Other plots were included in part III.
As for Starship Troopers (I didn't read the book) - the movie was dumb. Satiric tone was nicely made (as Verhoven did in Robocop), but the rest was huge pile of crap.